StrangeSox

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 11:51 AM) wow. so what are they doing that we're not? It's a social and cultural issue. Canada has more guns per capita but less crime. Guns are not the cause, they are a tool. People are the cause. Banning guns doesn't address the root issues of the problems. Britain banned guns, so knife crime increased. Now they want to ban knives. If people still want to hurt each other, they'll find a way, and then they'll try to ban that.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Congress has not made any law respecting the establishment of religion. But the SCOTUS has prohibited the free exercise thereof. How so? How has the government impeded your personal ability to freely exercise your religion?

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 11:41 AM) i dont think thats true. the religious right, if they dont have a candidate to rally behind, just wont vote. If they have a candidate to rally AGAINST (Hillary), they will.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 11:38 AM) But why can't things like this be decided on the community level. If the community wants to have an invocation before a High School graduation, why should the fed be able to say no, that's not allowed? A pregame team prayer before a football game. Everyone wouldn't be forced to participate, if the chose not to. Bill of Rights, Amendment 1. The government simply has no place in religion, and religion has no place in the government.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) Actually thats not exactly true. People forget that one of the first and most tragic school shootings happened at.... The University of Texas. http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murd...an/index_1.html Whitman killed 14 people in less than 2 hours. I'm talking overall, not these major tragedy cases. Are gun crimes higher in places with CCW? I wouldn't trust a study from the Brady campaign any more than one from the NRA.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 11:16 AM) StrangeSox, the problem with your argument (although I agree with it as a growing libertarian) is that there is a point where that argument doesn't work anymore. It was written when the only way to deal with a greedy, corrupt government was by force. That, at least not in the US, isn't really the case. So, I think we have to figure out some way to measure the likelihood of needing guns against gov't vs. the safety of its constituents. We may be beyond that point. If you ask me, it goes back to education. Start early on the dangers of guns. The one thing about most hunters is that they are the probably the safest when it comes to guns. Because they know how to handle them. But gun laws and banning guns doesn't increase safety. In places like Texas, where there are open and concealed carry laws, are there higher gun crime rates? Crazy wild-west like shootings at the bars or malls? People supporting gun bans always say that more guns= more violence, but reality doesn't bear that out.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 11:12 AM) Correlation, maybe. Causation, I don't really buy it. Couldn't it have been the fear of living in the cold war? And the constant paranoia? Or the explosion of tv as a medium? Or the civil rights movement? I mean there are just so many confounding variables in that equation to definitely say X led to Y. There are thousands of events you can pick out from the 60's and say "see! that's why!"

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) It's not, and I don't think he's trying to say that. But, I do think that people should be able to express their religious beliefs (God, Allah, whatever) in school or whereever they are, and not be pigeonholed and forced to shut up due to "separation of church and state". And this is true if they are not forcing their beliefs on someone. That's where it crosses the line and should not be allowed to occur. Individuals are allowed to express whatever belief they want. I remember "prayer by the (flag) pole" at Lockport. I'm pretty sure a teacher even lead the group. But it was outside of class. It was mandatory, it wasn't forced, and it wasn't part of the official school day. If a student wants to say a prayer themselves, or carry a Bible, no one is stopping them. If you're a teacher, your job isn't to proselytize your students, so you shouldn't be including prayer as part of your cirriculum.

Sometimes, the constituency needs protection from the government. The government is not all-knowing or all-wise. It is often corrupt, stupid, incompetent, and greedy. The first step in confiscating every weapon is registering and tracking every weapon.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 11:02 AM) fine, it does nothing about the millions of guns out there but we should at least START with eliminating the source. and the war in Iraq costs what like 120 million a day? I think if we realign our priorities we could afford a government database and registry. The government database isn't a bad idea because of the money. It's a bad idea because the government has no business tracking every gun.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) good point. yeah i dunno. hey how bout this - require that all guns be made with grips that store your fingerprint so that you know who's used/registered to the gun. then people would think twice about committing a crime with it cuz they'd ID you in a heartbeat. i was kinda kidding at first but that'd be a pretty good idea... lol That technology does exist. Here's the problems with that being the solution: It would require a government database and registry of all guns. It does nothing about the millions of cheap guns already out there.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 10:52 AM) i don't know if anything could have been done about the shotgun, but as far as the handguns are concerned - thats where a law banning handguns would have been helpful. Marijuana is banned. It can still be obtained easier than Sudafed.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) Can the gun grabbers explain what gun law they want passed that would have prevented this from happening? Unless it has just come out, I don't think it is known how he got the gun yet. The idea is that we ban all guns and they all go away. Just like gambling, drugs, prostitution, etc.

New thread made for gun debate

Discuss. My view: Empirical evidence has shown, time and time again, that gun bans just do not work. It only serves to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, leading only the government and criminals armed (is there a difference?). Look at Chicago. Look at DC. Look at London. Gun bans simply do not work.

If we want a gun debate, let's start a separate thread.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 10:21 AM) It's not about God. Sometimes people who are brought up in insanely religious families go apesh*t as well. Personally, it's situations like this that make me wonder why so many people are against stricter firearm regulations. i fully support hunters rights, but why do we need handguns and automatic weapons? both were ONLY designed to kill PEOPLE. There is NO reason an average civilian should need or have either. Illinois already has the strictest gun laws in the nation, and yet this still happened. And wasn't the weapon a shotgun? Handguns are already restricted in Chicago. Does that stop handgun violence? No. Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 30's. There have been virtually zero crimes committed with legally owned ones since then (I think there was one case, and it was an cop who went off the deep end). Back on topic: People always find a way to blame something they don't like for a horrific situation. Whether it's TV, video games, rock music, or lack of God, some will use it as proof of their agenda. I don't think that's the case at all for the reason Soxy pointed out in her post -- there's much less religious countries than this one, but they don't have instances like this.

There is absolutely no way Hillary would accept a VP position. She wants the power and the title. I really doubt Obama would tie himself to Hillary like that, but it's at least slightly plausible.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 09:34 PM) Yessssssssss!!!! Still no failed test eat s*** Bonds haters.. Barry is the man!! Uh.....no, not quite. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3246675 It was a typo. They meant the Nov. 2000 test that we already knew he failed. Eat s***, Bonds lovers.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Feb 15, 2008 -> 01:43 AM) You're right poorly worded. IU did do something wrong, but they did not break any rules. They weren't participating in the rule violations. How "wrong" that something is is debatable. But this case is a little different. The NCAA found that Sampson "lied" and "misled" not only them, but also IU. Those statements lead me to believe that the NCAA is already viewing Sampson and Indiana University on different levels. What IU does in the coming weeks will go a long way in determining what the NCAA does. They still benefited from it, though.

"Yes We Can" the video: http://www.dipdive.com/

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 03:56 PM) She went into the store just looking. She knew she couldn't afford it. The salesperson showed her a way she could get a loan. He pointed out how she would be working soon and making all sorts of money. He sold her on her future then showed her how to lie on the application. When that wasn't enough, he went back and changed the contract she signed. Perhaps if she was told she would need $8,600 to qualify she would have stopped it there. Much of what he did was within the law, but when he told her how to commit fraud, she should have told him no. But by then, she was caught up in the excitement, she was about to be a Mercedes owner. She got owned. They took advantage of her. I really wish we would have had 100 posts blaming the scum bag who called himself a salesperson. But she didn't. That's the point and why she shares the blame. She is responsible for her own actions. It was a BMW, BTW.

WTF is wrong with people?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 03:50 PM) Well the sellers certainly get protection, so why should the buyers not? And secondly, the larger issue to me is that the sellers are proceeding illegally to make sales. That that is somehow considered "equal" here to a woman getting in over her head with an impulsive decision is fairly shocking to me... Here's why: she was also a willing participant in the fraud. She signed her name to a document that falsified her income. She was also proceeding illegally to get the car.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) Who thinks the sales person should be fired? Prosecuted? *Raises hand*