HereComesTheReignAgain
-
Posts
3,405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HereComesTheReignAgain
-
-
I remember hearing about some very rural towns in the midwest requiring all residents without a criminal background to have a gun in the house. If you did not want to keep a gun on hand, you needed to file a request with the town. Can you imagine a better way to convince a criminal to move out of your town or skip it all together!
-
If the current laws are not being enforced, what good will it do to make additional laws?
Gun laws do not go after the root cause of the problem, so it is nothing more than a Band-Aid for the issue. Just look at the "assault weapons" ban. The advocates of lower magazine size and reduction in the sales of "assault weapons" claimed that this law was needed because of:
1) The number of people killed per incident
2) This was the "weapon of choice" for the criminals
3) Blah...blah...blah
After it was put in place, statistics showed no difference in the areas used to sell the ban.
The "assault rifle" ban is a mess of insignificant restrictions. After purchasing my post ban AR-15, I was not allowed to put a collapsable stock so I simply bought a standard stock, no less lethal. I could not buy NEW magazines that held more than 10 rounds, so I bought some military surplus $15 30 round magazines, still no less lethal. I can not mount a bayonette on my rifle so no more stabbing sprees I guess, possibly less lethal. I guess these restrictions make the uninformed feel safer without actually accomplishing any real reduction in crime, so it fits the mold of most recent gun control laws.
I don't know about crimes in your town, but most shootings I hear about in rochester involve cheap, small caliber guns that can be tossed away after the shooting. Not many street hoods carry thousand dollar guns!
-
Politicians and non-politicians are two different things. I agree with you that politicans will go overboard, and outlawing guns won't do anything. At the same time I do feel that there is a need for increased gun control.
My feeling is that we should have stricter controls over tracking guns. Make it easier to identify and prosecute people who misuse them. I also do think that technology will allow us to individualize them: perhaps biometrically, perhaps some other way. If you aren't the person who owns the gun, then you can't fire it. This is going to take generations to do, but I believe its the future of realistic gun control
One of the main problems is that anytime a gun control law goes into effect, its going to take generations before the full effect is felt for safety purposes, and its never going to be 100%.
Think of the whole freon ban, and how some people are still using it decades later, and you can still buy it if you talk to the right people. However the supply IS getting smaller, but the effects take decades to be felt. I think that gun control would take much, much longer, but the same ripple effect would be felt.
I suppose if they could invent a safety device that in no way reduces the reliability of a gun, you might see some acceptance. As I said before, some of the most popular gun designs and calibers are decades old simply because the fire when you pull the trigger virtually every time. I would never trust a computer chip and battery to recognize me before my gun could fire. Gloves, hand injury, blood, could all render your gun useless.
As far as tracking guns, the current systems do not work well at all. The balistic fingerprint program has been a huge waste of money. We have a system in Rochester that is supposed to track gunfire and notify the police of the location and type of gun used. So far it too is a failure. Hopefully they get the bugs worked out because it seems like a good idea if it works. The key to any "gun control" law is restricting the bad guys from getting guns without restricting the good guys. Not an easy proposition. Until they figure this out, the more good guys firing back at the bad guys, the better.
-
You cannot take away all the guns in existence in the U.S. even if you passed a law prohibiting gun ownership. Britian tried to eliminate gun ownership in America long ago and it didn't work out too well. Unless you can assure me that no criminal will ever get their hands on a gun, you cannot take away my right to protect myself against that criminal. That includes pricing guns out of the market with idiotic requirements like "smart bullets".
One other point on the new bullet technology. If it is too expensive to practice markmanship and shooting skills, how many more misses and mistakes will this "improvement" cause. You cannot just pick up a handgun and hit everything you aim at without practice and training. I spend a lot of time at the range improving my skills unlike the common street thug who hits every bystander within 50 feet.
-
Keep telling yourself that! Criminals are not allowed to own guns or use them when committing crimes. Surprisingly, the criminals often don't obey that law. How does limiting/prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning a gun make anyone safer? (other than criminals). Enforce the current laws, and there is no reason to create more restrictions and bans. I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates that are opposed to harsher penalties for crimes involving guns. (again, other than criminals).
Just look at D.C., Chicago, NY City., or San Francisco as an example of what the "gun control" politicians would like. They have banned virtually all handgun ownership. Try concealing a shotgun when walking home down a dark street!
Gun control means hitting what you are aiming at right?
-
This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have seen in a while! There is a reason low tech revolvers and calibers haven't changed for years....They work when you pull the trigger. The most popular current style of handgun was created in the early 1900's with few changes since then. Your car is much more likely to kill an innocent person than my guns. Thank god I have enough rounds to take out a few hundred bad guys in case the gun control crowd gets their way. Can you say grandfather policy. I don't understand the concept of total dependence on a stranger for safety and protection. Anyone who suppports this idea should be forced to put a sign on their house and car declaring that they do not own any evil old guns. Can you imagine the outcry if anti-gun advocates had to give up the security they enjoy because criminals do not know who owns guns and who is defenseless. Put your money where your mouth is and let the world know that you will not be able to fight back when confronted with a knife, bat, gun, etc. Hypocrisy runs deep with this issue. Chucky Shumer has a carry permit and carries a gun to all his events yet fights to take away your right to protect yourself. He is evidently more important that you and your family. Hillary Clinton enjoys armed protection at all times and has secret service living on her property (tax payer funded of course) yet is one of the countries biggest anti-gun advocates.
-
Damn right it fits my agenda to slam a paper that consistently endangers Americans by printing stories detailing U.S. efforts to stop terrorism. I'm sure those other papers are garbage too. Most media has hit rock bottom. By the way, Republicans and Democrats both knew about this program and approved it. This should not be a partisan issue, all Americans should support legal efforts to stop our enemies from attacking us. But hey, if you would rather turn the Times into a victim of the mean Bush Administration, go ahead.
-
The Times cares more about it's liberal agenda than the lives and well being of Americans. It is an act of treason to leak this classified information and the person who leaked should face the death penalty...no matter what party they belong to. It is unfortunate that the likely victims of the next terrorist attack will be good Americans and not the staff of the Times. It would be great irony if the Times building was blown up by a terrorist that was being tracked by phone or bank records until the Times articles tipped them off. The again why would they bomb their allies.
-
4,000,000 women a year are assaulted by their partners. And that's the number of women being abused, not the number of times they're collectively abused.
Think about that. Four million women. Every year.
I spent a number of years sitting on a board of directors at a shelter for battered women, and the reality is, most women who are beaten got that way for a reason
I thought this was going in an odd direction for a minute there!
-
-
Lost on many of you who are so vocal on this topic is the fact that not all of the undocumented workers are "mexican".
Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform
Here's a transcript from an interview with an Irish immigration counselor in Boston from 2001.
Some 40 Million Americans Claim Irish Heritage
Many of these undocumented workers have become law-abiding, productive members of society, a fact that is not lost on the Irish living in and around Boston.
The Boston Irish Reporter: Time to Stand Up And Be Counted
Here's more from IrishAbroad.com, covering the immigration rally in NYC. They zero in on one of the "anchor babies" I see villified in this forum every time this comes up.
More from an Irish blog (Irish Voices).
Scrolling down to another entry from the same blog should hit particularly close to some of you from Buffalo:
The attempt by many to describe this as a "mexican invasion" couldn't be further from the truth. There are undocumented, productive, law-abiding workers from almost every country in the world here. I'd love to see the reaction in this country, and this forum for that matter, if all of a sudden 50,000 undocumented Irish workers and their "anchor babies" were rounded up, handcuffed, and deported.
I must have missed all the Irish flags in the crowd. I can understand and sympathize with some of the Illegal immigrants that come to this country for a better life. That does not mean we can allow uncontrolled immigration. Our country could not economically support the huge flow of immigrants that would love to come here. What ends any sympathy and understanding is the utterly outrageous nerve of somebody who is not a citizen of this country to demand changes in U.S. law. Again not all illegal immigrants feel it is their right to be here, some just appreciate the fact that they are here and understand that if they are caught or commit another crime, they will be sent back.
By the way, how is an illegal immigrant a law abiding person?
-
I'm sure those "other people" fought for their land and lost. You may not win the battle, but at least have the courage to defend your country or land. If they did not fight to protect their land, they deserved to lose it. I feel that America is worth fighting for, perhaps you do not. If you think this is simply an issue of peacefull peasants working in the fields, take a look at the millions of illegals protesting in the streets demanding that we change our laws to accomodate them. The majority of the flags at the protests were not American, they were Mexican. Millions of foreign citizens making demands to the American government while planting their flag....sounds innocent enough to me.
-
My yard is fenced to keep my dog from trespassing on my neighbors' property and peeing on their shrubs. I am a good neighbor.
If an evildoer wants to open my gate, there's no lock. And there are plenty of evildoers around here. Read the paper and see the kind of crimes that take place in "safe" areas. A fence means nothing to someone who's determined.
I live in the home of the brave, not Chickenland where we're afraid to stand up, fight and die for our freedom. Building fences won't stop them. Mending fences might.
By the way, we are about to host Tent City in our town again. That's a moving encampment of homeless folks. Would I take one into my house? Probably not, any more than I'd take any stranger unless it was on word of a mutual friend, but I will certainly welcome them back and not be afraid of them. And there still won't be a lock on my fence.
By the way my mom got public assistance for awhile when she was left with 5 kids and no job, or appreciable job skills. I've known times of want when I had nothing but a can of peaches in my pantry. I've worked hard and enjoy the benefits of my hard work. The difference between me and many like me is that I know there's a fine line between "us" and "them" and I learned that sharing is a blessed thing...
What is your address, I'd love to come over with a bunch of my friends and hang out in your yard. I'll assume this is ok with you since you have no problem with people illegally crossing the border on other peoples property. If you try to make me leave I can just sue you for harrassment just like many of the illegals are doing to the evil land owners on the border. I'll probably place some water tanks in your yard too so nobody gets thirsty while trespassing.
-
-
-
i would like to know if any of these guys who are so hyper-critical of a Bill missing OTA's, would do the same if say the following scenario happened where they work:
Boss sets up VOLUNTARY workshops on SATURDAYS for those in the company that wish to hone their skills and, in turn, help the company reach a fiscal goal later on.
So here we have Steve; a steady employee who has quite a talent and a steady position wih the company. He's very experienced at what he does although there are a few young upstarts who would love to have his job. But Steve is confident enough in his abilities and feels he can, when it matters most, work circles around these guys. He's a valuable commodity, and even if he does get demoted or leap-fogged by someone else, he has the luxury of knowing that several other established companies would snap him up in a minute and pay him his current or better wage.
He doesn't want to go to the saturday workshops, because that's when he and his buds go Harley riding or fishing.
To the outsider, this may seem trivial and they can't see how he could take that chance. But to him, he knows it's not a bad risk....after all, it's not mandatory he be there, he loves his time off, and he could always land a job elsewhere if his current employer is going to axe him for reasons they said would not be held against him.
This happens all the time in the real world. The NFL is a business too, with real people working in it.
If Steve has one of the most desirable jobs on the planet and is paid a kings ransom, than he damn well better show up for the voluntary sessions or someone else will and take his great job. I don't know what you do for a living, but people in my company go the extra mile if they want to be the best and make the most. If you choose to do only the required things, you will not be looked up to as a leader and will not get promoted. Nobody is saying you have to show up for voluntary stuff, just don't expect to be a leader or respected as much as the workers who do show up.
-
and because they miss VOLUNTARY OTA's they are showing no appreciation? If they miss MANDATORY practices without good reason, then I might say the same thing.
and you'll continue watching them, paying to see them, being an NFL football fan...
I hardly see how some players missing OTA's is going to keep you from being excited enough to continue being a fan. You may not like Willis and Troy's actions, but you'll still support them with your dollars like it or not.
It is not even so much that he missed OTAs. He should know that saying things that come across as complaining will alienate some of the fans. He is supposed to be an intelligent guy, start acting like one. I think we all need to tone down what we say about our jobs at some point to avoid pissing off the customers or owners. I will still buy my season tickets and cheer like crazy for the team, but not for vincent. His jersey will not be on my Christmas list. And don't tell me I don't even know they guy, I know enough to dislike him based on his statements and actions.
-
Gee thanks for explaining that people don't want to watch the average guy play football. Nowhere in my post did I say I could play at a professional level. If you are lucky enough to have the physical skills to make more in a year than your fans do in 15 years, I would probably appreciate it and avoid sounding like I am somehow overworked.
-
Last I knew, playing football was voluntary. I would guarentee 95% of the men in this counrty would gladly go through what football players do in exchange for a million dollars. I for one will not feel sympathy for Troy having to work almost year round now!
-
-
Tip Sheet
Tailback Willis McGahee remains the lone Buffalo player to have attended none of the Bills' voluntary offseason sessions and his absence is becoming irksome to coaches and a few teammates
The last word: "You have coaches and players that, with all the OTAs (organized team activities), there is no longer an offseason. Coaches want rest, too. How many camps do you need? We have passing camps, running camps, fumbling camps … start naming them. We all need rest and time away from the game, so that when you come back, you're here and totally committed to the season." -- Buffalo Bills safety and NFL Players Association president Troy Vincent, on the ever-shrinking offseason
Really Troy...I'm still waiting for my offseason. Oh that's right I have to work year round so I can afford to go see idiots like you complain about too little time off! Does anyone else hate Troy Vincent? This guy seems to get a free pass because somebody started the rumor that he is a really great guy. He complains about having to work to much and injures young players to prove a point.
-
-
Lawyers are the good samaritans worst enemy. It is nice to see Florida and Jeb Bush passing laws protecting the good citizens who are willing to stand up to criminals. You don't have to turn your back and run from a gun wielding thug, you can draw and fire. New york would rather criminalize the citizens trying to protect themselves....after all, the criminal might have had a rough childhood or been forced by society to turn to crime.
-
I'm not talking about two guys fighting, I'm talking about a situation where there is somebody who is an unwilling participant in a crime. If three guys are beating one guy or if a woman is being assaulted by a man. It is usually not hard to tell the difference between two drunks fighting and somebody who needs your help. But if you want to use your example as an excuse to not get involved go ahead.
P. Price on Bledsoe
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
If people don't want their conversations listened to, don't talk on your phone on a plane full of people!