Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on June 29, 2008, 06:23:09 PM
-
OK
THIS IS NOT ABOUT GUNS!!!
This is about the technique being purposed................
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-sugarman29-2008jun29,0,1307373.story
BIG BROTHER with bells?
Hmmm maybe this should be applied to the 2 greatest causes of death in the U.S.?
Apply this to the auto makers?
Doctors? ETC.........
AGAIN NOT talkin about GUNS here talkin about HOW things are done.................
-
I can't even come up with the words to describe how disturbed I am with this one. What freaking fantasy land do the people that come up with this crap live in?
-
:huh :confused:
-
It really basically boils down to the fact that the current laws concerned with penalties for the use of a gun in commiting a crime need to be enforced. There are a ton of laws out there that already are on the books.
Human behavior would have to be changed too. Humans will always kill other humans. The weapon of choice has varied over time but the end results remains the same.
Word,
Mark
-
word.
:D
-
and even though lawmakers have continued to pass gun-control laws to try to bring the number down, they have not significantly reduced the murder rate.
Knock Knock!
The lights are on , but nobody is home.
-
SNIFF SNIFF something stinks. :( I really can not begin to want to kick this guy in a certain portion of his anatomy without first attaching nails to the toes of my boots. And i'm not talking about his backside that i'm wanting to kick. :furious
Create laws, create laws, create laws, well thank god he has a job that doesn't require him to enforce the laws we already have on the books. Why he might actually have to................work?!!!! :O
-
but what about the doctors who work in the fields of mental illness?
Shouldn't they be regulated based on performance? if the gunman is found to be crazy then they are the ones who are failing?
what if he has been in the justice system in the past? shouldn't the judges and prosecutors be liable?
lazs
-
but what about the doctors who work in the fields of mental illness?
Shouldn't they be regulated based on performance? if the gunman is found to be crazy then they are the ones who are failing?
what if he has been in the justice system in the past? shouldn't the judges and prosecutors be liable?
lazs
IMHO I THINK the Law Makers that DISARM the people (please read in here.. MOST law abiding people that own firearms) that don't and probably wont EVER commit a crime, SHOULD be held accountable (possibly accessory or conspiracy to commit MURDER?) WHEN those this disarm are attacked by armed criminals and murdered!
I further believe they should be REQUIRED to PERSONALLY (meaning they can't use tax payer money it must come from their PAY) help pay medical expenses for those UNARMED people harmed by criminals that are DISOBEYING (isn't that why they're called criminals?) the law.
One of the things I find irritating is some of the laws passed by our congress and senate DOESN'T always apply to them!
-
I can't even come up with the words to describe how disturbed I am with this one. What freaking fantasy land do the people that come up with this crap live in?
Exactly. The oldest humanoid body was murdered by being bashed on the back of the head. Take away guns and well have drive-by stabbings or somethin! (The Bloods will be the biggest buyers for those ninja star thingies... :noid). I really don't see how anyone could think this crap would ever work.
-
IMHO I THINK the Law Makers that DISARM the people (please read in here.. MOST law abiding people that own firearms) that don't and probably wont EVER commit a crime, SHOULD be held accountable (possibly accessory or conspiracy to commit MURDER?) WHEN those this disarm are attacked by armed criminals and murdered!
I further believe they should be REQUIRED to PERSONALLY (meaning they can't use tax payer money it must come from their PAY) help pay medical expenses for those UNARMED people harmed by criminals that are DISOBEYING (isn't that why they're called criminals?) the law.
One of the things I find irritating is some of the laws passed by our congress and senate DOESN'T always apply to them!
Anyone who disarms the citizens, both publicly and privately should be held responsible, both criminally and civilly if something happens to a citizen there that a legally owned and carried Gun could have prevented.
I.E. If your restaurant has a sign that says "No guns allowed" and then gets shot up, the owner would be responsible to pay for the healthcare of those injured (not including the gunman) and might be held accountable for preventing people from defending themselves.
-
How about government? Can we hold it to a performance based standard? How about we set up some standards that automatically eliminate government offices when they don't meet those standards?
-
I'm game.
-
Let's just all go back to swords, where some random guy off the street can't just pick one up and use it.
-
How about government? Can we hold it to a performance based standard? How about we set up some standards that automatically eliminate government offices when they don't meet those standards?
well, of course that's the basic idea behind elections...
but nevertheless we still seem to be having some problems with the beltway boneheads :rolleyes:
maybe we need something more...aggressive
Joker
-
How about when Congress fails to balance the budget they don't paid? How about when schools fail to teach their budget gets cut? This could be fun.
-
:lol :lol :lol
12,000 deaths
how about the 100,000 that die a year from alcohol. i want to say so much more but than i would just be ranting.
-
Back home in Scotland, I never, ever worried about being shot - even on those rare occasions I found myself in some of the more run-down areas. Tight gun control laws meant it just didn't happen that much. On the other hand, knife crime is absolutely rampant. I can't imagine it's much comfort when you're lying in a pool of your own blood after being stabbed thinking to yourself 'well at least I wasn't shot...'
Idiots will find weapons whatever controls are put in place. All they do is put the law abiding at a disadvantage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7481505.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7481505.stm)
-
Based on this proposition the two groups in this country that take part in most of the fatal shootings are the police and minority criminals age 15-35. The fatalities by police shootings are factored, so it leaves only one group to kill and incarcerate to achive the lunitic goals of the two Ivory Tower geniuses who wrote this article. Essentialy they are betting the gun manufactuers would fail and put themselves out of business. That does not violate the spirit of "shall not be infringed".
These two are being serious and betting on Obama and a Dem controled congress getting around the recent Heller decision through regulation of the firearms industry. We will see more of these left feild brain flatulators as it gets closer to november.
-
we can not rule our selves thats the problem, that little issue called greed, we need Yahaveh in our lives. to be our master.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime
A subsequent United States Department of Justice report which surveyed homicide statistics between 1974 and 2004 stated that of the crimes surveyed, 52.1% of the offenders were black, 45.9% were white, and 2% were "Other Races."
Considering that the US is just less than 13% black and assuming that guns were used evenly among the homicides committed by the various races, wouldn't it be statistically sound to decrease homicides by denying gun ownership to black people? This is about as stupid an idea as believing crime will be reduced by denying law abiding citizens gun ownership.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime
A subsequent United States Department of Justice report which surveyed homicide statistics between 1974 and 2004 stated that of the crimes surveyed, 52.1% of the offenders were black, 45.9% were white, and 2% were "Other Races."
Considering that the US is just less than 13% black and assuming that guns were used evenly among the homicides committed by the various races, wouldn't it be statistically sound to decrease homicides by denying gun ownership to black people? This is about as stupid an idea as believing crime will be reduced by denying law abiding citizens gun ownership.
If you simply deny ownership to black people based on the face value of the FBI statistics you are taking the real bait. Then the balck criminals will be found shooting each other with balck market criminal guns which types and models still are factored into the performance based laws. Ergo manufacturers get put out of business.
This then kicks in the hidden agenda by reveiling a need for more regulation because of the numbers of black markets guns that will surface after you deny the balcks their constitutional right to keep and bare arms while they prove thay are criminals by shooting each other with those balck market guns.
And now you are helping the Liberal professors prove the need to repeal the 2nd Amdnment and let the balck criminals get back to killing us and each other giving the Dems reasons to exist and tax us to fight the problems creating balck criminals in our society. When a balck criminal is not shooting he can be voting DemoRat.....
-
How about government? Can we hold it to a performance based standard? How about we set up some standards that automatically eliminate government offices when they don't meet those standards?
Bet they would cry foul.
-
but what about the doctors who work in the fields of mental illness?
Shouldn't they be regulated based on performance? if the gunman is found to be crazy then they are the ones who are failing?
what if he has been in the justice system in the past? shouldn't the judges and prosecutors be liable?
lazs
There's alotta shocking things' in this post. But by far, what knocked me the farthest on my ass, was...Lasz didn't use a single 3-period pause in his post!!!!!! :O
:cool:
Mostly, though (and seriously) Trying to blame crime and violence, which have been around since Human's first figured out that you could beat another Neanderthal's brain in with a rock, on the tool, is sheer folly. If that was the case, you would need a license to buy a carpet knife, or a federal background check to use airline cutlery.
The scary thing is, is that when the powers' that be figure this out. At that point, they might go back to prefrontal labotimization of anyone they choose. Or, You'll get to take your gov't. mandated "meds" everyday, to make sure you stay docile...
:noid