Guard Dog

This commercial is not homophobia. This is Homophobia:Murder charges planned in beating death of gay student BIG difference.

You know one of the biggest problems in the world today is too many people with a total lack of a sense of humor. The second biggest problem is too many other people walking on eggshells around these humorless idiots so as not to "offend" them. To say this commercial (which was not really funny anyway) promotes violence against gays is stupidity in the extreme. Anyway, if you did not see it, here is the link on you tube: Super Bowl 41 - Snickers Kiss - Commercial

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. Non US Citizen Medal Recipients

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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. 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.

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.

More Gun Control is not the Answer Great Op-Ed.

It was something we were discussing in another thread. But by all means, jab eddo too.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are just one cheerful guy Gorgon!

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.

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.