Connecticut Elementary School.

uh huh, sure I did. Originally Posted by GP

Yup, and apparently you're too ignorant to even realize it.

The best part is, the part of my post you quoted when doing it sort of gave you a heads up that obliterating your own argument would likely be the end result were you to try making the point you made. And you did it anyways.

Priceless! Absolutely priceless!

And then you try to wiggle your way out of it by claiming you were somehow being cute.

And then you try to wiggle your way out of it by claiming you were somehow being cute. Originally Posted by Doove

You're an unbelievably stupid man, aren't you?

Where did I try and wiggle out of anything?

Me thinks you have finally hit rock bottom.

Where did I try and wiggle out of anything? Originally Posted by GP

Oh, post #297. And post #313. And post #315.

Other than those three, you're right, you didn't try to wiggle out of anything.

Don't forget posts 27, 84 and 498.

im going on over two weeks for clearance to pick up my most recent purchase

so not sure how long is reasonable before you can actually take possession of something you are approved for and paid in full

Dove/GP ... Thanks for your contributions but we get it!

DD

THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his
strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New
England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require
them to pay a $500 YEARLY fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the
first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and
assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the
"militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the
individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'. He
believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the
Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as
well as criminals. Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people
have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and
those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be
required to "pay such equivalent.."

Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm
themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that
may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to
register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license
number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing
who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,"
Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least
restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows
a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted
in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the bastards."

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes
to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns to defend
themselves. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.
Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them
and this fee should go to paying for their defense! Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

Amherst NY is typically one of the 10 safest cities in the US, one of the nicest sections of Amherst butts right up against one of the worst parts of the city of Buffalo.Kinda blows your theory of gun laws and ownership impacting crime. Vermont has a population of a little over 600,000, Considerably less that the population of Erie or monroe counties.I beleive Burlington is the largest city with a population of less than 50,000. Did you consider That a low population density has more of an impact on Vermont's crime rate than gun ownership?
A google of murder rates by state reveals a map that looks alot like a map of the recent election. Southern states Have a higher than average murder rate. Less densely populated states like VT, ND, SD, and ID have considerably lower murder rates than the national average. WHAT A SURPRISE! As of 2009, NY's murder rate was 4 per 100,00 of population the lowest among the top 10 most populated states, quite impressive. A Look at violent crime rates shows SC,TN,NV,FLA, and LA leading the way.

NO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. What about the case where a gun owner shoots a loved one, the more likely scenario than a gun owner shooting a criminal, who would investigate that case? His next door neighbors? Doesn't the police arresting one criminal reduce a person's chance to confront that criminal in the future and thus a benefit to the gun owner? under the plan, that the gun owner would receive unpaid for benefits, subsidized by the non gun owners. Moreover, You seem to think it's a good idea to put the law of people who's only qualification is their ability to pass a gun ownership background check. BRILLIANT. Your ASSumption that high rates of gun ownership reduces crime is not borne out by the statistics. Of the top 5 states in violent crime, only one has a lower than average gun ownership rate. NY is one of the lowest gun ownership states yet has a little less than average violent crime rate. Please explain the lack of a correlation.

Today everywhere did the moment of silence and a lot of places did the 26 church bells. I literally live on the same block as a cathedral, I couldn't help but cry when they did the 26 bells this morning. It is overwhelming to think about the magnitude of this horrific tragedy.
Sick people are sick, if we restrict guns it wont do much but take them away from good people. They will move to bombs, poisoning, or god knows what else. Sadly if there is a will there is a way.
So sad

Making gun crime punishable by castration would certainly alleviate the problem. Seriously, I don't think it says anything in the constitution about bullets. Severely limiting access to ammunition would go a long way to alleviating our problems with gun violence. Since our conservative( idiot) friends like living in the fantasyland past so much, limit gun ownership to those weapons which were available when the constitution was written. Back then guns were so bad that in a duel, it was just as likely that that the participants would miss each other as it was that one would hit the other. Since this was the concept of guns that they had, we should apply the founding fathers right to bear arms in the light it was written in.

Amherst NY is typically one of the 10 safest cities in the US, one of the nicest sections of Amherst butts right up against one of the worst parts of the city of Buffalo.Kinda blows your theory of gun laws and ownership impacting crime. Vermont has a population of a little over 600,000, Considerably less that the population of Erie or monroe counties.I beleive Burlington is the largest city with a population of less than 50,000. Did you consider That a low population density has more of an impact on Vermont's crime rate than gun ownership?
A google of murder rates by state reveals a map that looks alot like a map of the recent election. Southern states Have a higher than average murder rate. Less densely populated states like VT, ND, SD, and ID have considerably lower murder rates than the national average. WHAT A SURPRISE! As of 2009, NY's murder rate was 4 per 100,00 of population the lowest among the top 10 most populated states, quite impressive. A Look at violent crime rates shows SC,TN,NV,FLA, and LA leading the way.

NO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. What about the case where a gun owner shoots a loved one, the more likely scenario than a gun owner shooting a criminal, who would investigate that case? His next door neighbors? Doesn't the police arresting one criminal reduce a person's chance to confront that criminal in the future and thus a benefit to the gun owner? under the plan, that the gun owner would receive unpaid for benefits, subsidized by the non gun owners. Moreover, You seem to think it's a good idea to put the law of people who's only qualification is their ability to pass a gun ownership background check. BRILLIANT. Your ASSumption that high rates of gun ownership reduces crime is not borne out by the statistics. Of the top 5 states in violent crime, only one has a lower than average gun ownership rate. NY is one of the lowest gun ownership states yet has a little less than average violent crime rate. Please explain the lack of a correlation. Originally Posted by drluv1

no that dos not surprise me at all.


no surprise at all

Making gun crime punishable by castration would certainly alleviate the problem. Seriously, I don't think it says anything in the constitution about bullets. Severely limiting access to ammunition would go a long way to alleviating our problems with gun violence. Since our conservative( idiot) friends like living in the fantasyland past so much, limit gun ownership to those weapons which were available when the constitution was written. Back then guns were so bad that in a duel, it was just as likely that that the participants would miss each other as it was that one would hit the other. Since this was the concept of guns that they had, we should apply the founding fathers right to bear arms in the light it was written in. Originally Posted by drluv1

mmmmm blaming another thing. If ya keep blaming things, you will never see the real problem.

Sound Politics: Most Felons Are Democrats

soundpolitics.com/archives/004473.html
May 23, 2005 – That most felons are Democrats is not a secret — but it does seem to be a ... must have voted for Republican Dino Rossi than for Democrat Christine Gregoire. ... they will miss those who committed their crimes in another state.

The majority of criminals do not vote, but the ones that do are more likely to vote Democrat because of their policies that coddle criminal behavior. Republicans are more likely to favor policies that focus on the punishment of criminals like the death penalty and harsher sentences. Democrats tend to favor policies such as granting felons the right to vote, and social programs that invest resources in the "rehabilitation" of criminals. People vote out of self-interest. Criminals are no different.
from:http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...post1052088551

Sound Politics: Most Felons Are Democrats

soundpolitics.com/archives/004473.html
May 23, 2005 – That most felons are Democrats is not a secret — but it does seem to be a ... must have voted for Republican Dino Rossi than for Democrat Christine Gregoire. ... they will miss those who committed their crimes in another state.

The majority of criminals do not vote, but the ones that do are more likely to vote Democrat because of their policies that coddle criminal behavior. Republicans are more likely to favor policies that focus on the punishment of criminals like the death penalty and harsher sentences. Democrats tend to favor policies such as granting felons the right to vote, and social programs that invest resources in the "rehabilitation" of criminals. People vote out of self-interest. Criminals are no different.
from:http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...post1052088551 Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

You called that one right!

1. Chris Rock on voting - YouTube
   
   ► 1:01► 1:01
   
   www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOvPBfMzKjE
   Oct 12, 2008 - Uploaded by vabeachkevin
   Chris makes a great point when he talks about people who just jump on board with a candidate without taking .
   

I agree with him on this clip

Sound Politics: Most Felons Are Democrats

soundpolitics.com/archives/004473.html
May 23, 2005 – That most felons are Democrats is not a secret — but it does seem to be a ... must have voted for Republican Dino Rossi than for Democrat Christine Gregoire. ... they will miss those who committed their crimes in another state.

The majority of criminals do not vote, but the ones that do are more likely to vote Democrat because of their policies that coddle criminal behavior. Republicans are more likely to favor policies that focus on the punishment of criminals like the death penalty and harsher sentences. Democrats tend to favor policies such as granting felons the right to vote, and social programs that invest resources in the "rehabilitation" of criminals. People vote out of self-interest. Criminals are no different.
from:http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...post1052088551 Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

If most felons don't vote, how would one deduce than more of them are democrat. Most violent felons are probably anarchists or something. As usual the republicans focus on stuff that doesn't work,the death penalty and harsher sentences. For most felons rehabilitation is more cost effective and humane.