Monday, April 15, 2013
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Ban Swimming Pools!
No one should be allowed to possess a pool more than four feet deep. Assault pools endanger the lives of our children. Senseless deaths can be prevented by outlawing swimming pools. Think of the children and do whats right. No parent should have to go through this because some people want to cool off during the summer. The NPA is a sick organization that has a strangle hold on the politics of pool regulation. They profit from the deaths of children. You don't need a pool with that many gallons. If you want to swim, fill up your bath tube! If you need more water to do laps in then you don't need to be swimming in the first place! BAN POOLS NOW!
RE: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/14/children-pool-death/2083223/
RE: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/14/children-pool-death/2083223/
70 years of reckless and irresponsible social policies...
Why accept moral responsibility for 70 years of reckless and irresponsible social policies, which created the societal chaos, soulless monsters and lawlessness which America must defend itself against... when you can demonize an object and its accessories?
In the socialist utopia of the progressive psyche must rest a profound belief that the solution to every societal ill is always just another law away...as their social policies continue to enable the transformation of America's cities and towns into lawless, Third World ghetto's, and war zones.
Of course none of this seems to really matter, nor does it strain their "national conscience," much less THEIR Hollywood social media's wholesale marketing and exploitation of blood, guts, drugs, profanity and mayhem 24/7 (for $billions) into the home of every kid in America.
Why should they face the consequences of their societal madness, when they can all just set back and watch their cities burn?
In the socialist utopia of the progressive psyche must rest a profound belief that the solution to every societal ill is always just another law away...as their social policies continue to enable the transformation of America's cities and towns into lawless, Third World ghetto's, and war zones.
Of course none of this seems to really matter, nor does it strain their "national conscience," much less THEIR Hollywood social media's wholesale marketing and exploitation of blood, guts, drugs, profanity and mayhem 24/7 (for $billions) into the home of every kid in America.
Why should they face the consequences of their societal madness, when they can all just set back and watch their cities burn?
lightning jack
Oak Harbor, WA
359 comments
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Never Cease to be amazed...
exr1
6:24 AM CDT
I never cease to be amazed by the rather truculent, name calling commentary of posts I see; the subject touched, but the main interest is in debasing those who disagree ... it is the same for this issue on gun control. Those who oppose guns do not care about them, have no interest in them and just jump on the "bandwagon" as a matter of course. It has nothing to do with tragedy, tragedy is merely the excuse for supporting anti-gun laws. Name calling of gun supporters, owners, political affiliations, personal attacks are simply puerile; statements made by those with little ability to communicate rationally - including those of a scrofulous nature. I am a Korean vet, 78 years old and an independent voter; having at one time been a Democrat or Republican, I have seen very little to admire in either party: I see the Tea Party attempting to do something useful and being ridiculed, chastised, belittled and aspersed for their effort. Both sides in this issue can provide rationals for their position; however, those who oppose this issue do so from a position of personal or close tragedy, personal dislike or fear of guns, or merely to support their political party, affiliation, or organization. Gun control should not exist as an issue for Americas. We are a country born of the gun, and unenforceable laws only punish the innocent - prohibition has proved that fallacy. Gun owners just want their guns, those who do not, can always find a rationale to fight against them ... the whole thing, we should all be fighting for, whether you like guns or hate them, is support of the Second Amendment, one of our freedoms, one of the rights we have as Americans. We are seeing America, land of the free and home of the brave, being overrun by laws, regulations, rules - Americans being governed by the government ... what has happened to government by the people, for the people?
6:24 AM CDT
I never cease to be amazed by the rather truculent, name calling commentary of posts I see; the subject touched, but the main interest is in debasing those who disagree ... it is the same for this issue on gun control. Those who oppose guns do not care about them, have no interest in them and just jump on the "bandwagon" as a matter of course. It has nothing to do with tragedy, tragedy is merely the excuse for supporting anti-gun laws. Name calling of gun supporters, owners, political affiliations, personal attacks are simply puerile; statements made by those with little ability to communicate rationally - including those of a scrofulous nature. I am a Korean vet, 78 years old and an independent voter; having at one time been a Democrat or Republican, I have seen very little to admire in either party: I see the Tea Party attempting to do something useful and being ridiculed, chastised, belittled and aspersed for their effort. Both sides in this issue can provide rationals for their position; however, those who oppose this issue do so from a position of personal or close tragedy, personal dislike or fear of guns, or merely to support their political party, affiliation, or organization. Gun control should not exist as an issue for Americas. We are a country born of the gun, and unenforceable laws only punish the innocent - prohibition has proved that fallacy. Gun owners just want their guns, those who do not, can always find a rationale to fight against them ... the whole thing, we should all be fighting for, whether you like guns or hate them, is support of the Second Amendment, one of our freedoms, one of the rights we have as Americans. We are seeing America, land of the free and home of the brave, being overrun by laws, regulations, rules - Americans being governed by the government ... what has happened to government by the people, for the people?
The stark divide...
BillCollins wrote:
The stark divide is between individualism and collectivism. It is between those who value rights and those who react emotionally to horrible events such as Newtown. The individualists abhor violence but accept that with rights come danger. The collectivists believe that the safety of the collective is more important than the rights of the individual. The difficulty is balancing the preservation of the Consitution and legislating effective solutions. As long as there are means of killing and there are sociopathic people, tragedy will continue.
Limiting “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines (pick your bullet count) will do nothing to limit the overall murder rate as only a few percent of murders are committed with them. It will also do very little to deal with Newtown like events. Any handgun could have been used just as effectively as the AR15 was to kill defenseless children. The gun and the magazine are not key in an elementary school scenario. The killer only needs to take out the adults in the classroom, then stand by the door as he kills the children. Nobody escapes, Certainly there are scenarios where the killer can be stopped during reloading. as with Loughner. But not with little kids.
We need to start locking violent offenders up on the first offense and never let them out. We need to allow for disturbed people to be institutionalized while still having some safeguards for our rights. The tools to commit mayhem will always be with us. The criminals and the crazies can be removed much easier.
The stark divide is between individualism and collectivism. It is between those who value rights and those who react emotionally to horrible events such as Newtown. The individualists abhor violence but accept that with rights come danger. The collectivists believe that the safety of the collective is more important than the rights of the individual. The difficulty is balancing the preservation of the Consitution and legislating effective solutions. As long as there are means of killing and there are sociopathic people, tragedy will continue.
Limiting “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines (pick your bullet count) will do nothing to limit the overall murder rate as only a few percent of murders are committed with them. It will also do very little to deal with Newtown like events. Any handgun could have been used just as effectively as the AR15 was to kill defenseless children. The gun and the magazine are not key in an elementary school scenario. The killer only needs to take out the adults in the classroom, then stand by the door as he kills the children. Nobody escapes, Certainly there are scenarios where the killer can be stopped during reloading. as with Loughner. But not with little kids.
We need to start locking violent offenders up on the first offense and never let them out. We need to allow for disturbed people to be institutionalized while still having some safeguards for our rights. The tools to commit mayhem will always be with us. The criminals and the crazies can be removed much easier.
The battle...
usagadfly wrote:
The battle is between those who “remember” Newtown instead of Waco, Ruby Ridge and South Central LA.
In general, the pro-gun control states and their political majorities support the Government atrocities from the past 30 years while abhorring the ability of people in “red states” to resist Government no matter what they do. Interestingly, the states where the Government atrocities all occurred support gun rights while those who support a police state are responsible for committing those atrocities but have not suffered from them.
If the hand holding the gun obeys you, it is ok to kill. If it obeys someone else, it is not. This is a simple case of a double standard. Wear a uniform and it is ok to violate others right to life, right to trial and right to legal procedure. Those people would support the Syrian Government stripping the guns from the Syrian rebels, or ought to. Their only measure of right and wrong is authority.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
Sunday, April 7, 2013
brokenclock
brokenclock
Apr. 6, 13
6:34 PM
No Jim, there is no middle ground. Those of us who own and use guns don't trust the likes of you and your ilk. I've watched this debate rage for 40 years. It's always the same. Gun owners are portrayed as ignorant, toothless, inbred rednecks who don't have a clue. In fact, it is the anti-gunners who don't have a clue. Obama and Bloomberg still don't know the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon. Bloomberg's recent anti-gun ad shows a guy sitting on a tailgate with his shotgun on his lap, finger on the trigger and a child playing nearby. Nobody I know would do that. So when you gun haters say "I hunt" or "I own guns" or some other caveat, we don't believe you. Just like when you say "Nobody is going to take your guns." On the contrary, Feinstein and the rest have stated their intentions for the record in the past. All they have to work with is emotion, name calling and exploiting tragedies. Then they trot out their latest plan for "minor, common sense gun laws" which usually includes a ban on entire classes of weapons. In their little polyanna world, modern refined people don't need guns. There's not one talking point in the anti-gun arsenal that that has any basis in fact. Gun control works? Nope. Gun free zones are safer? Nope. Blood on the streets from concealed carry? Nope. More guns equals more crime? We better hope not, since Obama has sold 70 million of them in the last four years. That also lays waste to the strawman argument that 90% of the people support stronger gun laws. The anti-gun crowd - at all levels - has no credibility at all. Why should we compromise? In the public arena of facts and ideas, we're winning.
Apr. 6, 13
6:34 PM
No Jim, there is no middle ground. Those of us who own and use guns don't trust the likes of you and your ilk. I've watched this debate rage for 40 years. It's always the same. Gun owners are portrayed as ignorant, toothless, inbred rednecks who don't have a clue. In fact, it is the anti-gunners who don't have a clue. Obama and Bloomberg still don't know the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon. Bloomberg's recent anti-gun ad shows a guy sitting on a tailgate with his shotgun on his lap, finger on the trigger and a child playing nearby. Nobody I know would do that. So when you gun haters say "I hunt" or "I own guns" or some other caveat, we don't believe you. Just like when you say "Nobody is going to take your guns." On the contrary, Feinstein and the rest have stated their intentions for the record in the past. All they have to work with is emotion, name calling and exploiting tragedies. Then they trot out their latest plan for "minor, common sense gun laws" which usually includes a ban on entire classes of weapons. In their little polyanna world, modern refined people don't need guns. There's not one talking point in the anti-gun arsenal that that has any basis in fact. Gun control works? Nope. Gun free zones are safer? Nope. Blood on the streets from concealed carry? Nope. More guns equals more crime? We better hope not, since Obama has sold 70 million of them in the last four years. That also lays waste to the strawman argument that 90% of the people support stronger gun laws. The anti-gun crowd - at all levels - has no credibility at all. Why should we compromise? In the public arena of facts and ideas, we're winning.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)