Jump to content

Guard Dog

Members
  • Content Count

    628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    160

Posts posted by Guard Dog

  1. In 1922 the US Congress awarders the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Italian Unknown Soldier butit was really to honor ALL Italians who fought in WW1. Here is the article and the link. Not what you were looking for I know, but hope it helps.

     

    * * * By virtue of a joint resolution of Congress, approved 12 October 1921, the Medal of Honor, emblem of highest ideals and virtues, is bestowed in the name of the Congress of the United States upon the unknown, unidentified Italian soldier to be buried in the National Monument to Victor Emanuel 11, in Rome.

     

    Whereas the Congress has authorized the bestowal of the Congressional Medal of Honor upon unknown, unidentified British and French soldiers buried in Westminster Abbey, London, England, and the Arc de Triomphe, Paris, France, respectively, who fought beside our soldiers in the recent war, and

     

    Whereas, animated by the same spirit of friendship toward the soldiers of Italy who also fought as comrades of the American soldiers during the World War, we desire to add whatever we can to the imperishable glory won by their deeds and to participate in paying tribute to their unknown dead: Now, therefore. be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to bestow, with appropriate ceremonies, military and civil, the Congressional Medal of Honor upon the unknown, unidentified Italian soldier to be buried in the National Monument to Victor Emanuel 11, in Rome, Italy (A.G. 220.523) (War Department General Orders, No. 52, I Dec. 1922, Sec. II)

    Non US Citizen Medal Recipients

  2. Best weapon for home defense, I've heard from multiple sources, is a revolver. Reliable, can be left sitting around for years picked up and used quickly.

     

    "Go ahead punk, make my day." :D

    I disagree. The best home defense weapon IMHO is a .12 GA pump shotgun. Use #2 buckshot, keep the magazine full and the chamber empty. If needed, the sound of the pump chambering the shell is usually enough to send anyone running. Plus you do not need to be particularly accurate to be effective with it. And, odds are the blast will not penetrate a wall (provided you are not right in front of it). A pistol shot will punch right through a wall or two. Makes you think about which way you are shooting.

  3. Finally, as an extra point to tug into this, you all are familiar with teh fact that the US cheerfully pumps unsafe waste over the border into Mexico? You think maybe you could pay more attention to neighbourlinesss on your side?

    WTF??? Where did you get that from? The US has some of the toughest waste disposal regulations in the industrialized world. These days anyway. We might screw up royally from time to time but we usually learn from it. No more "Love Canals" these days.

  4. First you have to completely dismantle the non military part of the gun industry, then you ban all civilians from owning firearms and impose draconian punishments for having posession of an unlicenced weapon, then you Waco-siege the remaining hillbilly militia crackpots.

    Yeah what the hell Gorgon says. We don't need that old 2nd amendment, and so to get rid of it lets also throw out the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments.

  5. Not only you are not breaking any human rights by requiring people to know the language of the country they want to live in, it's established that way in the Constitution, I think.

     

     

    The Constitution takes no stance on the issue of language. If it did this thread would have been a lot shorter!

  6. First off, what exactly are you "turning around?" I've not stated any opinion on gun control, and the text of mine that you quoted had nothing to do with gun control, but rather was addressing Hades' comments that the weapon type is irrelevant, but only the intentions matter, since if someone wants to do something, they'll do it. I call bull****, because if a criminal really wants to do commit a crime, in almost any situation he'll be better equipped with a handgun than he will with his bare fists. For you to "turn this around" on my point, you'd have to be talking about the gun being less effective of a tool than the knife.

     

    Hmmmm.... *Note to self, carefully read posts to establish context and direction before making a reply*

  7. Since I'd hate to see Godwin's Law not be correct, do you think that the Nazis would have been able to so effectively keep the Jews in line in concentration camps if they were only armed with knives. The gun has an increased ability to main and kill someone compared to a knife, especially in the hands of an assailant that is not particularly well trained in either. I don't know about you, but as an unarmed person, I'm more afraid of someone waving a gun in my face than I am of someone waving their fists in my face.

    Let me turn this around then, would the Nazis have been able to effectively keep the Jews in line in concentration camps if the Jews were armed to the teeth?

  8. Vermont: 113.5 (not a thing! Wow!)

     

    Least restrictions, lowest crime.

     

     

    The funny thing was that after doing this, I realized that the information was essentially useless, but I figured I'd post it specifically to see if anyone would draw any conclusions on it, even though I stated straight up that "After doing all of it, I realize that it doesn't really say anything, but since I did it, I figured I might as well post it." I wasn't expecting that it'd be you though :sad:

     

     

    I figured it'd be the District of Columbia one that was brought up, but I guess not.

    I pointed out, it really does not say anything because it does not break down to the individual municipalities. Take New York as an example. If you took the city out of the state's figures it would radically change the numbers and there are far fewer state restrictions than in NYC. And far less crime but that alone does not prove the point. The only point I'm trying to make is that in areas with higher levels of private legal gun ownership you have less crime. And the pages I linked do bear that out for Florida, to an extent. Since firearm ownership in FL is not tracked is is impossible to say if those counties do indeed have the highest private ownership but they do have the lowest restrictions and are 4 of the top 10 in registered handgun sales state wide.

     

    But by pulling out Vermont and holding that as an example, I did invoke a fallacy of logic and you are right, I should know better.

  9. My view is this:

     

    A gun is a tool. Nothing more. If a criminal is going to rob someone, do some violence, or whatever he or she will do the crime with whatever tools he or she has available. If it is a gun, then so be it. If it is a knife, then so be it. If you want to stop crime then you need to go to the root of the problem, the motivation of the criminal to do the crime.

    Oh my God, I agree with Sand about something.... is he becoming sane or am I going crazy? Or vice versa! :o

  10. Vermont: 113.5 (not a thing! Wow!)

     

    Least restrictions, lowest crime.

     

    But actually, this really needs to break down further to be useful. States do not ban handguns, counties and cities do. Broward County Florida has the toughest gun restrictions and the highest violent crime rate. And it is increasing as opposed to the majority of the rest of the state. See my previous post for the link.

  11. Gun control INCREASES violent crime.

    You can show exactly WHATEVER you want with statistics (especially if you only factor in what you want the numbers to tell), but the point is still standing: if you don't have a gun, you're less likely to shoot someone.

     

    And if you HAVE one someone is a lot less likely to shoot you.

     

    And what would you do if someone broke into your house and you had access to a gun? You'd immediately draw it, roll out into the living room, take out one crook from the hip, dive behind the couch and shoot the next intruder right between the eyes? I'm sure you would. Weapons only help escalate dangerous situations, they are not the solution to the problem.

    That situation would be a hell of a lot more dangerous for me if they were armed and I was not. As for what I would do? Never been in that situation so I could not tell you. But I do know once they think you have a gun they will like as not clear out rather than try to fight you. If someone breaks into Eddo's house all he has to do is pull the slide on that pistol and they will hear it, and likely leave. It is also a fact, if you have a weapon you will seldom need to use it. Just having an intruder know you are armed is usually enough.

  12. See Alanschu? This is what I mean by knee-jerk liberal reactions around here.
    It was something we were discussing in another thread.
    I believe the term you used was something along the lines of not thinking for themselves. I hope you aren't so quick to label all that disagree with you.

     

    Nah, I apologized for that second part, it was uncalled for.

  13. See Alanschu? This is what I mean by knee-jerk liberal reactions around here. To those posters in other contries, like Sweden, strict Gun Control here will lead to a blood bath of defensless citizens. Sweden NEVER had a high rate of firearm ownership so banning them had little real effect other than to prevent that rate from climbing. The genie was let of the bottle here two hundred years ago. Gun control INCREASES violent crime. Counter intuative I know, but very true. Case in point, in 1995, Florida began relaxing it's gun control laws at a local level, in 1997 Tallahasse began to catch on and follw suit. Over the last 10 years it has become easier to buy, own and carry a firearm in Florida and the the firearm related crimes have dropped. Dramaticly! See the attached statistics below. Two years ago the State finally passed the "Stand Your Ground" law (which I advocated in 1996) that does not require a citizen to flee before resorting to deadly force in self defence. I have not seen the stats for 2006 but according to the local news we are near a 40 year low in violent crime statewide. The counties that have the highest rate of LEGAL gun ownership have the lowest firearm crime rate (Sumter, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lake). The counties that have the lowest LEGAL gun ownership rates have the highest violent crime rates (Miami-Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Orange).

     

    If someone breaks into your home at night, what will you do? If you are unarmed you are at the mercy of someone who already has committed one criminal act by breaking in. The police cannot protect you, all they can do is try to find the man who murdered you, or a family member that night. Small comfort there.

     

    Florida Crime Stats

    fa_involved.bmp

  14. It's funny how this thread is basically people saying the same thing over and over again. THE US RELIES ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. BUILDING A WALL WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. Seriously, go read a book on Mexican immigration before you act like you have an informed opinion. The best bet is working with Mexico. We don't have a problem with the Canadian border, do we? So maybe the US should worry less about protecting its comfortable place in the world and worry more about helping others reach the same place.

     

    Also, I live in a predominantly hispanic community. I teach in a predominantly minority school. I probably have a few illegal immigrants living in my condo. complex. It's pretty funny to hear people from Canada and England talking about Mexican immigration like its really an issue for them. This is not the Roman Empire. The US is a culture of many cultures, and anybody who thinks that Mexicans are going to destroy American identity is forgetting their own history.

    First of all, Josh as I said, I have no issue with a REGULATED work visa program. And Hurlshot brings up a very important point here I'd like to expand on. Mexico has a decent education level (third highest in spanish speaking countries world wide) and great sections or arable land in the south (by landmass larger than the states of Florida and Georgia combined). They have oil, silver, and other resources in abundance. They have everything they need to build a robust economy. So what is wrong? Corruption? Disorganization? What is it about Mexico that is it so fundamentally flawed?

     

    Now, Hurlshot as to the last line of your post, you should read this. There is a growing faction of Hispanics that want to take over the Southwestern States and California by electoral fiat, then secede from the US and form a new "Hispanic Homeland" called the Republica de Norte. "By any means necassary". Josh, I'd bet you at least have heard of this, frequent California gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante is a member.

     

    Republica de Norte

     

    The US is what it is because of immigrants who come here and want to contribute to the country and culture. People who want to be a part of it. It does change and become stronger because of them. But what we have today is a growing faction that does not want to integrate but tear off a part and turn it into something it is not.

  15. Fun fact I may have already mentioned: the United Kingdom had a society for protecting animals several years before a society for protecting children. Moreover the society for animals is a royal one, and the children's one is not. Speaking purely for my own corner, I could not countenance spending money to prevent abuses, and deal with damage which is every day heaped upon innocent children.

    You are making the assumption that there are no organizations dedicated to protecting children. I cannot speak intelligently about how common they are in Great Britain (I'm certain there are many), in the US there are many and more and they outnumber and out fund animal charities by a large margin.

  16. Mandating that all government interaction be done in English, and only in English, will piss people off. Including legal immigrants that live in those areas. You'll anger ESL residents, as well as leftist Liberals, in addition to Libertarians (to be honest I'm surprised to be having this discussion with you, a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party).

    Yes it would anger a lot of people. Thats why it will never happen. As I told Walsh, nothing can be done about it at this point. Illegal immigration, and catering to it are the political realities of the day. There is no leader with the fortitude to tackle the subject, or the political clout to get anyone to follow them. So it will progress to the only end such a process can have; a schisim.

     

    Libertarianisim is, in my view, a strict interpretation of the Constitution which does not in any way require the governement to spend tax dollars to help people breaking the law. Ditto that for ANY state constitution I am aware of. But I would imagine quite a few of my party mates would agree with your take on this. But identfying with a political philosophy for the most part does not require you to adhere to it's position on every issue. (That is something the US Democrat party needs to learn.) I'm against legalizing hard drugs too, something that led to some heated arguments with my backers in the 1996 campaign.

     

    On a side note, the Libertarian Party is mostly made of two types. The first is the single issue nuts who only care about legalizing drugs. The second is the political idealists who want to go from the heavy handed government we have now, to a tiny constrained government overnight. Political pragamtists (like myself, I'd like to think) are few. That "all or nothing" mentality is why our party is going nowhere.

  17. Out of curiosity (because history interests me), what happened to the mexicans who used to live there before the english speaking immigrants came to California? Did they all get killed off? Did they get the same deal as the native indians elsewhere (reservations etc.) ?

     

    I remember reading up on some history, that the mexican goverment tried to buy the loyalty of the new english settlers by offering them land, but the end result was that they accepted the land but stayed loyal to their US neighbour. It almost looks like history is repeating itself, just with in the reverse direction :dancing:

    Actually you bring up a good point. The Mexicans have no historical standing to assert any past "ownership" of the southwest. Only the Pueblo and Navajo indians can do that.

  18. Adapt to your enviorment [sic], don't force your enviorment [sic] to adapt to you.

     

    Couldn't you apply this same logic to governments?

     

     

    Especially seeing as one could argue it's already too late. If you have people in an area all speaking Spanish, complete with Spanish television and more Spanish newspapers than English newspapers, the all English government centre is what's going to look out of place, and it's what's going to make local residents unhappy.

     

    You mention Quebec and its issues. Imagine if we suddenly told them that all of their government interactions had to be done in English.

    Big difference, Quebec has ALWAYS been a French speaking province. What is going on today in the US was not happening even 10 years ago.

     

    *edit* Yes Alan I know I need to use the doggone spell checker! GRRR.

  19. No offence to the ad, or anyone who chooses to donate but Isave all my money for human charities.

    I can respect that viewpoint. I donate to the American Red Cross every month myself, but it is only a fraction of what I donate to the few dog rescue groups I support. Someone has to. Besides, no dog has ever backstabbed me, robbed me, lied to me, or sold me out. Can't say the same about most of the people I've known. :o

  20. Guarddog, I'm not really clear on your standpoint. Are you saying there's some US culture which residents should ascribe to? If so, does that mean Minnesotans and Texans are the same? Should they be? Where do you draw the lines?

    Common language, common national identity, loyalty to the same flag, acknowledgement of a shared history, contributing to the society you benefit from by way of taxes. These are the things illegals do not do. Here is what they do that I have problems with:

     

    Mexicans seek to retake "stolen" land

    Protesters fly Mexican flag at a US Post office

    Cost of illegal immigration

    Mexico provides guidebooks for illegal immigrants sneaking into the US

    US Agents face violence at the border

    Border States Graple With High Immigrant Crime Rate

    Illegal Alien Crime Wave

    People murdered by illegal immigrants This one is a must see

     

    I could go on and on. This is the beginning of real trouble and it needs to be addressed now.

  21. Van Halen, Diver Down.

     

    By the way....

    David Lee Roth Back As Van Halen Singer

     

    LOS ANGELES -- The rumors were true. Van Halen will reunite with original singer David Lee Roth for a summer tour of North America.

     

    "I am very excited to get back to the core of what made Van Halen," guitarist Eddie Van Halen said in a statement posted Friday on the band's Web site announcing a 40 city tour. No specific dates have been named.

     

    It will be the first time that Roth performs live with the band since 1984, when he was replaced by Sammy Hagar. A brief reunion with Roth in 1996 resulted in two new songs but no tour.

     

    Original bassist Michael Anthony will not be a part of the reunion. Late last year he was replaced by Eddie Van Halen's 15-year-old son Wolfgang.

     

    On March 12 Van Halen will be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame at a ceremony in New York.

    On the Net: http://www.van-halen.com

     

    Article

  22. I have no issue with spanish being the predominant language where spanish is the predominant ethnicity. What people do on their own is their business.
    Heh. Interestingly enough, they aren't Spanish, and they don't see themselves that way. I say this because in my country, we get A LOT of South American ("latin" is a misnomer) immigrants, and they act just the way you have described. This might seem odd since the language is roughly the same, but still they manage to isolate themselves and form their own exclusive communities (I've even seen them go as far as printing their own newspapers for themselves), thus purposefully preventing their integration into our society. I personally hate this. But, it's not their fault. It's ours because we allow them to do it in our country.

     

    They are quick to cry xenophobia, too.

    I repeat... AMEN! Castillan spanish and Latin spanish sound very different to me. Plus, Castillan is more formal and seems to have a lot of different words, epecially verbs.

×
×
  • Create New...