“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579797 Dec 30, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, now I'm a Moron.... thanks...
a home made bomb would have done more damage. Ban Fertilizer, rental trucks, ammonia, crazy people.
The real issue is that crazy bastards will always find a way to create the most damage and simply banning assault weapons may not be the answer. How long was this guy acting strangely? what help was or was not available? why did no one see him coming unravelled?
It's far too easy to point at the weapons and blame an inanimate object. But the guns did not use themselves.
This kid was known to have no feelings, either emotional or physical.

One of his teachers said that he had to be watched closely when the class was soldering, because he would burn himself and not feel it.

His condition was pretty well known for quite some time.

Why his mother thought it was wise to keep guns is beyond me, but it was reported that she was a prepper.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#579798 Dec 30, 2012
UR BS wrote:
It had its moments and of course there was 7 of 10, but for me it is still Firefly.
7 of 9.

I forgot about inflation.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#579799 Dec 30, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>The idiot, space-western story line or the crappy acting couldn't possibly be a draw for anybody sane, so the interest must have been spawned by an individual personality on the show.
Maybe you missed the Star Wars movies.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579800 Dec 30, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Well on my FB I've posted pictures where I was just a few pounds under 400lbs and worked my tail off to get to 200 and look good nekked. I'n my case it simply was just bad food choices, bad emotional state and lack of excercise. I't got to the point where I could not go upstairs to my bedroom because my knees hurt. I suffered from sleep apnea. In the past I made many poor choices. When my older brother had a heart attack and I went to visit him in the Hospital, I relized that all the IV medicine was exactly the same as I was taking in pill form. I had a rude awakening.
Iv'e lost almost 200 lbs since. It's been a bitch, but sometimes right decisions and easy decisions are not the same thing.
Way to go, Al!

That's something you should be very proud of.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#579801 Dec 30, 2012
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you not heard of the increase in school knifings in China? It's been increasing at an alarming rate since 2010. China has some of the most stringent gun laws in the world and yet the same horrific events have transpired. I'm afraid your idealistic view of a world without violence will, sadly, never be realized.
Ok.

Think you can give an honest answer here?

Which weapon could you kill more people with in a given amount of time?

An AR-14 or a knife?

Which assailant would be easier to stop?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#579802 Dec 30, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem blissfully unaware of the restrictions now in place for buying large quantities of fertilizer.
You're reaching, and you know it.
There is no sane reason for citizens to own assault weapons.
Period.
The Constitution spells it out plainly in the first sentence.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


The citizens armed are supposed to be able to form a militia
as strong as any army to fight for freedom. If necessary , that's the deal and a issue about our country itself.
For example the UN wants to regulate weapon sales globally.
We are against that too.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06...

Now if foreign powers infiltrate from within and the people defenseless , the people posses no power to resist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#579803 Dec 30, 2012
UR BS wrote:
Oh come on now lets not get hostile about it.
Nanoanomaly doesn't "get hostile." She starts out hostile. Something unpleasant happened to her a few decades ago - probably involving an uncle - so, she detests the world in revenge now.
Huh

Hurst, TX

#579804 Dec 30, 2012
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
I really wish we could say the same! I highly doubt gun control is the sole factor for that stat though. There are a great many factors to look at when comparing entire countries....Culture and unity would be the first. Our country is divided right down the middle. We are bound to fail...guns or not.
As for the bicycle seat....haha...cute. You really seem to put a lot of worth into lifeless objects....<shakes head> First guns, now bicycle seats....that's very interesting....:)
The top five states with the least restrictive gun laws in the US lead in per capita homicides. Alaska, Wyoming, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Ranking in the bottom five for gun deaths were New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and in last place with the least amount of gun deaths per capita was Hawaii. These are the states with the most restrictive gun laws.

Go figure.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#579805 Dec 30, 2012
Just Results wrote:
Church membership and at least 85% attendance should be a requirement before issuing a gun.
No God, no gun. This would slow down violence.
"Nevada: Parents beat son to death for not reading Bible"
http://www.examiner.com/article/nevada-parent...

"Preacher accused of raping women behind church"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44219189/ns/us_ne...

Need more?
Huh

Hurst, TX

#579806 Dec 30, 2012
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh...also...check this out
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/japa...
it ain't always about the guns....
When it comes to guns, it's always about the guns.

U.S. Shooting Deaths Since Sandy Hook Top 100. Top 100!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/us-s...

Most notable:

On Saturday afternoon, a 3-year-old in Guthrie, Okla., died after accidentally shooting himself in the head with a gun he found inside his aunt and uncle's house. His uncle is an Oklahoma state trooper.

A 20-year-old man shot and killed Veronica Soto, a young mother of two, in an apparent road rage incident on Thursday. Soto and her husband had gone out to a nearby Jack in the Box in the Houston area when they became involved in a confrontation with drivers in two other cars. The accused killer Mark Trevino, and the victim's husband pulled guns.

When it comes to the guns, it is always about the guns. Any other nonsense proffered is just smoke and mirrors.
Huh

Hurst, TX

#579807 Dec 30, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Republican-controlled House of Representatives
Deal with it.
A extension of the Brady Bill may pass, but it will be just as ineffective as in 94-2004.
This problem will only be solved by changing how America has desensitized violence to our children.
Presentism. This country was founded on violence. It has always been desensitized. You toss out this bon mot with no sense of history and without any support.
Huh

Hurst, TX

#579808 Dec 30, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Trained and armed security in the schools, the same as we now do with Court's and Federal buildings.
The Brady Bill was ineffective , clearly it is a time for a new strategy.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/study-fi...
In addition to security , nitrite sniffers, gun safety training classes in the schools along with psyche screening to weed out potentially mentally/ unstable young adults .
Made mandatory from middle school through college.
All of the mass shooters exhibited warning signs that were ignored by both family and friends.
We can't ignore these things anymore they must be addressed on an individual basis.
Oklahoma City and Columbine are examples why gun laws wont change the acts of the mentally unstable.
We also should take a hard look at both video game violence and Hollywood's glamorization of violence. If you want results that will be effective then you have to attack the problem where it resides. In the minds of the troubled youth who commit these atrocities.
In one post you claim America has desensitized our youth to violence and in another you want our schools turned into armed camps.

All this nonsense you propose, most of which is an attack on individual liberty, just so you can hang on to your little penis extension. Weird.
Huh

Hurst, TX

#579809 Dec 30, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
The SCOTUS does not agree with you.
Only since 2008. Before that, they did. Why do you think that is?

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#579810 Dec 30, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a lifestyle.
I've talked to people in the gym who make it obvious that they're there until they lose weight, and then they're done. They just can't face to concept of working out for the rest of their lives. There are only a small handful of people I see at the gym now who were there when I started.
I've been taking advantage of my gym's paid in full deals and am now paid up until 2016. Best money I've ever spent. I'm determined to live not only a long life, but a quality life.
No matter what happens to me financially, I'll have my gym membership.
That's it.

Make it a lifestyle choice.

And one always feels better after a workout than before.

I never, and I mean never, intentionally skip my daily workout.

The only exception is for impossibility due to long distance travel and major time zone change.

It's the only thing I'm "religious" about.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#579811 Dec 30, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> How do you know the guns were not secure ? I mean he did murder his own mother who owned them , possibly so he could get them. The thing about it is he could have done the same thing with several revolvers. I don't see how anyone can blame the weapon type.
Because he was killing in the petting zoo , even a single shot shot gun could have been used with an equal effect.
Why don't we switch to a less controversial subject?

Say, god and religion and that sort of stuff.

We're killing one another here.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#579812 Dec 30, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Nanoanomaly doesn't "get hostile." She starts out hostile. Something unpleasant happened to her a few decades ago - probably involving an uncle - so, she detests the world in revenge now.
A misanthrope, she became.
Huh

Hurst, TX

#579813 Dec 30, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Columbia v. Heller
Holding and Rule (Scalia)
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Scalia is a subversive. As I stated, 2008. Completely ignoring original intent. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual rights or even armed insurrection against a central,government. To claim it does is to ignore completely the history of this country.

The Framers were deeply concerned about the violent disorder that surfaced in Shays’ Rebellion when poor veterans and farmers rose up in western Massachusetts. The revolt was subdued by an ad hoc army assembled by wealthy Bostonians in early 1787, just weeks before the Constitutional Convention convened in Philadelphia. George Washington, who followed Shays’ Rebellion closely, was alarmed by the spreading unrest, thinking it might validate the predictions of the European powers that the new United States would collapse amid internal strife, pitting the rich against the poor and regions against one another. Any review of Washington’s writings in the years after the Revolution show him fretting about civil and economic chaos and the dangers they posed to the country’s hard-won independence.

It is within the context of these concerns that the writing of the U.S. Constitution must be understood. The new governing document marked a thorough rejection of the states’-rights-oriented Articles of Confederation in favor a strong central government that could hold the nation together and address its economic needs. With Washington presiding at the convention, his fellow Virginian James Madison provided the architecture for the new system, which so radically altered the relationship between the central government and the states that a powerful opposition arose, called the Anti-Federalists, to block ratification of the Constitution.

To save his masterwork, Madison joined a sales campaign known as the Federalist Papers in which he not only extolled the economic advantages of the new system but sought to finesse the ardent opposition by downplaying how much power he had bestowed on the central government. Though Madison did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary, he agreed to add one to win over other skeptics. In effect, the first ten amendments represented concessions to both individual citizens and the states.

The Second Amendment could be viewed as mostly a concession to the states, ensuring the right of a “free State” to arm its citizens for the purpose of maintaining “security” through “a well-regulated Militia.” Until 2008, U.S. Supreme Courts interpreted the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” as a collective, not an individual, right.

The reality was that the Framers wrote the Constitution and added the Second Amendment with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. The key Framers, after all, were mostly men of means with a huge stake in an orderly society, the likes of George Washington and James Madison.

So, yes, you are correct. In 2008, activist judges on the Supreme Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment against the intent of the Founders. Why so you think they did this? Profit?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#579814 Dec 30, 2012
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Presentism. This country was founded on violence. It has always been desensitized. You toss out this bon mot with no sense of history and without any support.
Absolutely this country has my support and so does it support I.

Disarming Innocent People, Does Not Protect Innocent People.
Ben Franklin

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#579815 Dec 30, 2012
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>The top five states with the least restrictive gun laws in the US lead in per capita homicides. Alaska, Wyoming, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
Ranking in the bottom five for gun deaths were New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and in last place with the least amount of gun deaths per capita was Hawaii. These are the states with the most restrictive gun laws.
Go figure.
Americans say that they want these guns in case they need to form a militia and defend themselves from their government. It worked last time, and will again if the government comes with cannons and muskets again.

I'm not really sure how well a gun would work against having your bank accounts seized, your credit cards cancelled, your phone, water, and power disconnected, the roads to your home closed, and a drone with a laser or a missile from low earth orbit aimed at you, but perhaps we'll see.

Or maybe all that "well armed militia" stuff we keep reading about is just a canard. I would think that if you fear your government at that level, it might be time for a new government, which in the 21st century means moving, not revolution (see above). Obviously, the reason for the guns is a fear of one another.
Huh

Hurst, TX

#579816 Dec 30, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution spells it out plainly in the first sentence.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The citizens armed are supposed to be able to form a militia
as strong as any army to fight for freedom. If necessary , that's the deal and a issue about our country itself.
For example the UN wants to regulate weapon sales globally.
We are against that too.
Now if foreign powers infiltrate from within and the people defenseless , the people posses no power to resist.
No, no, no. The original intent was night to fight against the strong central government. That is already spelled out in the Constitution and any such insurrection is treason. Why must you make these things up?

Within this framework of a democratic Republic, the Framers criminalized taking up arms against the government. Article IV, Section 4 committed the federal government to protect each state from not only invasion but “domestic Violence,” and treason is one of the few crimes defined in the Constitution as “levying war against” the United States as well as giving “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy (Article III, Section 3).

The Framers wrote the Constitution and added the Second Amendment with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. The key Framers, after all, were mostly men of means with a huge stake in an orderly society, the likes of George Washington and James Madison.

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 weren’t precursors to France’s Robespierre or Russia’s Leon Trotsky, believers in perpetual revolutions. In fact, their work on the Constitution was influenced by the experience of Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786, a populist uprising that the weak federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, lacked an army to defeat. Daniel Shays, the leader of the revolt, was a former Continental Army captain who joined with other veterans and farmers to take up arms against the government for failing to address their economic grievances. The rebellion alarmed retired Gen. George Washington who received reports on the developments from old Revolutionary War associates in Massachusetts, such as Gen. Henry Knox and Gen. Benjamin Lincoln. Washington was particularly concerned that the disorder might serve the interests of the British, who had only recently accepted the existence of the United States.

On Oct. 22, 1786, in a letter seeking more information from a friend in Connecticut, Washington wrote:“I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.” In another letter on Nov. 7, 1786, Washington questioned Gen. Lincoln about the spreading unrest.“What is the cause of all these commotions? When and how will they end?” Lincoln responded:“Many of them appear to be absolutely so [mad] if an attempt to annihilate our present constitution and dissolve the present government can be considered as evidence of insanity.”

“If three years ago [at the end of the American Revolution] any person had told me that at this day, I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws & constitutions of our own making as now appears I should have thought him a bedlamite – a fit subject for a mad house,” Washington wrote to Knox on Feb. 3, 1787, adding that if the government “shrinks, or is unable to enforce its laws … anarchy & confusion must prevail.”

Your UN paranoia is telling. Your revisionist history is appalling. Your gun worship is disgusting. Your calling Newtown a "shooting at the petting zoo" is inhuman.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 min Rick in Kansas 265,152
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 min mike 605,024
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min Michael 559,514
The Global Elites Are Moving Things Underground 15 min Marty Fong 17
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 21 min Freebird USA 175,650
Restaurant Service - Condiments 23 min Springs1 1
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 27 min Jac 441,774
More from around the web