CDIH

i stand corrected.

Other countries hate our greedy capitalistic Galt-like ways but that's not what we're all about.. America's about freedom (even though it doesn't feel like it at times)

are you really that free?

Actually no but it’s a nice concept and what this country was based on. We need to go back to our roots of the forefathers but unfortunately with who is in power and with who gets elected into power these days, that will never happen. Holland is more free than us. I watched a documentary on the drug wars and legalizing everything like they do there makes so much sense. There are actually more users in the U.S. than there are over there. The drug problems there exist but instead of incarcerating them for doing drugs like they do here, they try to help them and the clinics are free. But even so, America has the history of the wild wild west, John Wayne and a McDonalds on every corner.

Bunny Colvin should be our Drug Czar. His solution for Baltimore was absolutely ideal.

Galt Wrote:Bunny Colvin should be our Drug Czar. His solution for Baltimore was absolutely ideal.

HAMPSTERDAM!

Quote:We need to go back to our roots of the forefathers ...

Our roots and the ideas of our forefathers won't save us as they are still very much at the bottom of the current system.

"To protect the minority of the opulant against the majority" was the philosphical core they built the country around.

They never hid their intentions and design but if you write "WE THE PEOPLE..." really really big it very goes far when bullshitting people. So the bottomline is:

Watch another documentary pertaining to this as mentioned above and re-assess.

Are you saying Ben, Tom and the others were BSers? I don't buy that. Ben Franklin was a rebel and went against the norm. If it were modern times, he would have been a rock star dead at the age of 27. But then I haven't seen a documentary on him yet so I'll get back to ya on that.. hah

Ben, Tom et al also thought that women shouldn't be able to hold public office, or even vote. And blacks were subhuman.

Some things evolve.

That said, one of the most interesting things in the debate tonight was when Hillary was talking about gun control. She mentioned that she likes what New York has, but that what works in New York, will probably not work in Montana. That the federal government shouldn't have some sort of "blanket rules" that they're going to try to impose on everyone.

Now, that makes sense. But does she even understand the implications of those comments? Does she realize that it makes her a libertarian? If it's fine for gun control. Then why is she in favor of imposing federal standards on the Defense of Marriage Act, or pollution, or affirmative action, or any other "state" issue?

Did you write that in your blog?

I find it interesting how many people claim to be Democrats but actually sound Libertarian when they talk about policy. Also, I can't accept her as a full on Libertarian because of the issues you spoke of as well as the fact that she plans on pushing for Centralizing Healthcare.

she's not a libertarian.

She is full of shit. she will say anything to get elected. No matter what she says, there's no way she's going to get us out of Iraq in 60 days.

She's very close to GW politically actually. IRW, Patriot Act, Medicare Drug Bill. Very authoritarian. Government control everything, government tell you what to do. They only differ on what they want the government to tell you to do.

Galt Wrote:She is full of shit. she will say anything to get elected.

If there wasn't a woman running this would have read HE instead of SHE and we wouldn't have had any idea who you were talking about because those two statements are true of all politicians.

Nobody with sense listens to "statements of benign intent" made by political leaders. This whole election is a scam anyway just on the surface.

In general, who do you like more?

a) your kindly old grandpop or
b) your cunty aunt

OR

a) your kindly old grandpop or
b) your cunty aunt's rapist

McCain is going to slaughter either one of those jokes. This country will never elect a woman or a nigger to be its president.

Galt Wrote:Ben, Tom et al also thought that women shouldn't be able to hold public office, or even vote. And blacks were subhuman.

Some things evolve.

well yeah 'tis true, times have changed and therefore thoughts on things have as well. That’s how I feel about guns. There shouldn’t be any reason for hand guns in this day and age but I digress.

diceisgod Wrote:McCain is going to slaughter either one of those jokes. This country will never elect a woman or a nigger to be its president.

LOL

A handgun is nothing more then an effective compact means of self defense to carry on ones person. It is neither good, nor bad, just a tool of self defense.

Yes, it could be misused, but so can anything else to hurt, harm, murder. It all depends on the user.

To wish violence away is extremely silly and wishful. To not defend yourself with the most effective tool is ridiculous.

Defending yourself is all well and good but if the person you're defending against has no gun either, it makes the situation a lot easier. Other countries with stricter gun laws have less crime.

Quote:Other countries with stricter gun laws have less crime.

Prove it.

Guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do.

Dr. John Lott wrote a book that found that those US countys which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, saw less violent crime. It has been touted by gunnuts since. BUT . . .

However studies after this (2001) found with more guns, also came higher homicides. (urban-area-to-urban-area type of comparisons) and a 2004 study also debunks Lotts charges.

So thats within the country. So arming oneself does not clearly make it less.

Outside the US?

Per the BBC:
The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report.

Accurate figures on firearms are scarce, but there are an estimated 200 million guns in circulation in the US, a country with a population of about 300 million.

According to a Harris poll conducted in 2001, approximately 39% of all American households own at least one gun.

The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report.

comparison of death rates by firearm

There are no recent statistics available but UN figures from 2000 showed for every 10,000 Americans, 0.3 were killed by firearms, compared with 0.01 in the UK where handgun ownership was banned in 1997.

In Switzerland where every man of military age is required to keep a gun at home as part of the country's civil defence policy, the number of deaths per 10,000 population was 0.05.

In South Africa it was 7.1 for every 10,000 people.

There are something like 300 million guns in this country. There are roughly 400k-500k crimes using a gun in the country.

Which means that at least 99.86% of guns are completely harmless.

If I were king, I would ban any new gun law. We pass law after law in this country about guns. But in reality none of them are enforced.

We are over-legislated in this country and under enforced.

I'd rather let anyone have a gun who wants a gun. Remove any and all gun laws. Create one new one, and actually enforce it. Any crime committed with a gun gets an additional mandatory 10 (or 3 or 20 or whatever) year sentence added to whatever sentence the judge hands down for the crime.