hilowe

Well, most of those middle eastern countries only have money because of oil. Take away the oil, and they don't really have much power.

XXIII

XXI

I was given this information from a friend who was a police officer for more than 20 years. He also worked for the US government, but I don't know what he did for them. OK, thanks. Like I said, I've heard that repeated so often, everyone believes it's true. When people start throwing out statistics, I try to look at the source. I've seen too many times (especially when it comes to pro/anti gun talks), people make the numbers lie in their favor (by either counting something they probably shouldn't or not counting something they probably should).

XVIII

To keep the conversation civil, I'm not going to respond with the first thing that went through my head when I read these statements. Unfortunately, even if people are willing and able to protect others (the sheepdog concept some talk about), they still have to be present to actually do anything. This was a night club, and could potentially have been a place where it was written into the law that concealed carry isn't allowed (I don't know Florida law, but in Nebraska, if a location gets more than 50% of it's revenue from alcohol, concealed carry is illegal. Bars and night clubs fall in that for me). Finally looked it up. Florida law states that you can't conceal carry to any place that serves alcohol. Found it here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html 12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into: 12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; So, by state law, no law abiding citizen could "openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm" in this place. Again, laws only affect the law abiding. Those that want to do harm don't care how many laws they break.

I just caught there are more IRONers in BK. I'm on a hunt to find IRON members over there. I have you in BK. Blade and ME in.Syndicate. Shadow in the East India Trading Company. Warrior, Doom, Ferm, Rhizo, and myself in NPO. Haven't found anyone else yet. /me whistles quietly in a corner....

XII

X

VIII

V

No the gun debate has evolved. Ronald Reagan supported gun control and said he thought guns should be used for hunting. Since then the NRA has gotten so powerful that just the mention of making it harder for people who are on the FBI watch list to get guns raises screams about government over reach. it is absurd. That is not the same old argument. That is a well organized, well funded propaganda machine. This was a hate crime and an act of terrorism. This is a man who committed domestic abuse and was on the FBI watch list, and his easily obtained assault weapons made the death of 50 human beings possible. Other countries, which have reasonable gun control laws don't have this kind of gun violence to this degree, maybe they're doing something we should be doing. Just looking out at what is working in the real world vs what gun lobbyists are selling to certain naive Americans. The cause of terrorism is hate, xenophobia, despair, and various mental illnesses. Would ISIL exist if we hadn't overthrown a government that was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Maybe, maybe not. The whole area is crazy and several countries located outside the region have been trying to manipulate things for years with mixed results. I don't know the solution, but I do know that hate begets hate so maybe we should seriously consider that. I don't understand all the machinations and manipulations that have been going on for decades, but as long as they continue, things are unlikely to improve. Then again, much of this crap has been going on since biblical times. It's not about laws, rather it's about the government not implementing them or making sure that the laws which enable citizens to buy firearms are mentally stable.. I sincerely hope the next govt. to come shall have better administration and regulation of laws. I'm not dismissing the fact that countries which have gun control laws which disable citizens from acquiring arms are more successful, but I don't think anyone would appreciate their constitution being impeached.. Here, this is what the 2nd amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ..Key phrase being "Well regulated"... and that is most certainly not the case here. But that is irrelevant. As the constitution is worded: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Is extremely clear. There is no requirement in that for a well regulated militia. Not at all. As it's worded, the people should be allowed nuclear arms and tanks. How is being well regulated irrelevant? It very clearly says that "a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state"... nowhere does it say that a militia can exist without any rules and regulations they have to follow... for a militia to be necessary for the protection of the state, it has to be well regulated.. Anyways, when you talk about nuclear arms and tanks, please note that when the amendment was added, there were NO nuclear weapons and tanks. Further more, there is a legal definition of 'arms'. 'Bearing an arm' means carrying an arm; i.e. a weapon you can hold in one or two hands e.g. rifles, pistols etc. Tanks and nuclear weapons are NOT included in 'arms'...... It's irrelevant to the law. The "well regulated militia" is not a requirement. Just read it and consider how it's worded. The important part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's it. There is no requirement in there. And although the document was written long before modern weaponry, it's still the law and that's how it's worded. "Arms" is also short for "armaments", which refers to any weapon and the term as used in the constitution specifically refers to military arms. Just to back this up a little bit, Supreme Courts Heller decision (this is only a portion): The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” To keep the conversation civil, I'm not going to respond with the first thing that went through my head when I read these statements. Unfortunately, even if people are willing and able to protect others (the sheepdog concept some talk about), they still have to be present to actually do anything. This was a night club, and could potentially have been a place where it was written into the law that concealed carry isn't allowed (I don't know Florida law, but in Nebraska, if a location gets more than 50% of it's revenue from alcohol, concealed carry is illegal. Bars and night clubs fall in that for me). As for the statement about conservatives not caring, not all gun owners are conservative. I lean more libertarian (you do what you want, so long as it doesn't harm me), and I am deeply saddened by this. I've heard this statistic thrown out so many times, but I've never seen the study that actually found this. Do you have a reference for it?

XXIV

Two-der

Tres....

II Which movie? Not familiar to me.

Why? He should learn it. 1

Haven't said he isn't. I distrust him very much. Only thing is, I hate Hilary. If you put a gun to my head, and said I had to choose Hilary or Trump, I would choose Trump. Thankfully, I don't have to, because as I've said elsewhere on these boards, I will probably be voting for a third party candidate (like Gary Johnson, if he won the Libertarian nomination, haven't looked in a couple of weeks).

DOS

Couldn't have said it better. QFT... I'm with you 100% on this KH. Thank you for sharing. If it were one of my girls, they would never find him. A guy recently came home to find his wife raped and beat up... he promptly went to see the dude and beat him to death with a tire iron... they let him go free because there was not a jury that would convict him. If we want justice, sometimes it's up to us. I heard the story slightly different. Dude tried to rape her (from what I heard, didn't succeed, thankfully), as the husband was coming home from his job as a taxi driver. She was able to call the husband, he grabbed his tire iron. Met the guy in the hallway with his wife pointing him out saying that's the guy. Proceeded to beat the ever loving $#!t out of the would be raper. Unfortunately, this was New York, and he is being charged with manslaughter. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-beats-wifes-alleged-attacker-to-death-police-say/ Reading that news article, makes me wonder if what I heard was slightly embellished (general gist is the same, but more "facts" in what I remember hearing). You got it right of course... I didn't want to derail the thread with another story, so I kept it short. Honestly, the only reason I replied was the last sentence you had. They've charged the dude with manslaughter. Granted, it's not a murder charge, but some POS (let you all fill in the appropriate acronym) attacks his wife, he defends her, and now he has to hire an attorney.

XVII

Couldn't have said it better. QFT... I'm with you 100% on this KH. Thank you for sharing. If it were one of my girls, they would never find him. A guy recently came home to find his wife raped and beat up... he promptly went to see the dude and beat him to death with a tire iron... they let him go free because there was not a jury that would convict him. If we want justice, sometimes it's up to us. I heard the story slightly different. Dude tried to rape her (from what I heard, didn't succeed, thankfully), as the husband was coming home from his job as a taxi driver. She was able to call the husband, he grabbed his tire iron. Met the guy in the hallway with his wife pointing him out saying that's the guy. Proceeded to beat the ever loving $#!t out of the would be raper. Unfortunately, this was New York, and he is being charged with manslaughter. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-beats-wifes-alleged-attacker-to-death-police-say/ Reading that news article, makes me wonder if what I heard was slightly embellished (general gist is the same, but more "facts" in what I remember hearing).

OK, I kind of feel the need to respond to this one. Hilary has been very careful with her wording on this, saying marked confidential. The problem with this is, emails with classified info aren't marked confidential, they're marked with the security level they have to be protected at. Confidential isn't a security level. The other thing I know is, if it was me in this situation, my rear end would already be at Leavenworth, and I would have been introduced to a new "friend" (and not in a nice way). Edited for grammar I saw after posting.

Couldn't have said it better.

XV