So these 21 women who attempted to defended themselves with weapons are "insignificant". Nice.
I am confused, Fold. First, guns were not a deterent to crime. Then, if a women is holding one under the chin of an aggressor, it is a deterent. Now, guns are not a deterent again? Explain.
99.999% of women who are raped are raped by someone they know...
That would mean that in the 26 cities in the survey, there were 3,200,000,000 rapes by people that the victim new. This has become an epidemic.
No, just a simple mathmatical error. The number should have been 3,200,000,000-32,000 (by strangers according to this survey)=3,199,968,000 by someone they knew.
If as you say, only 21 persons defend themselves successfully against a potential rape, out of the tens of thousands that occur annually (by your own assessment...still no LINK),
The source was cited using page number and I have added a question number to the survey for you.
by the use of a Gun or Knife or by a crowbar for that matter, it is a statistically insignificant number, and certainly not statistics to base the right or wrong of the 2nd Amendment on.
The statement you made had to do with a weapon not being a deterent to criminals. You yourself have since stated that "The fact is, that of course ANY woman who was holding a knife or gun under the chin of her rapist would be LESS likely to be raped"
Now you change the statement to being an arguement of right or wrong of the 2nd ammendment. Please make up your mind on what the debate is about.
However, you are certainly doing it anyway, so Whoopty-Friggin-Doo, for you.
Clever, did my 9 year old son teach you that debating tactic? Actually, I think that he has out grown that stage now.
One more time, you made the statement that a gun does not deter criminals, so I posted a survey that showed that it does (20 out of 21 attempts were foiled). You wrote them off as insignificant and made a statement that of course a weapon would be a deterent. Now you changed the debate to whether the 2nd ammendment is wrong or not.
My statement did fit into the original debate. I also stated that it was not exactly a +/- 1% survey, but 20 out of 21 is an impressive number don't ya think?
Clear everything up yet?
No. Your twisting is confusing the debate even more.
It's obvious He was neither for nor against gun control, as guns hadn't been invented yet.
But, unless I was listening to Detroit Tigers games on a hidden transistor radio during my Sunday school years and misunderstood everything Reverend Norton Shotwell told me My Savior stood for (No, that's not a confession!), I believe He was pretty devoted to peace and nonviolence.
As opposed to smoting folks with clubs and swords.
Which leads me to think He'd look unfavorably upon us arming ourselves silly, with the intention of doing unto others before they did it to us.
I'm pretty sure it's the Golden Rule we're supposed to use, not the silver pistol.
22:36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
22:37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
22:38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
My uncanny propensity to attract weirdos surfaced again today.
Big time.
I was leaning against my favorite wall, waiting for my bus.
Along came a red-bearded freak in a flannel shirt, carrying a bunch of rocks in a see-thru plastic tackle box.
He was laughing like a maniac, which is well and good, since a maniac is what he definitely proved to be.
His thing was to call out to everyone who passed, either pedestrian or motorist: "Are YOU running in the marathon?!" Then he'd guffaw like his question represented the epitome of human humor.
(Point of reference: Saturday, Grandma's Marathon will be staged in Duluth.)
Truth is, it WAS funny, if not entirely politically correct.
A crippled senior citizen got laboriously off a trolley. "Are YOU running in the marathon?! Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha Ha Ha!"
Ditto with an obese woman who lumbered past.
And there was some giggle-inducing variety to his act.
Two women jumped out of a car, with one saying to the other: "Is there anything in the trunk?"
"Everything!" retorted the Marathon Man, causing me to join in and make his crazed laughter a nutty duet.
Finally my bus arrived.
"See you, dude."
As I got aboard, he called out from behind: "Are YOU running in the marathon?! Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!"
What's this got to do with guns? Well, quite a few folks who took all this in were obviously spooked by the fellow. Had his madness been a bit more in their faces, and their paranoia somewhat more acute, who knows what would have happened if they'd been packing heat? No, he wasn't black, but suppose he had been, and a neo-Bernie Goetz had gone by.
Stumblebums, winos, paint huffers, panhandlers, assorted urban visionaries, etc. -- all children of God, by the way -- could find their lives substantially jeopardized by "good" citizens with guns.
And, while we're at it, are petty street CRIMINALS actually deserving of getting shot?
Shouldn't we be focusing, instead, on rehabilitation...and redress of the social and economic inequities and injustices that breed criminality and other dysfunction?
Why should we care at all?
Because Jesus once told me we definitely ought to.
Shouldn't we be focusing, instead, on rehabilitation...and redress of the social and economic inequities and injustices that breed criminality and other dysfunction?
I swear you'd find a way to bring that up if we were talking about if Pamela Anderson looked better or worse when her ridiculous implants were removed. (I like au natural better myself) But gee whiz. Give it a rest for a day.
As for your redbearded marathon man, well Dennis, we already have many states where conceal carry is legal and people like that aren't getting blown away by legally liscenced gun carring citizens. Just cuz the guy is kooky doesnt mean people are going to start shooting him. You'd have to take half of L.A and San Fran out if that were the case. Fact beyond your musing is that the guy has a better chance of winning the lotto than getting shot by a legally liscenced permit carrying citizen.
BTW you never did answer, Are you running in the marathon ?
When I was 15 years old, two buddies of mine and I crossed the Montreal River from Ironwood, Michigan, to Hurley, Wisconsin, one winter night.
Hurley was a bar-and-bordello town for the surrounding iron mining communities.
We were just going to check things out.
As we were strolling past the garish establishments on Silver Street, a skinny guy emerged from a tavern door and promptly slipped on his ass on a patch of ice.
Being closeset to him, I instinctively helped him up.
"Thanks, Pal. Where you from?"
"Ironwood."
"Well thanks again, Michigan Slim (being as I was very thin myself). You know, a lot of folks wouldn't bother to help a guy like me. But they should."
He then shook my hand.
"I'll remember you. I'm Jerusalem Slim."
As he walked away, he kinda had an eerie glow about him.
Maybe it was just the neon from the "Girls! Girls! Girls!" sign.
It took me a good five years before I put together the implication and possibility of that late December night.
No, I'm not running in the marathon.
I'm fatter than a pig now, and could be beaten by crabgrass in a foot race.
who likes to sneer at those who know things he doesn't. Publicly published as opposed to privately published means published for sale/distribution to the public at large, while privately published means published for sale/distribution only to the chosen few of a particular group. When selected for public publication, one is paid for one's work by the publisher who then takes over the sale and distribution functions. When seeking private publication, the author pays the publisher to publish the work and the author remains responsible for sale and distribution, unless he/she wishes to pay for these further services.
I thought that a bright guy like you who is interested would go and look the stats up on his own.
I have sourced repeatedly the report by the DOJ even going as far as providing page number and question number for the survey. This does not satisfy you for some reason and you continue to demand more. This is a feable attempt to discredit an opponent in the debate rather than debating the facts. Amazing.
By the way, is a gun a deterent or not today? That answer seems to change on a daily basis.
Crime has made a resurgence after a decade of decline.
Several reasons are cited:
Worse economic times.
Less federal aid to local police.
The release of portions of our mammoth prison population back onto the streets.
A larger teenaged demographic and more ensuing gang activity.
But one possibility hasn't been mentioned.
We're seeing more guns within a general populace that, under increasing societal hardship and resulting down-pulling pressure, obviously becomes the source from which new criminals arise.
Are we experiencing at least a partial switch of guns originally said to be for defense against crime, actually beginning to be used to commit crime?
That's a question deserving detailed study, and a definite answer.
I oppologize for going to work today, Fold. I should have stayed home so I could answer you.
You tell us, Dan.
It does say that the right shall not be infringed upon. It makes no exceptions for the criminals. Neither do the other articles that compose the Bill of Rights.
Does the 1st Amendment support the banning of books in local school districts, Dan?
I don't think the first ammendment has anything to do with this. That right was given to people and not government. You have the right to say what you want, but the government controlled schools are a different story. If they wanted to preach, say, that the Nazi's were right, is that permissable under the first ammendment? I doubt it.
The right to bear arms was given to "The People" too, as were all the Amendments to the Bill of Rights, and the rest as well. Yet school districts from California to Georgia and N.Y. all can give examples of conservative schools that have removed certain books from their shelves for fear that the kids might read about breasts or see the words "God Damn" or any of a number of other rediculous things. The point is that they restrict the right of free speech and the freedom to read that free speech.
Just a quick point. Most of the book bannings I read about are done by liberals not consevatives. They try to ban books deemed "politicaly incorrect". Books like Tom Sawyer and others that have the word "nigger" or some such in it. They are afraid of somebody being offended by it. Although they never talk about the context it is used in. I am talking about classic books that most kids can understand and get meaning from. Those are the type of book bannings I read about.
once its published its public. Hmmm. Then why does the phrase 'privately published' even exist if there was no such thing?
Of course, some persons come in for aggro esp after they call me such lovely names. What would one expect? Sweetness & Light? Sorry. Only on Tuesday. And not this Tuesday neither.
Militia meaning - anyone over the age of 18. Well regulated could be construed to eliminate criminals since they are not regulated if at large. Which leaves the rest of us armed if we so choose.
Most of the book bannings have been done by liberals?!?! Latest on that front has been the protests over the Harry Potter books - and it wasn't liberals who were protesting. Books about evolution, books that discuss homosexuality and alternative lifestyles - yeah liberals want to ban those as well. Not to say that liberals do not have their problems, they do. But banning books isn't something they go in for in a big way usually.
I don't see you ripping these places that restrict what our kids read, ala "Farenheit 451" a new a$$hole for their interferrance with the rule of law where it concerns that freedom of speech, yet you go nutso whenever the right to bear arms is threatened by a "Waiting Period", or a "Background Check", etc., etc.
Please show me where I have "gone nutso". Yeah, I have questioned this before, but never "gone nutso".
I explained why I don't think it is a violation of freedom of speech. You do have the right to say/print what you wish, but there is no requirement for schools to make it accessible to their students. These same schools do not have Playboy magazines. In your mind, are they violating freedom speech there also?
Now that I have answered your question twice, can you answer mine? Do you think that the 2nd ammendment supports the banning of the sale of weapons to convicted criminals?
Personally, I think that this is a viiolation of the 2nd ammendment. I do not wish for criminals to have access to guns, but the 2nd ammendment does state that this right shall not be infringed upon.
Global warming ain't so bad -- sexy Donna's lookin' hot sweatin' thru her shirt, showin' everything she's got Me, I'm fryin' eggs on my favorite sidewalk spot right beside the bacon and my steamin' coffee pot.
War ain't all that awful -- it's just fireworks for free if you don't mind the shrapnel in your head and ass and knee I'm kinda lookin' forward to Dubya Dubya Three Just to know what H-bombs do to a guy like me.
And I don't mind them Kluxers, with their crosses in the night Jesus, if you ask me, that's quite a pretty sight Besides I'm straight and Christian, conservative and white and a member in good standing of the lib'ral-hatin' Right.
They say that I'm a wingnut, but they don't really know Is that the sound of 'copters, in the distance, flyin' low?! I'll put my boots on backwards; they can't track me in the snow Except -- oh shit! -- that melted...thirteen months ago.
The Supreme Court, as developed by the Constitution, has jurisdiction over ALL courts be they state, local or federal and therefore over all of the laws. The Founders were just as interested in controlling the states as they were in controlling the federal government since ANY level of government can, by definition, become oppressive.
you wrote: The Supreme Court, as developed by the Constitution, has jurisdiction over ALL courts be they state, local or federal and therefore over all of the laws. The Supreme Court of the US has no jurisdiction over purely local issues. The Supreme Court is continuing to usurp local issues but your view is utterly wrong.The Founders were just as interested in controlling the states as they were in controlling the federal government since ANY level of government can, by definition, become oppressive. Obviously you flunked US history. More likely you weren't taught it at all. The Cosnstitution had nothing to do with states oter than regulation of interstate commerce.
Good point Kit. The three branches of our government are supposed to accent and check each other, but the Supreme Court has reign over all, as witnessed by our currently "Appointed" President, and it has power over all the states courts, therefore all of the states...as anyone with a fifth grade education should know
It is amazing how out of touch with history and civics some of these people are. fold and kit you are at the head of this rather sad example of citizenship. Have you ever thought of reading a book? A prime example of public education at its worst. I can see why fold doesn't support vouchers, everyone that goes to a private school will be far advanced of him by the fifth grade.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all issues, local or not. To argue otherwise is foolishness and a waste of time. IF you believe that governments can become oppressive, then even local governments can become so just as easily as can state and federal governments. Just bring your logic all the way to the end instead of stopping it halfway down the track, jethro.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all issues, local or not. That is simply untrue.To argue otherwise is foolishness and a waste of time. Arguing with you on anything is a waste of time.IF you believe that governments can become oppressive, then even local governments can become so just as easily as can state and federal governments. Not as easily but yes they can. However, individuals have more influence on smaller government units than they do on large units.Just bring your logic all the way to the end instead of stopping it halfway down the track, jethro. I didn't think it was necessary to go there. I forgot what it was I was dealing with.
fold wrote: Eat shit, you dope. I served my country in the Navy, when many others were running to Canada. That doesn't mean you know a thing.When did you serve? Oh this country is only for the veterans?I read you, quite well. A prime example of public education at its worst. Wrong again, vegetable. I went to private schools. I am sure they don't advertise that fact.
WASHINGTON - Wal-Mart, the United States' biggest seller of guns, has quietly ordered its stores to adopt a tougher policy on gun sales that goes beyond the requirements of the federal government and is sure to provoke opposition from gun owners.
Wal-Mart executives, in an internal memorandum obtained by the Los Angeles Times, told store managers five weeks ago to stop selling firearms in cases in which authorities were not able to determine whether the would-be buyers should be banned from owning a weapon.
Under federal law, if authorities cannot complete a criminal background check on a gun buyer within three business days, retailers are allowed to hand over the weapon even though the buyer's status is unclear. Nine states have more stringent standards.
Wal-Mart's decision drew immediate fire from the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups, which questioned the legality of the unannounced policy shift and hinted that they might seek to organize a boycott against the retailing giant.
The vast majority of the more than 8 million gun checks a year are completed quickly. But studies show that sales that proceed when the three-day term limit runs out produce a disproportionately high number of cases in which a customer was able to buy a gun even though he or she was banned from doing so.
Americans for Gun Safety, a gun-control group in Washington, found in a recent study that in a 2 year period, 10,000 felons and others banned from owning a gun were able to purchase weapons because their background checks could not be completed in three days. A similar congressional study last month confirmed widespread cracks in the system.
In an April letter, Americans for Gun Safety appealed to Wal-Mart and other large retailers that sell firearms to adopt a "don't know, don't sell" policy that would go beyond federal law.
Wal-Mart did not respond to Americans for Gun Safety directly. But the letter prompted Wal-Mart executives to research the issue, and they were troubled to find nationwide data showing that many banned gun sales were executed because of the three-day defaults, said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jessica Eldred.
As a result, the company decided to change its policy effective May 29 in its 2,700 stores, nearly all of which sell guns, according to its internal memo to store managers.
I guess I will start boycotting Wal-mart. What a load of crap! I sit here at my house and can run a criminal background check on ANYONE for a small fee and have results in hours. I entered a search for "criminal background checks" in yahoo and returned 169 hits. I clicked on a couple of links that showed I could get results in 24 hours or less. Sounds more to me like Wal-mart execs are on an anti-gun campaign, but are afraid to piss off all the conservatives spending money in their stores.
NOW Blasts Wal-Mart Workplace Abuses, Names the Company a Merchant of Shame
June 22, 2002
"Today the National Organization for Women is naming Wal-Mart — the nation's largest company with close to one million employees — a Merchant of Shame," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Wal-Mart faces numerous allegations of sex discrimination in pay, promotion and compensation; of wage abuses, violation of child labor laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act; exclusion of contraceptive coverage in employee insurance plans and discrimination on the basic of sexual orientation. The list of Wal- Mart's workplace 'don'ts' is far too long."
"Wal-Mart is number one on the Fortune 500 list. It's also the number one most sued retailer in the United States," Gandy said. "It doesn't take a genius to see the problem with this picture. The nation's number one company should be a model workplace not the worst of bad examples."
"I could say that NOW is dissatisfied with the way Wal-Mart conducts business with their employees, but that would be a huge understatement," Gandy. "This country's top employers need to get the picture that women-friendly workplaces aren't just good businesses, they're good for business. You'd think that Wal-Mart management would get this."
"NOW's Merchants of Shame are an important part of the Women-Friendly Workplace Campaign -- a pro-active project demanding equal rights for women on the job," Gandy said. "NOW's campaign spurred Smith Barney, Mitsubishi Motors and other leading corporations to work toward creating truly women-friendly and family- friendly workplaces."
"We're shining a spotlight on Wal-Mart's workplaces abuses," Gandy said. "This is a public pressure campaign against one of the largest employers in the U.S. This is how we effect change. The women and men of Wal-Mart deserve a workplace that respects their rights. Consumers across the country need to be able to spend their dollars with a clear conscience. Wal-Mart doesn't afford us this option."
"Wal-Mart is NOW's fifth Merchant of Shame," Gandy said. "Perhaps they'll look at this as a grand opportunity to do the right thing."
Most employees in ALL service sector jobs are women.
And not for any mysterious reason.
Bosses profit hugely from the superexploitation that the income disparity, general lack of unionization, overall discriminatory sexism, and their conspicuous absence from being part of the controlling "man's world" business apparatus...relegate females to in work life.
Not just in America, but internationally.
Woman is "nigger to the world", a status that's made enormous fortunes for unscrupulous employers everywhere.
Changing that unjust reality is perhaps history's greatest imperative.
That such a change might actually occur scares the hell out of the political Right, which is so intmately aligned with rip-off special interests.
What do you think is the real reason behind conservative opposition to ANY female organizing initiative, be it the Million Moms movement, the pro-choice cause, etc.?
A fear of empowerment that would set age-old inequities right.
Above all else, the gender-based pay differential that's been a virtual golden goose for those with tarnished morals since...forever.
As long ago as 1990, women were already dominant in service and retail employment:
"The services division is currently the largest source of employment in either the service-producing sector or the goods-producing sector. It will also account for nearly one-half of all newly created jobs. These jobs span a wide variety of areas--retail trade, hotels and lodging services, business and repair services, personal services, entertainment and recreational services, educational and social services, legal services, health services, and public administration. In 1990 women held 62 percent (24.3 million) of all services division jobs (see table 2).
"The retail trade division will replace manufacturing as the second largest source of total employment. By the year 2005, the addition of 5.1 million new jobs will put retail trade employment at 25 million. Despite this increase, many new retail trade jobs will be part time (less than 35 hours a week), tend to offer low pay, require little training and skills, demand little work experience, offer very limited chances for advancement, and will be very sensitive to shifts in the economy. Women have historically been the dominant participants in part- time employment. In 1990 women accounted for 68 percent of all part-time workers (women and men). Women held 52 percent of retail trade industry jobs in 1990 and will continue to dominate this segment as well as the services division."
--U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau No. 92-1 January 1992
They are paid what is negotiated. There is a difference. If you ask too much, you are not hired. If you ask too little you are hired and not respected which means no promotions and you are excluded. $40 million to play baseball is stupid but they get it because they can, not because they SHOULD. Child care workers barely get minimum wage. Now what is more important our children or our entertainment - baseball? I'll leave you alone to think about it since it will take you some time to decide.
Needs to see the data?
Fold is a actuary now? Good with stats? Most of this stuff has been publicly published. Check your newspapers.
On the mean streets without justice in the badlands of our time
Forget about compassion or what Jesus had to say
Just pull your pistol's hammer back and trust the NRA
As personal salvation in a holster stuck in back
And eye with grim suspicion every single soul you see
Yes, make your fellow citizen your mortal enemy
as one simplistic attitude is rigidly applied
To Hell with "brother's keeper" or the hallowed Golden Rule
"You won't take my gun away, you friggin' liberal fool!"
Are beyond the comprehension of the vigilante Right
So pen our nation's epitath and make the lesson clear
"God couldn't make His wishes felt, for guns were worshipped here!"
I would call it insignificant.
So these 21 women who attempted to defended themselves with weapons are "insignificant". Nice.
I am confused, Fold. First, guns were not a deterent to crime. Then, if a women is holding one under the chin of an aggressor, it is a deterent. Now, guns are not a deterent again? Explain.
99.999% of women who are raped are raped by someone they know...
That would mean that in the 26 cities in the survey, there were 3,200,000,000 rapes by people that the victim new. This has become an epidemic.
Forget about compassion or what Jesus had to say
Dennis, you think Jesus is pro-abortion?
Bill Fold,
Is that true, do you have a link to that ?
You're full of shit Dan.
No, just a simple mathmatical error. The number should have been 3,200,000,000-32,000 (by strangers according to this survey)=3,199,968,000 by someone they knew.
If as you say, only 21 persons defend themselves successfully against a potential rape, out of the tens of thousands that occur annually (by your own assessment...still no LINK),
The source was cited using page number and I have added a question number to the survey for you.
by the use of a Gun or Knife or by a crowbar for that matter, it is a statistically insignificant number, and certainly not statistics to base the right or wrong of the 2nd Amendment on.
The statement you made had to do with a weapon not being a deterent to criminals. You yourself have since stated that "The fact is, that of course ANY woman who was holding a knife or gun under the chin of her rapist would be LESS likely to be raped"
Now you change the statement to being an arguement of right or wrong of the 2nd ammendment. Please make up your mind on what the debate is about.
However, you are certainly doing it anyway, so Whoopty-Friggin-Doo, for you.
Clever, did my 9 year old son teach you that debating tactic? Actually, I think that he has out grown that stage now.
One more time, you made the statement that a gun does not deter criminals, so I posted a survey that showed that it does (20 out of 21 attempts were foiled). You wrote them off as insignificant and made a statement that of course a weapon would be a deterent. Now you changed the debate to whether the 2nd ammendment is wrong or not.
My statement did fit into the original debate. I also stated that it was not exactly a +/- 1% survey, but 20 out of 21 is an impressive number don't ya think?
Clear everything up yet?
No. Your twisting is confusing the debate even more.
Did Jesus support abortion?
I have no idea.
I doubt it was much of an issue back then.
It's obvious He was neither for nor against gun control, as guns hadn't been invented yet.
But, unless I was listening to Detroit Tigers games on a hidden transistor radio during my Sunday school years and misunderstood everything Reverend Norton Shotwell told me My Savior stood for (No, that's not a confession!), I believe He was pretty devoted to
peace and nonviolence.
As opposed to smoting folks with clubs and swords.
Which leads me to think He'd look unfavorably upon us arming ourselves silly, with the intention of doing unto others before they did it to us.
I'm pretty sure it's the Golden Rule we're supposed to use, not the silver pistol.
I have no idea.
Oh. From your post I thought maybe you had a direct link to Jesus thoughts.
I don't have a direct link to his thoughts but, I'm pretty sure he's against abortion.
".. and let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." Luke 22:66
Luke 22:66
Close...
22:36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
22:37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
22:38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
MARATHON MAN
My uncanny propensity to attract weirdos surfaced again today.
Big time.
I was leaning against my favorite wall, waiting for my bus.
Along came a red-bearded freak in a flannel shirt, carrying a bunch of rocks in a see-thru plastic tackle box.
He was laughing like a maniac, which is well and good, since a maniac is what he definitely proved to be.
His thing was to call out to everyone who passed, either pedestrian or motorist: "Are YOU running in the marathon?!" Then he'd guffaw like his question represented the epitome of human humor.
(Point of reference: Saturday, Grandma's Marathon will be staged in Duluth.)
Truth is, it WAS funny, if not entirely politically correct.
A crippled senior citizen got laboriously off a trolley. "Are YOU running in the marathon?! Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha Ha Ha!"
Ditto with an obese woman who lumbered past.
And there was some giggle-inducing variety to his act.
Two women jumped out of a car, with one saying to the other: "Is there anything in the trunk?"
"Everything!" retorted the Marathon Man, causing me to join in and make his crazed laughter a nutty duet.
Finally my bus arrived.
"See you, dude."
As I got aboard, he called out from behind: "Are YOU running in the marathon?! Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!"
What's this got to do with guns? Well, quite a few folks who took all this in were obviously spooked by the fellow. Had his madness been a bit more in their faces, and their paranoia somewhat more acute, who knows what would have happened if they'd been packing heat? No, he wasn't black, but suppose he had been, and a neo-Bernie Goetz had gone by.
Stumblebums, winos, paint huffers, panhandlers, assorted urban visionaries, etc. -- all children of God, by the way -- could find their lives substantially jeopardized by "good" citizens with guns.
And, while we're at it, are petty street CRIMINALS actually deserving of getting shot?
Shouldn't we be focusing, instead, on rehabilitation...and redress of the social and economic inequities and injustices that breed criminality and other dysfunction?
Why should we care at all?
Because Jesus once told me we definitely ought to.
I swear you'd find a way to bring that up if we were talking about if Pamela Anderson looked better or worse when her ridiculous implants were removed. (I like au natural better myself) But gee whiz. Give it a rest for a day.
As for your redbearded marathon man, well Dennis, we already have many states where conceal carry is legal and people like that aren't getting blown away by legally liscenced gun carring citizens. Just cuz the guy is kooky doesnt mean people are going to start shooting him. You'd have to take half of L.A and San Fran out if that were the case. Fact beyond your musing is that the guy has a better chance of winning the lotto than getting shot by a legally liscenced permit carrying citizen.
BTW you never did answer, Are you running in the marathon ?
I actually MAY have met Jesus.
When I was 15 years old, two buddies of mine and I crossed the Montreal River from Ironwood, Michigan, to Hurley, Wisconsin, one winter night.
Hurley was a bar-and-bordello town for the surrounding iron mining
communities.
We were just going to check things out.
As we were strolling past the garish establishments on Silver Street,
a skinny guy emerged from a tavern door and promptly slipped on his ass on a patch of ice.
Being closeset to him, I instinctively helped him up.
"Thanks, Pal. Where you from?"
"Ironwood."
"Well thanks again, Michigan Slim (being as I was very thin myself).
You know, a lot of folks wouldn't bother to help a guy like me. But they should."
He then shook my hand.
"I'll remember you. I'm Jerusalem Slim."
As he walked away, he kinda had an eerie glow about him.
Maybe it was just the neon from the "Girls! Girls! Girls!" sign.
It took me a good five years before I put together the implication and possibility of that late December night.
No, I'm not running in the marathon.
I'm fatter than a pig now, and could be beaten by crabgrass in a foot race.
For Bill Fold
who likes to sneer at those who know things he doesn't.
Publicly published as opposed to privately published means
published for sale/distribution to the public at large, while privately published means published for sale/distribution only to the chosen few of a particular group. When selected for public publication, one is paid for one's work by the publisher who then takes over the sale and distribution functions. When seeking private publication, the author pays the publisher to publish the work and the author remains responsible for sale and distribution, unless he/she wishes to pay for these further services.
I thought that a bright guy like you who is interested would go and look the stats up on his own.
For Rebecca Lynn Eaton:
That spring evening in '71 when I kissed you on the forehead on the corner of Broadway and Ogden...
It was the most memorable kiss of my whole life.
How about for you?
Now, who is confused?
You still are. The 32,000 rapes (attempted and successful) that I quoted from the sourced DOJ report were for those committed by strangers. combine that with your percentage of 99.999% (The fact is that 99.999% of women who are raped are raped by someone they know) mathematically figures out to what I stated.
He won't. That's Dan's style however.
I have sourced repeatedly the report by the DOJ even going as far as providing page number and question number for the survey. This does not satisfy you for some reason and you continue to demand more. This is a feable attempt to discredit an opponent in the debate rather than debating the facts. Amazing.
By the way, is a gun a deterent or not today? That answer seems to change on a daily basis.
Is this about the 2nd Amendment, now?
Fine, what do you wish to discuss about the 2nd ammendment?
Crime has made a resurgence after a decade of decline.
Several reasons are cited:
Worse economic times.
Less federal aid to local police.
The release of portions of our mammoth prison population back onto the streets.
A larger teenaged demographic and more ensuing gang activity.
But one possibility hasn't been mentioned.
We're seeing more guns within a general populace that, under increasing societal hardship and resulting down-pulling pressure, obviously becomes the source from which new criminals arise.
Are we experiencing at least a partial switch of guns originally said to be for defense against crime, actually beginning to be used to commit crime?
That's a question deserving detailed study, and a definite answer.
Nice non-partisan answer.
How about this question-Does the 2nd ammendment support the banning of sale of weapons to convicted criminals?
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
I just came in at the end here and I'm confused.
What's the question up for debate?
Well Dan?
I oppologize for going to work today, Fold. I should have stayed home so I could answer you.
You tell us, Dan.
It does say that the right shall not be infringed upon. It makes no exceptions for the criminals. Neither do the other articles that compose the Bill of Rights.
Does the 1st Amendment support the banning of books in local school districts, Dan?
I don't think the first ammendment has anything to do with this. That right was given to people and not government. You have the right to say what you want, but the government controlled schools are a different story. If they wanted to preach, say, that the Nazi's were right, is that permissable under the first ammendment? I doubt it.
Just a quick point. Most of the book bannings I read about are done by liberals not consevatives. They try to ban books deemed "politicaly incorrect". Books like Tom Sawyer and others that have the word "nigger" or some such in it. They are afraid of somebody being offended by it. Although they never talk about the context it is used in. I am talking about classic books that most kids can understand and get meaning from. Those are the type of book bannings I read about.
Love it , Bill
once its published its public. Hmmm. Then why does the phrase 'privately published' even exist if there was no such thing?
Of course, some persons come in for aggro esp after they call me such lovely names. What would one expect? Sweetness & Light? Sorry. Only on Tuesday. And not this Tuesday neither.
Militia meaning - anyone over the age of 18. Well regulated could be construed to eliminate criminals since they are not regulated if at large. Which leaves the rest of us armed if we so choose.
Most of the book bannings have been done by liberals?!?! Latest on that front has been the protests over the Harry Potter books - and it wasn't liberals who were protesting. Books about evolution, books that discuss homosexuality and alternative lifestyles - yeah liberals want to ban those as well. Not to say that liberals do not have their problems, they do. But banning books isn't something they go in for in a big way usually.
I don't see you ripping these places that restrict what our kids read, ala "Farenheit 451" a new a$$hole for their interferrance with the rule of law where it concerns that freedom of speech, yet you go nutso whenever the right to bear arms is threatened by a "Waiting Period", or a "Background Check", etc., etc.
Please show me where I have "gone nutso". Yeah, I have questioned this before, but never "gone nutso".
I explained why I don't think it is a violation of freedom of speech. You do have the right to say/print what you wish, but there is no requirement for schools to make it accessible to their students. These same schools do not have Playboy magazines. In your mind, are they violating freedom speech there also?
Now that I have answered your question twice, can you answer mine? Do you think that the 2nd ammendment supports the banning of the sale of weapons to convicted criminals?
Personally, I think that this is a viiolation of the 2nd ammendment. I do not wish for criminals to have access to guns, but the 2nd ammendment does state that this right shall not be infringed upon.
MR. RIGHT
Global warming ain't so bad -- sexy Donna's lookin' hot
sweatin' thru her shirt, showin' everything she's got
Me, I'm fryin' eggs on my favorite sidewalk spot
right beside the bacon and my steamin' coffee pot.
War ain't all that awful -- it's just fireworks for free
if you don't mind the shrapnel in your head and ass and knee
I'm kinda lookin' forward to Dubya Dubya Three
Just to know what H-bombs do to a guy like me.
And I don't mind them Kluxers, with their crosses in the night
Jesus, if you ask me, that's quite a pretty sight
Besides I'm straight and Christian, conservative and white
and a member in good standing of the lib'ral-hatin' Right.
They say that I'm a wingnut, but they don't really know
Is that the sound of 'copters, in the distance, flyin' low?!
I'll put my boots on backwards; they can't track me in the snow
Except -- oh shit! -- that melted...thirteen months ago.
Of course the Consititution was specifically designed to protect rights from federal action not state action.
NO, jethro
The Supreme Court, as developed by the Constitution, has jurisdiction over ALL courts be they state, local or federal and therefore over all of the laws. The Founders were just as interested in controlling the states as they were in controlling the federal government since ANY level of government can, by definition, become oppressive.
No Kit
you wrote: The Supreme Court, as developed by the Constitution, has jurisdiction over ALL courts be they state, local or federal and therefore over all of the laws. The Supreme Court of the US has no jurisdiction over purely local issues. The Supreme Court is continuing to usurp local issues but your view is utterly wrong.The Founders were just as interested in controlling the states as they were in controlling the federal government since ANY level of government can, by definition, become oppressive. Obviously you flunked US history. More likely you weren't taught it at all. The Cosnstitution had nothing to do with states oter than regulation of interstate commerce.
Good point Kit. The three branches of our government are supposed to accent and check each other, but the Supreme Court has reign over all, as witnessed by our currently "Appointed" President, and it has power over all the states courts, therefore all of the states...as anyone with a fifth grade education should know
The most utterly stupid thing ever written here.
It is amazing how out of touch with history and civics some of these people are. fold and kit you are at the head of this rather sad example of citizenship. Have you ever thought of reading a book? A prime example of public education at its worst. I can see why fold doesn't support vouchers, everyone that goes to a private school will be far advanced of him by the fifth grade.
Is that your picture, Jethro?
If so, why do you wear a woolen Navy watch cap in the summertime?
Just curious...
That's not a picture of Jethro. That's a picture of a vegetable.
Jethro has a distinct world view
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all issues, local or not. To argue otherwise is foolishness and a waste of time. IF you believe that governments can become oppressive, then even local governments can become so just as easily as can state and federal governments.
Just bring your logic all the way to the end instead of stopping it halfway down the track, jethro.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all issues, local or not. That is simply untrue.To argue otherwise is foolishness and a waste of time. Arguing with you on anything is a waste of time.IF you believe that governments can become oppressive, then even local governments can become so just as easily as can state and federal governments. Not as easily but yes they can. However, individuals have more influence on smaller government units than they do on large units.Just bring your logic all the way to the end instead of stopping it halfway down the track, jethro. I didn't think it was necessary to go there. I forgot what it was I was dealing with.
fold wrote: Eat shit, you dope. I served my country in the Navy, when many others were running to Canada. That doesn't mean you know a thing.When did you serve? Oh this country is only for the veterans?I read you, quite well. A prime example of public education at its worst. Wrong again, vegetable. I went to private schools. I am sure they don't advertise that fact.
WAL-MART ADOPTS TOUGH POLICY ON FIREARM SALES
BY ERIC LICHTBLAU, LOS ANGELES TIMES
WASHINGTON - Wal-Mart, the United States' biggest seller of guns, has quietly ordered its stores to adopt a tougher policy on gun sales that goes beyond the requirements of the federal government and is sure to provoke opposition from gun owners.
Wal-Mart executives, in an internal memorandum obtained by the Los Angeles Times, told store managers five weeks ago to stop selling firearms in cases in which authorities were not able to determine whether the would-be buyers should be banned from owning a weapon.
Under federal law, if authorities cannot complete a criminal background check on a gun buyer within three business days, retailers are allowed to hand over the weapon even though the buyer's status is unclear. Nine states have more stringent standards.
Wal-Mart's decision drew immediate fire from the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups, which questioned the legality of the unannounced policy shift and hinted that they might seek to organize a boycott against the retailing giant.
The vast majority of the more than 8 million gun checks a year are completed quickly. But studies show that sales that proceed when the three-day term limit runs out produce a disproportionately high number of cases in which a customer was able to buy a gun even though he or she was banned from doing so.
Americans for Gun Safety, a gun-control group in Washington, found in a recent study that in a 2 year period, 10,000 felons and others banned from owning a gun were able to purchase weapons because their background checks could not be completed in three days. A similar congressional study last month confirmed widespread cracks in the system.
In an April letter, Americans for Gun Safety appealed to Wal-Mart and other large retailers that sell firearms to adopt a "don't know, don't sell" policy that would go beyond federal law.
Wal-Mart did not respond to Americans for Gun Safety directly. But the letter prompted Wal-Mart executives to research the issue, and they were troubled to find nationwide data showing that many banned gun sales were executed because of the three-day defaults, said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jessica Eldred.
As a result, the company decided to change its policy effective May 29 in its 2,700 stores, nearly all of which sell guns, according to its internal memo to store managers.
I guess I will start boycotting Wal-mart. What a load of crap! I sit here at my house and can run a criminal background check on ANYONE for a small fee and have results in hours. I entered a search for "criminal background checks" in yahoo and returned 169 hits. I clicked on a couple of links that showed I could get results in 24 hours or less. Sounds more to me like Wal-mart execs are on an anti-gun campaign, but are afraid to piss off all the conservatives spending money in their stores.
Intemperance
will only get you the same in return. Who in their right mind shops Wal-Mart for guns?!?!?
Walmart's ok for buying guns. Depends on what you want. As Bill Fold said, they're cheaper at Walmart.
fold wrote: And I know something that you don't know.
Pray tell, what is it man? Don't kep it a secret! Enlighten us with your knowledge.
NOW Blasts Wal-Mart Workplace Abuses,
Names the Company a Merchant of Shame
June 22, 2002
"Today the National Organization for Women is naming Wal-Mart — the nation's largest company with close to one million employees — a Merchant of Shame," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Wal-Mart faces numerous allegations of sex discrimination in pay, promotion and compensation; of wage abuses, violation of child labor laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act; exclusion of contraceptive coverage in employee insurance plans and discrimination on the basic of sexual orientation. The list of Wal- Mart's workplace 'don'ts' is far too long."
"Wal-Mart is number one on the Fortune 500 list. It's also the number one most sued retailer in the United States," Gandy said. "It doesn't take a genius to see the problem with this picture. The nation's number one company should be a model workplace not the worst of bad examples."
"I could say that NOW is dissatisfied with the way Wal-Mart conducts business with their employees, but that would be a huge understatement," Gandy. "This country's top employers need to get the picture that women-friendly workplaces aren't just good businesses, they're good for business. You'd think that Wal-Mart management would get this."
"NOW's Merchants of Shame are an important part of the Women-Friendly Workplace Campaign -- a pro-active project demanding equal rights for women on the job," Gandy said. "NOW's campaign spurred Smith Barney, Mitsubishi Motors and other leading corporations to work toward creating truly women-friendly and family- friendly workplaces."
"We're shining a spotlight on Wal-Mart's workplaces abuses," Gandy said. "This is a public pressure campaign against one of the largest employers in the U.S. This is how we effect change. The women and men of Wal-Mart deserve a workplace that respects their rights. Consumers across the country need to be able to spend their dollars with a clear conscience. Wal-Mart doesn't afford us this option."
"Wal-Mart is NOW's fifth Merchant of Shame," Gandy said. "Perhaps they'll look at this as a grand opportunity to do the right thing."
Looks like Wal-Mart's gun policy is the least of its bad features...
Most employees in ALL service sector jobs are women.
And not for any mysterious reason.
Bosses profit hugely from the superexploitation that the income disparity, general lack of unionization, overall discriminatory sexism, and their conspicuous absence from being part of the controlling "man's world" business apparatus...relegate females to in work life.
Not just in America, but internationally.
Woman is "nigger to the world", a status that's made enormous fortunes for unscrupulous employers everywhere.
Changing that unjust reality is perhaps history's greatest imperative.
That such a change might actually occur scares the hell out of the
political Right, which is so intmately aligned with rip-off special interests.
What do you think is the real reason behind conservative opposition to ANY female organizing initiative, be it the Million Moms movement, the pro-choice cause, etc.?
A fear of empowerment that would set age-old inequities right.
Above all else, the gender-based pay differential that's been
a virtual golden goose for those with tarnished morals since...forever.
As long ago as 1990, women were already dominant in service and retail employment:
"The services division is currently the largest source of employment in either the service-producing sector or the goods-producing sector. It will also account for nearly one-half of all newly created jobs. These jobs span a wide variety of areas--retail trade, hotels and lodging services, business and repair services, personal services, entertainment and recreational services, educational and social services, legal services, health services, and public administration. In 1990 women held 62 percent (24.3 million) of all services division jobs (see table 2).
"The retail trade division will replace manufacturing as the second largest source of total employment. By the year 2005, the addition of 5.1 million new jobs will put retail trade employment at 25 million. Despite this increase, many new retail trade jobs will be part time (less than 35 hours a week), tend to offer low pay, require little training and skills, demand little work experience, offer very limited chances for advancement, and will be very sensitive to shifts in the economy. Women have historically been the dominant participants in part- time employment. In 1990 women accounted for 68 percent of all part-time workers (women and men). Women held 52 percent of retail trade industry jobs in 1990 and will continue to dominate this segment as well as the services division."
--U.S. Department of Labor Women's Bureau No. 92-1 January 1992
http://www.seiu.org/
For everyone in the service sector who's tired of getting
pushed around and ripped off...
Well, I for one, am tired of getting ripped off by poor service!!!!
You'll get better service from workers who have a warranted sense of dignity about their jobs, which arises only from being treated fairly and justly.
It all relates to something Dick Gregory said many years ago:
"If you cut a man, don't be surprised that he bleeds."
Or that his blood gets on you.
Most people are paid what they are worth in the private sector. you can't say the say the same about the public sector
No, jethro, they aren't
They are paid what is negotiated. There is a difference. If you ask too much, you are not hired. If you ask too little you are hired and not respected which means no promotions and you are excluded. $40 million to play baseball is stupid but they get it because they can, not because they SHOULD. Child care workers barely get minimum wage. Now what is more important our children or our entertainment - baseball? I'll leave you alone to think about it since it will take you some time to decide.