Comments
553,041 - 553,060 of 732,690 Comments Last updated 11 min ago

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582628
Jan 4, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't people get drunk on your construction supply sakes?
Damn you Catcher.....

For the sake of Pete!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582629
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
It didn't sole the problem in England.
Actually it is. And you can save your wiki links. My information is straight from government figures.
Because criminals will have guns no matter the law. They don't follow the law to begin with.
Not true. Japan is a perfect example of this. You just need to flush them all out. Even the Japanese mafia doesn't use guns. Imagine that..

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582630
Jan 4, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's state-by-state, but generally the charges are not so limited. Earlier, I set out the California law, and the response was, "What's your point?" It's a complex scenario, and I'm not going to get into it with this RU BS guy or others like him (I would with Buck though!!).
On another subject. We know about a herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, even a pride of lions. But are you familiar with these?
A congress of baboons
A parliament of owls
An exaltation of doves
A murder of crows
Que te parece?
'twas a flick

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Murder_of_Crows_ (film)

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582631
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why do you think that because a gun can be used to kill then its only purpose is to kill?
I don't care if it's the "only" purpose redneck.

I only care that it's the MAIN purpose.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582632
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Where's the problem? I am for limited government, with enumerated and guaranteed individual rights, the rule of law, democratic processes like elections, divided government, and transparent government.
But the remaining functions should be as large as they need to be to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, etc..
<quoted text>
How about prisons? Do you think that they should be privatized? If so, why?
How about insurance? Are we better off with a government version of every kind of insurance offered - say life, fire, auto, health. liability, earthquake, and disability - or without those options? If not,why?
The problem is that you said you were for limited Government but then you went on to say that the Government needs to provide all these services which is an expansion of Government.
Prisons in some locals are already privitized and they are much more efficient than the government run ones so yes by all means privatize the prison system.
Insurans is a private industry and should stay that way. The Federal governemnt mandating it is asinine. It will cost more than private and give not near the level of service. Look to England where there is up to a tear wait for some surgeries that are not deemed life threatening, Look to Canada and watch all the people that have private insurance or money coming to the US for treatment. I have friends in Toronto and Quebec that get all their care in the US. The only thing they get from Canada is their drugs.
The insurance industry can be run better by private industry as long as the Feds get the hell out of the way. that means end the BS territorial rules that prevent companies from selling accross State lines open it up to competition. Put some tort reform in r=that will limit or end these BS Law Suites that are brought and the outlandish amounts awarded.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582633
Jan 4, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's state-by-state, but generally the charges are not so limited. Earlier, I set out the California law, and the response was, "What's your point?" It's a complex scenario, and I'm not going to get into it with this RU BS guy or others like him (I would with Buck though!!).
On another subject. We know about a herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, even a pride of lions. But are you familiar with these?
A congress of baboons
A parliament of owls
An exaltation of doves
A murder of crows
Que te parece?
The answer wa so what because there is a federal law in place and that is what was addressed as I told you but you managed to forget that.
So please stick to your word and don't get into a discusion about it.

Since: Feb 12

Kaiserslautern, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582634
Jan 4, 2013
 
It is working in England?
"New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.

The Government’s latest crime figures were condemned as “truly terrible” by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993."

Doesn't seem to be working real good to me.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582635
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
Really again it doesn't matter except if your hypothesis were true
It's not a hypothesis. It's a proposed definition. I am saying that the fetus parasitizes the woman, meaning that it absorbs maternal nutrients without helping the mother in return, and that that makes it a parasite.

Others want to say that the definition should include that there be two species, or be an invasion, or be pathological, or whatever else has been offered to disqualify the fetus as a parasite.

I don't see the need to discuss it further. A fetus is what it is. I call that a parasite whether welcome or not. It isn't important that we all agree or not, because there are no implications for the fetus either way. It will be carried or aborted independent of anybody's definition.

Some of the people that agree that a fetus can be called a parasite will cherish it nevertheless and anxiously anticipate its birth. Others who agree with you that a fetus should not be considered a parasite will abort it anyway.
Aura Mytha wrote:
then all placental mammals are a form of parasite.
Are or were. The adults ones usually are not parasites.
Aura Mytha wrote:
That would change all of biology in fact there would be no mammals no eutherian just more on this list.
http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/az/index.html
It would change nothing except nomenclature to agree to call mammalian fetuses "parasites." No new knowledge is involved. No eutherian mammals would cease being eutherian mammals.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582636
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. She said that guns were made for killing. Somebody said the Chinese invented them to kill armored warriors. They have now found their way into other arenas where killing is popular - hunting and murder, for example. Why? Because they can kill, which is why most gun owners have them as well.
Sure, you can use them in other ways besides killing. You can rob a bank. But they only work because they can kill.
Or, you can maintain the peace like a sheriff or cop. But they only work because they can kill.
Even at shooting ranges, where people learn to hit their intended targets better, that target is often a man shaped silhouette with a target on the chest. Here's one in a hoodie:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/u...
So what are guns for?
Because the earliest recorded use can be pointed at doesn't mean that was it reason for invention. In America firearms were made to hunt and protect oneself from wolves and savages.
These are still valid concepts and protected by the people.
Plus we have other valid use these days , sporting and recreation.
It isn't the right to do these things fault for mentally ill going beyond this right.

WE The People gave this right to us , YOU cannot take it away.
We The People will preserve this right, Trust me I do not stand or think this way alone. We don't care how you feel about it because it is beyond contestation.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582637
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
Like I said, bitter and unlikeable.
nanoanomaly wrote:
You misspelled "unlikable", you nitwit.
Is that right? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlikeable

Perhaps you are confusing it with "unlickable," like stale salmon.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582638
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care if it's the "only" purpose redneck.
I only care that it's the MAIN purpose.
I've never killed anything with my guns. I must be using them wrong.....

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582639
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. The guns had been legally purchased by Adam Lanza's mother.
You can argue that HE stole them all you like- they were legally purchased and legally registered weapons.
His mother was wrong to allow Adam to be able to access her guns without her permission, but you are no less wrong in allowing YOUR kids to have access to YOUR guns.
Who said she gave them to him, looks to me like he killed her to get them.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582640
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You'll notice the freak calls me a "proven liar" yet can't show the "proof" of that claim.
I doubt anybody cares whether your comments are true or lies. Those that aren't invective are trivial and superficial.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582641
Jan 4, 2013
 
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
When you were young, vulnerable, and emotional, did you entertain the idea that you were attracted to people of your own sex?
BTW, "the same sexual attraction can be exercised towards in-animate objects as well!" WTF? Come on waaas, you can't be that clueless about human relationships, can you?
hi - regarding temptations/attractions; lets just say that "no temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man" 1 cor 10:13

the rest of the verse/thought says - "but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it". the difference here being that some call on God for help while others refuse to & just give in.

btw - are you suggesting that people don't have weird fetishes/attratction to inanimate objects???

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582642
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
every person has the right to medical procedure.
You have no say in the procedures I elect.
Go fck yourself. You aren't performing your mad scientist sht on me!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582643
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Mylan wrote:
Actually it is. And you can save your wiki links. My information is straight from government figures.
UK police are still getting shot. 20% of them want to carry guns but can't.

Real nice cavalry England's got....
Not true. Japan is a perfect example of this. You just need to flush them all out. Even the Japanese mafia doesn't use guns. Imagine that..
What?! HAHAHA! You're an idiot.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582644
Jan 4, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's state-by-state, but generally the charges are not so limited. Earlier, I set out the California law, and the response was, "What's your point?" It's a complex scenario, and I'm not going to get into it with this RU BS guy or others like him (I would with Buck though!!).
On another subject. We know about a herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, even a pride of lions. But are you familiar with these?
A congress of baboons
A parliament of owls
An exaltation of doves
A murder of crows
Que te parece?
Entertaining list of collective nouns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collecti...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582645
Jan 4, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Entertaining list of collective nouns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collecti...
Nice.

I wonder if the asses drove to the bats cloud....

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582646
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lil Ticked wrote:
What are the odds of getting shot by an "accidental discharge" of a firearm if it only occurs on average of 851 times in a year?
I don't know. Why? Were we discussing that?
Lil Ticked wrote:
The same can be said for the 8,583 total firearm homicides.
Why are you looking only at select categories? We need to be looking at total gun deaths per capita in homes with guns and comparing it to the same measurement in homes without guns. That is the excess carnage caused to the residents of those homes by the guns in those homes. Then, add to that the carnage caused by guns stolen from those homes. That is the cost of having such a heavily armed citizenry.
Lil Ticked wrote:
As for the 19,766 Intentional self-harm (suicides) by discharge of firearms, it was their choice.
Yes, I understand what suicide means.
Lil Ticked wrote:
If not a gun it would have been something else.
You don't know that. Many of those suicides may have been impetuous, and occurred during an hour of weakness. Even so, suicides are not my biggest concern here.
Lil Ticked wrote:
Why would I support you? Don't you have a job?
No, I don't. I'm chronically unemployed and have been for years.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#582647
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

UR BS wrote:
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences,
Thank you for making the case that GUNS are the problem.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min June VanDerMark 538,769
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 11 min bacon hater 94,632
Appjoy invite code 11 min Im Rk9 43
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 16 min Chosen Holy Dr Sh... 599,771
Last Word + 2 20 min Hannah V 488
Red's Roadside Pub (Jun '10) 36 min Ed Teach 912
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 38 min JudgeNJury 257,831
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr Chris Clearwater 173,271
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••