Hey NRA and NYUrepublican..shootings in the U.S. today

[dorothy]

on target,
follow the yellow brick road

[ON TARGET]

six killed, seven injured in shooting at Factory in mississippi. Two kids and three adults found shot to death in Bakersfield California this morning...Where does it all end?????????
________
EXPERT INSURANCE (http://xpertinsurance.com/)

[NYURepublican]

Thousands of people will be killed this year due to arson or by bng stabbed to death. Should we outlaw fire and knives along with guns?

An individual- a human bng- killed those people in Mississippi. The best way to deal with crimes is to deal with the people who commit them, not to ban the tools they used. You are supremely naive if you think that these tragedies could have been averted by banning guns.

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are nther inclined nor determined to commit crimes."

- Cesare Beccaria Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/8/03 2:08 pm

________
Elenys (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Elenys)

[Nra4life]

PLease,
To sit here and use the NRA in a rediculous statement like that is typical of one of those liberal NY'ers.
Bet you have Hillary's book too.
To sit and argue with you on why you believe guns are bad won't go anywhere, nor do I care. So, this is America and you have your right just as everyone else does for freedom of speech.
You know what would be a good idea,
lets register all steak knives, lets ban certain steak knives because of thr serrated edges. ANd then when someone is hurt or killed by one, let sue the manufacturer. Oh this is perfect! I should be a NY politician...or democrat.
________
Laguna Bay II Condo Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[Bill OReilly]

Somebody please contact the AAA, Ford, Goodyear, Budwiser and the guy who drops the kegs off at bars about DWI.

In this society, we seem to delight in playing the blame game and penalizing those who use products legally for the misdeeds of those who don't.
________
CHRYSLER TEVAN SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_TEVan)

[Munchies]

Next time, someone hides a car in his pocket, takes out six people and then kills himself, please let me know.


________
Los angeles dispensary (http://dispensaries.org/)

[Nra4life]

Oh, and how might this be? Honest it was the guns fault. Smith and Wesson made me pull the trigger.
It wasn't that I was in day care or my parents fault ther.
The gun just jumped up into my hands, said "trench coat mob", and started going off.
________
ECIGARETTE 123 (http://www.ecigarettes123.com/)

[Munchies]

Besides humans, what other species would we be talking about? So, who else would fire the gun?
________
M110 Engine (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M110_engine)

[to the point]

from my cold dead hands

[Mylezylez]

Why would you possibly own a gun, if not to shoot someone?

If your answer is "for protection", I'd ask the following questions:

1) Have you ever been a victim of a violent crime that could have been "solved" with a gun?

2) Would the world be safer if EVERYONE owned guns? If not, then which groups should be blessed with the ability to kill other human bngs?


It just seems like the NRA croud is stuck on thr RIGHT to own a gun (yes, you have the right, and I don't think it should be taken away), but is VERY weak at describing why most people would need or even want them.

As far as I know, there has been NO legislation proposed that would limit anyone's ability to own a gun. Unless, of course, you are one of the strange people who needs an assault rifle to mow down many people at once. Yup, that'll keep you safer. And WHY does the NRA oppose legislation that would allow police to match up bullets with specific guns and thr owners? If you fire a gun, I ABSOLUTELY think you are responsible for the outcome.
________
Female Advice Advice (http://www.love-help.org/female-advice/)

[Mylezylez]

Well, if ever there was a posterboy for the conservative belief system, I think John Lott Jr fits that description quite well.

But, you're saying that more guns equal lower crime rates, so why wouldn't 100% gun ownership drop the crime rate to zero? There's a reason why, and it's the same reason that guns don't solve ANY problem.

And my point was that most gun owners are more paranoid than anything else. The odds of a violent crime in your own home (and I hope you're not carrying that gun with you, wherever you go) are EXTREMELY low. So what we have are a bunch of white, middle class men who are extremely paranoid that those Mexicans or blacks are going to try to take what's thrs. Sure you have the RIGHT to own a gun, but is it really so important? It just seems like people are claiming the right to kill anyone who crosses thr path.

Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that we're collectively intelligent enough to NOT have to kill people?

________
Sex Party (http://www.fucktube.com/video/77/hot-sex-party)

[get smart]

an armed populace has never and can never be conquered

[NYURepublican]

Quote:1) Have you ever been a victim of a violent crime that could have been "solved" with a gun?

That's like saying: "Have you ever been in a car accident? No? Then why do you have car insurance?" And how exactly do you "solve" a household break-in or some other such violent crime, if not by defending yourself? Do you just roll over and take whatever's coming to you? Even if you don't fire at the criminal, brandishing a firearm is often all it takes for an individual to decide that they'd rather not risk thr life in assaulting/robbing you.

Quote:2) Would the world be safer if EVERYONE owned guns? If not, then which groups should be blessed with the ability to kill other human bngs?

No, not everyone has to own guns, but the statistical evidence clearly shows that when more people do, crime rates are lower. See Prof. John Lott, Jr.'s books More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns for proof. Not every single citizen has to own a gun for crime rates to fall; a single armed individual is often all it takes to deter a violent criminal in a given situation. And as to the second part of your query, (which is intellectually dishonest, because A) no one is making the claim that people should be allowed to just randomly kill each other and B) as I said, you don't have kill or even wound an assailant to deter them), every single law-abiding American citizen who does not suffer from mental illness should (and does) have the right to defend themselves with a gun, if they choose to do so.

Quote:As far as I know, there has been NO legislation proposed that would limit anyone's ability to own a gun. Unless, of course, you are one of the strange people who needs an assault rifle to mow down many people at once

You show your ignorance here; so-called "assault rifles" are fundamentally no different or more lethal than any other gun. In some cases, non-banned guns are actually more powerful. Fully automatic machine guns have banned since the 1930's, and no one is pushing for them to be un-banned; in contrast, the guns that fall under the 1994 ban are all semi-automatics that fire one shot for each pull of the trigger, just like any other legal semi-automatic. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/8/03 7:15 pm

________
Whore4urWish (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Whore4urWish)

[NYURepublican]

Mylez, by your inability to refute any of my contentions logically, and your reversion to childishly attacking John Lott specifically (how much do you really know about him?) and all gun owners in general, I'll take it that you've conceded the point. Again, when it comes to guns, the Left has no factual arguments to present; only emotional ones.

Quote:But, you're saying that more guns equal lower crime rates, so why wouldn't 100% gun ownership drop the crime rate to zero

Well, in some places it does. But as I explained, 100% gun ownership is not necessary to reduce certain crimes substantially (specifically, multiple-victim shootings) because you don't need multiple gun owners in the same place to prevent a crime; you only need one. If a guy goes nuts in McDonald's and starts shooting people, you don't need to have the entire restaurant armed in order to stop him, you only need a single law-abiding citizen with a concealed-carry permit.

Quote:The odds of a violent crime in your own home...are EXTREMELY low.

You couldn't be more wrong. You are more likely to be the victim of a crime in your own home than anywhere else.

Quote:Shouldn't we be celebrating the fact that we're collectively intelligent enough to NOT have to kill people?

You can celebrate whatever you want if you're ever faced with someone who wants to injure you or your loved ones, but my course of action will be decidedly different. And as I have said...repeatedly...using a gun to defend yourself does not mean you have to kill your assailant! What don't you understand about that? Nevermind, I should know better than to expect rational discussion from you by now. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/8/03 8:25 pm

________
Carlatinax (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Carlatinax)

[ON TARGET]

Great to watch the pro-gun supporters squirm after some bad press..
________
Ipad accessories (http://accesoriesipad.com/)

[Jannie got a Gun]

A new study just found a correlation between the number of guns owned and thr calibers, and the size of the gun owner's penis. They are inversely proportional.

[Bob Barr]

Has ma wife Jannie been postin on this here board agin?
Ah keep telling her not to be airing the secrets of the family jewels for all them damn yankees in NY. Aw shucks... Ah will get back to y'all. That viagree pill is kickin in and I need to perform ma southern duty.

[NYURepublican]

Please. If by "squirm" you mean respond to rabid anti-gun rhetoric with calm, reasoned, factual arguments that remain unrefuted by the other side, then yes, I've been squirming a lot. Your infamous one-line scribblings are indicative of the weakness of your position; if you had anything serious to say, you'd have said it. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/8/03 10:49 pm

________
Marijuana seeds (http://marijuanaseeds.org/)

[NYURepublican]

Why is it that the anti-gun crowd feels it's thr duty to make the obligatory phallic reference every time this subject is discussed? Do you think you're bng original or witty? For folks who claim that gun owners are the ones that are overly concerned about thr "members", it's funny how it's the Left that always brings up the subject of penises so gleefully when adults are trying to actually have a reasoned discussion on this issue. I guess that's what you have to resort to when your argument is wholly lacking in substance. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/8/03 11:09 pm

________
Paxil help (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/paxil/)

[ACELAW]

Gun Control?s Twisted Outcome

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

By Joyce Lee Malcolm




On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "thrs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article?s battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential nghborhood of north London. And on New Year?s Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America?s Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world?s gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England?s low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that thr victims have nther the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England?s firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London?s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England?s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of bng mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England?s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America?s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world?s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don?t need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect thr nghbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it.

This is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, thr families, and thr nghbors when other help was not available. It was a legal tradition passed on to Americans. Personal security was ranked first among an individual?s rights by William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law. It was a right, he argued, that no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need. A century later Blackstone?s illustrious successor, A.V. Dicey, cautioned, "discourage self-help and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians."


________
Venture royale (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_Venture_Royale)

[Nra4life]

Hey NYRUREPUBLICAN-
We are wasting our time. Talking to sophomoric walls is not my forte. It is unfortunate to see how many pathetic, weak, pusses have invaded this great Island. This place was once a place where people like this didn't really exist. There are some communities that I could advise them to go, and or states- There are people here more thr speed.

Cherry Grove
FI Pines
California
Oh, and I will assume they believe hunting is bad, but eating steak is ok.

________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[ON TARGET]

The guy who killed seven at the plant in mississippi had 5 guns with him, all bought at gun shows without any background check according to CNN.....defend that.
________
UGGS (http://uggstoreshop.com/)

[Mylezylez]

Funny, I thought I WAS bng rational.

Well, since the notion that this is such an adversarial world that you need more guns than your "enemy" to survive is phallic by definition.

If you study human neurology, not to mention Freud, Jung, and many many more, you may read that the notion of overpowering your opponent by bng bigger, stronger, more deadly, more righteous, or whatever, is very much motivated by (and rewarded with) testosterone. I'd say gun ownership is very much phallic indeed.

And do guns deter crime? I seriously doubt it. I imagine you're thinking of a situation where some random stranger breaks into your house, and you heroically shoot them before they can rape your children or whatever.

But the problem is, that kind of crime is probably the l likely to occur. Something like 80% of all violent crime is committed by a family member, or someone who KNOWS the victim in general.

But, I think the part of this issue that has yet to be explored is exactly why the NRA fights so hard on these issues. What is the pot of gold at the end of the NRA rainbow?

I, and pretty much everybody I've spoken to about this has agreed that when they're around someone who's carrying a gun, they get very nervous. It's not a relief to see that the man in fron of you in line at McDonalds is packing heat. So, why do you think this is any kind of solution? It seems to me that a gun would add an unecessary element of dealiness to about any situation.

If someone broke into your house, and WASN'T carrying a gun, would a gun be necessary to stop him? If he WAS carrying a gun, would you be the one to fire first? Do you entertain notions of bng the quickest draw, and shooting the assailant before he can shoot you?

I completely respect anyone's right to own a firearm. But I do feel that every single weapon should be licensed, and gun policies should be written that require gun owners to be 100% responsible for thr actions.

That said, if I see you carrying a gun, I'm staying the hell away from you. LOTS of other people would do the same.
________
HONDA CBR400RR SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_CBR400RR)

[Avid Surfer]

Here is one the NRA crew can put in thr "plus" column.
A man killed two of his children, a woman believed to be his ex-girlfriend and himself in an apparent murder-suicide in the Philadelphia suburb of Magnolia NJ. HE DIDN'T USE ANY GUNS!!!!! YEEEEEEEAH!!!! He used a good old fashioned bludgeoning device on the ex-girfriend and carbon monoxide from the car on himself and his son. Cause of death undetermined on his daughter.

Hurry up boys, get that legislation going to ban blunt instruments and cars. Oh wait a sec.... Blunt instruments and cars don't kill people. People kill people.

[ON TARGET]

nice try..
________
Sweetblack18 (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/sweetblack18/)

[checkyourfacts]

You were born on L I

[Nra4life]

Ok,
Anti's and Pro's

We hate them, they hate us. This isn't a real debate, cause if it was, most of what is bng said has no vilidity. Fact is, if you are a law abiding citizen, you do not kill people.
This so called debate is going no where. THis is just anti's that are so extreme that there is no way to reason with them. NRA'ers, the best thing to do in this situation is just do what we do best to our women.. yes, oh ok, uh huh, mmmm interesting, yes, ok, you're right. Ha ha. On a serious note, there is no convincing them of our life style. Hey we didn't post a debate on thr life styles, they attacked us.
Let em be, cause they might feel better sleeping at night thinking they actually did something in this world.
I am done with this debate.
________
Marijuana dispensary panorama city. ca (http://www.dispensaries.org/)

[CitizenCan]

Take away the right to bear arms..

Take away the personal responsibility for your own actions for some

Ignore immigraton laws, contribute to crime and make it easier on the criminal

Ignore the "equal protection under the law"

Ignore the "equal representation and taxation"

Somebody just change the name to this country already...



________
Coach purses (http://icoachhandbags.com/)

[why]

How many times does someone get killed in 'criminal' circumstances because of guns?

Not as much as the amount of people who get killed because of gun-related accidents.

Guns kill more innocent people than they do guilty people.
Guns protect more guilty people than they do innocent people.
________
Honda RVF400 specifications (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_RVF400)

[Cicero]

I'm not trying to justify completely the NRA position, but an economist from Chicago named Levitt wrote an interesting paper who came up with an interesting finding.

If a family owns a gun and a swimming pool, the swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill the child in the family than the gun.

Again, not a political statement, just an interesting factoid.
________
Naykee cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Naykee)

[why]

A swimming pool has purposes other than killing.
________
silver surfer vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/silver-surfer-vaporizer)

[buddyc]

Criminals are the killers, not the instrument the killer uses to carry out his or her acts. Other countries that have banned lawful citizens the right to own guns and protect themselves, crime rates went out of control , is that so hard to understand??

[gun control]

3 yr. old died last night after a 9 yr. old found his uncle's illegal gun under a mattress and accidentally shot his three yr. old brother..when does it end you pro gun a-holes.

[progunner]

It don't end. Arguably one can ask if the anti-gun idiots and cowards will ever learn the difference between personal irresponsibility and a mechanical device.(such as a gun)

"From my cold dead hands"
-Charlton Heston-

[WantaghDem]

""From my cold dead hands"
-Charlton Heston- "

IF this is about pride, and dignity, and power, then I have to tell you:

After Michael Moore mopped the floor with the idiot Heston, those hands are empty. Nothing to take from them, cold, warm, live or dead.

Which is coming soon enough, anyway.
________
Mr175 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_MR175)

[why]

Quote:Criminals are the killers, not the instrument the killer uses to carry out his or her acts. Other countries that have banned lawful citizens the right to own guns and protect themselves, crime rates went out of control , is that so hard to understand??

Europe does not have our idiotic gun laws AND has a much lower crime rate. IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
________
buy solo vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/solo-vaporizer.html)

[Whatever]

again, this is another board with the gun issue and the second amendment hasn't been brought up recently. that's the root of the issue, so let's hear some input on it
________
Gm vortec engine specifications (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/GM_Vortec_engine)

[Whatever]

what's the relavance of Moore to this discussion? it's not like he has a history of credibility or anything
________
Plymouth Satellite History (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Plymouth_Satellite)

[WantaghDem]

"what's the relavance of Moore to this discussion? it's not like he has a history of credibility or anything"

First, Michael Moore is responsible for the most recent successful examination of the culture of violence in America, expressed most popularly - but certainly not exclusively - by Americans' obsession with guns.

His highly popular and critically-acclaimed movie, Bowling for Columbine, neatly and successfully posed a number of questions for us - questions that obviously got directly to the root of the issue and hit MANY nerves (otherwise he wouldn't currently be the biggest target the NRA has ever identified).

And you knew exactly what I meant when I mentioned Moore wiping the floor with so-called tough guy Charlton Heston...Moore exposed phony Heston as the racist, addle-brained loser that he is.

Second, it's astonishing that some person can just claim that someone else has "no credibility" and people then work from that perspective. Since when has Michael Moore's credibility been demonstrated to have been "lost"? What exactly do you point to - what event or series of events - can you speak of that destroyed Michael Moore's credibility?

That's not something that can be taken away from someone without proof....you just can't say it and make it so.

Since you have made the charge, it is your responsibility to prove it. Prove that Michael Moore has no credibility - and with more people than simply gun nuts.


Ever notice that the person with the most likelihood of destroying the right's argument - on any topic - is automatically targeted as having "no credibility" and "unpatriotic" and "dangerous" etc?

And you can tell who's NOT a danger to the right by the way they embrace them, even on the left.

For example, Joe Lieberman. The right LOVES him since he's not a danger, as is Howard Dean. If Lieberman went any more right, he might bump into Rush Limbaugh....or Hitler....I can never remember who's on which side of the other anymore.
________
SUZUKI GSX SERIES (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_GSX_series)

[NYURepublican]

"Since when has Michael Moore's credibility been demonstrated to have been "lost"? What exactly do you point to - what event or series of events - can you speak of that destroyed Michael Moore's credibility?"

www.nationalreview.com/ko...040403.asp

One of the lies not discussed in the article: the Lockheed factory in Moore's movie which he claimed produced missiles and weaponry actually produced satellite launching technology.




________
WASHINGTON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[NYURepublican]

this time from his book:

"The book first. Take two compelling notions advanced in "Stupid White Men." The journalist Ben Fritz went through the book with a fine tooth comb. In the book, Moore claims that five sixths of the U.S. defense budget went toward one plane. He also claims that two-thirds of president Bush's campaign finances came from 700 people. These claims are so ludicrous it says something about Moore's credibility that he even believed them himself. Both are easily refuted by a quick look at the publicly available Pentagon budget and the records of the Federal Elections Commission, which compiles all campaign contributions. (In fact, Bush's campaign was more dependent on small contributions than Gore's.) But if you are going to argue that Bush was selected by plutocrats and that the Pentagon wastes all its money, you've got to come up with some facts to support your case. So Moore just makes them up."

More on this here: www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

Moore is an interesting entertainer, but that is all he's good for. He is a chronic manipulator of the truth, and hence a natural poster boy for the anti-gun crowd. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 8/10/03 4:52 pm

________
Medical marijuana (http://medicalmarijuanacard.info)

[NYURepublican]

Funny how they all clam up once you shoot down one of thr icons...
________
The Legend Condo Cosy Beach (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[MisterEd]

I wonder why when 2 people claim the opposite, we are always supposed to believe the conservative.

Why should we believe that Moore made everything up and this Kopel idiot's facts are right? They both claim to have the facts on thr side.

I really don't understand this (mostly) conservative way of posting. Some "liberal" posts an article or an opinion, after which a "conservative" posts an article or an opinion which contradicts the "liberal". They always automatically conclude that this means the "liberal" is the liar and thr post consists solely of the facts. They seem to be supporting the "some people are more equal than others" way of thinking. (When two people contradict each other, the conservative is always right, because conservatives never lie... yeah right)

PS: We didn't clam up and you didn't shoot down anyone. Are we in love with ourselves again, NYURepublican?
________
El Camino (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_El_Camino)

[Betty Jane]

I notice that Wantagh Dem falls into that same sophmoric trap that all intolerant, condescending, liberals do by saying Hitler was the same as an American conservative of today or anytime.

If he knew anything about history, he would know that Hitler was a Socialist and belonged to the National Socialist party. Everything that Hitler stood for, except exterminating Jews, is espoused by today's Democratic Party. There is gun control, anti-smoking, vegetarianism, anti-christianity, eugenics, anti-capitalism and government control of all aspects of business and property. I wonder which of Hitler's stands the democrats would be willing to denounce.

[WantaghDem]

Adolf Hitler was as far from progressive liberalism as you are from bng an educated rational adult human bng.

If anything, the merger of capitalism and the media that is Fascism resembles George Bush's Cabinet Department known as Fox News.

Besides white supremacists on trial, and rhesus monkeys IN trials, I have never seen a living thing with a lesser understanding of history in general and in Hitler in particular.

Hitler never issued any gun control laws. Not one. Please name a law if you have one (you'll have to make it up, though).

Hilter was a Christian mystic who read voraciously about religious and spiritual subjects, ranging from Occidental occultism to ern mysticism to the teachings of Jesus Christ. One of his favorite books was ORTE CHRISTI, or "Words of Christ."

He was also insane, but we don't want to hit too close to home for you, do we? We're already close enough to conservatism, talking about the Nazi Party Leader and all.

What was the name of the anti-smoking law or order that Hitler passed? What was that? Hmmm? I can't hear you?

What about the law or order concerning vegetarianism? Hmm?


Please look into the tens of millions of dollars made by German, American and other forgn businesses in Germany under Hitler, and especially during the war. Hitler was not an anti-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination.

You should stop reading histories of Hitler that you buy at your monthly KKK meetings.
________
xMISTRESSJESSAx (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/xMISTRESSJESSAx/)

[Betty Jane]

Here for your perusal.

Until Herschel's discovery of Uranus in 1781, it was considered a matter of certainty that there were six planets. But the fact that everyone knew this to be true did not make it so. In like manner, college students and other insufferable connoisseurs of all human wisdom "know" that the historical Nazi Party epitomizes the extreme right-wing.

It is informative to first note an academic definition of communism: "A social, political and economic system characterized by the revolutionary struggle to create a society which has an absence of classes, and the common ownership of the means of production and subsistence and centralized governmental control over the economy."

And yet, the definition of its supposed opposite, by the same academic source, is rather different. "Nazism: The ideology and policies of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Worker's Party from 1921 to 1945." Isn't it a strange sort of opposite that claims to be a socialist worker's party, as opposed to, well, a socialist worker's party?

Consider 13 of the most relevant points from the Nazi Party's 25-point program of 1920, its Munich manifesto:

7. We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of the citizens of the State.

10. The activities of the individual must not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the community and must be for the general good.

11. Abolition of incomes unearned by work. Breaking of the thraldom of interest.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been amalgamated.

14. We demand that there shall be profit sharing in the great industries.

15. We demand a generous development of provision for old age.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the confiscation without compensation of land for communal purposes, the abolition of interest on land mortgages, and prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless war upon all those whose activities are injurious to the common interest.

20. The schools must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of the State. We demand the education of specially gifted children of poor parents, whatever thr class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. The State must apply itself to raising the standard of health in the nation ...

23. We demand legal warfare against conscious political lies and thr dissemination in the press. In order to facilitate the creation of a German national press…. It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which are damaging to the national welfare.

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it. The Party ... does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession.

25. That all the foregoing requirements may be realized we demand the creation of a strong central national authority; unconditional authority of the central legislative body over the entire Rch and its organizations in general;

These supposedly right-wing extremists were calling for national health care, social security, state-run schools, communal land development and centralized government control. They were determined advocates of gun control. And if they did not believe it took a village to raise a child, they were certainly enthusiastic about public youth programs. And then there were the complaints about vast conspiracies in the private press. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

While some argue that the National Socialists became "conservative" as a result of thr rapprochement with the great German industrialists following the final defeat of the Strasser wing of the party in late 1932, this conveniently skates over the fact that a) the 12 years concerned represents half of the Nazi Party's lifetime, and, b) Many elements of the avowedly socialist 1920 program were retained after 1933 when the National Socialists took power. Once in power, Vladimir Lenin, too, made capitalistic compromises with his New Economic Program, but this somehow never caused him to be defined as a man of the Right.

The National Socialists were not as radically left as the Soviet Communists, nor are most American Democrats as far left as were the National Socialists. But an examination of thr ideological cores reveals the undeniable philosophical kinship between these three parties of the Left.

Perhaps the Democratic Party should consider a new battle cry should thr most famous face decide to enter the presidential race in 2004. Sieg Hillary!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist Convention. He has been down with Madden since 1992.



You are right. Hitler didn't implement gun control, he only "improved" upon it. When the Nazis enacted thr own law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under ghteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits, (kind of like democrat politicians). Later that year, after "Kristallnacht," Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons.

To summarize, Hitler did "effect total gun control," but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place.

So why don't tell me which Nazi platforms the Democrats disagree with.

By the way, fascism is not the merger of the media and capitalism. Fascism is what democrats and RINO's try to impose on the rest of us by regulating every facet of business. Get a clue you provincial little guttersnipe.

I'm really sorry that your inflated ego can't tell the difference between someone who believes in our constitutional republic and the socialists that you worship.

[WantaghDem]

We now see why this Betty Jane is all up in arms (pardon the pun).

Therapy is available, even if you don't have the money, thanks to all of the Nazis in the Democratic party.

It would do your low self-esteem some good.


"Get a clue you provincial little guttersnipe."

This is like Christopher Reeve calling Michael Jordan a slow, graceless fumbler.

But I give the mentally ill a break when I can. Go get some help, OK?

And try to think for yourself instead of letting some hack with a matchbook degree tell you his fake version of history.
________
FR-50 (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_FR-50)

[Conservative X]

We now see why this Betty Jane is all up in arms (pardon the pun).

Leo Bloom: "What pun?"
Max Bialystock: "Shut up. He thinks he's witty."
-The Producers


"Therapy is available, even if you don't have the money, thanks to all of the Nazis in the Democratic party.

It would do your low self-esteem some good.

But I give the mentally ill a break when I can. Go get some help, OK?"

Ah. Here we go. There's no room for dissension if you disagree with a liberal. Dare to do so, get accused of bng mentally ill, of needing psychological help. He decries "nazism", then turns around and invokes Nazi
debating tactics. They put people away in mental hospitals (among other places) when someone dared to disagree with them.

"And try to think for yourself instead of letting some hack with a matchbook degree tell you his fake version of history."

Physician, heal thyself. You gave a phony baloney version of history, she gave you a good ass whuppin by proving you wrong, and all you can do in response is tell her to "get some help"

[WantaghDem]

I can never understand it. Some people post something on this board which they think is true and they even have some article or link that "proves" it's true. But they aren't aware, as are most other people, that the thing they think is true is actually a well-known myth, urban legend, falsehood, what have you.

Like when people post that email about Microsoft giving you $25 for every email that you forward. THEY think it's real, and THEY have "PROOF" - so not only do they disagree with you, they overreact and make themselves look that much more foolish.

Among the lesser-educated and violence-prone in America, there is the myth of Nazi Gun Control. "Don't do it here; they did it in Germany and look what happened." This is a rather convenient myth to spread, for who among the pro-gun control crowd would wish to appear as if they were Nazis? (The anti-gun control crowd has no such reservations, bng as there is a great crossover between white supremacists and gun nuts anyway).

Alas, it is as false as are the bubble-yum spiders; our intrepid poster is only the latest of thousands of people filled with self-righteousness who fly off the handle when confronted with the fact - FACT - that this is a myth.

You didn't give me a history lesson; that is quite impossible. You could probably give me a hatred lesson, although I try to keep up with the latest and greatest from your movement as well, seng as how much a danger you are to American society.

However, I will shortly give you yours. Now, settle in, because we are not arguing a single data point fact, such as who won the world series in 1904.

We are arguing something, that, like your ancestors no doubt argued that the world is flat, takes more than a single AHA! to prove to those doltish enough to continue to believe, even in the face of facts, and of the majority of humans believing otherwise.


"A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in thr ascent to and maintenance of power. Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Wmar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the Brownshirts"). The Wmar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government.

Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep THEM, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an ARMED coup.

The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Rch (this action bng the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 193 possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany.

The only feasible argument that gun control favored the Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that the Nazis did not sze power by force of arms, but through thr success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). Secondary considerations that arise are that gun ownership was not that widespread to begin with, and, even imagining such ubiquity the German people, Jews in particular, were not predisposed to violent resistance to thr government.

The Third Rch did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain thr power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist.

Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany.

Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As with most of thr actions (including the formation of the Third Rch itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law had been entirely demolished in the Third Rch. Any direct quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies."

Now go take a nap.
________
E-cigarette store (http://www.ecigarettes123.com/)

[Betty Jane]

Lovely post. Unfortunately you just disproved your position. Your position was that the NAzi's didn't implement any gun control. Your last post says they did. Make up your mind. Did they or didn't they?

Oh great and brilliant one, you are just so sure of your positions. You instill such confidence. I will now follow you anywhere. We all know that all gun owners are just violence-prone white supremecists, and all liberals like you are just peace loving people. We never see riots by liberals and socialists in this country. Elf, Alf, anarchists, and Los Angeles rioters are all just a bunch of gun toting redneck conservatives.

You just keep living in your little dream world, where when all guns are confiscated, the whole world will be able to sing Kumbaya.

It's wonderful that every intelligent you ever met agrees with you. So, by default every one who disagrees with you is a dolt. Such an open minded person you prove yourself to be. And a doctor too. Recommending that I and other folks on this board need help. You are truly a magnanimous person.

Have a Blessed Day!

[WantaghDem]

The Nazis did not implement gun control. Historical fact. No contradiction. If you cannot follow the difference between an actual policy and the APPEARANCE of a policy, no wonder you are a conservative.

Let's have 30 years of "Healthy Forests Initiatives" and then we can play "Find the Tree" - which no one will ever win....for that matter, we'll be playing "Find the Oxygen!"


"where when all guns are confiscated, the whole world will be able to sing Kumbaya."


Uh....so it's your contention that at The Rapture, Jesus will be toting an H&K MP5?

Oh, that's right....inconvenient facts that demonstrate the contradictions inherent in religious beliefs are to be ignored!


Killl Kill Kill Killl Kill Kill Killl Kill Kill Killl Kill Kill Killl Kill Kill Killl Kill Kill So We Can Get to Heaven, where there is no violence?


No thanks. I'll take the real world, where we are right now, and stop the killing HERE AND NOW.
________
Business overhead expense disability insurance dicussion (http://www.insurance-forums.org/business-overhead-expense-disability-insurance/)

[Betty Jane]

Oh you are so right. You are my new shaman. How silly of me to imply that Jesus was coming back with a gun. (Although, I didn't know I had). I beg a thousand pardons from you, oh great and powerful one. I didn't mean to upset you.

Hitler implemented new gun control laws on JEWS, not the appearence of new gun contol policies. You, oh master of all knowledge, spend much time defending NAZI's. Are you a NAZI?

God Bless you and your family.

[WantaghDem]

Your religion tells you it's a sin to use religion to harm someone. Which is what you're doing at the end of your posts. Well, trying to. Can't make a difference since it isn't real.

I don't blame you, though. You are to smart people like a time machine - we can go back and see what it was like for people to live thr lives in fearful superstitition, before they developed higher brain capacities.


"A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for thr service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Nor were they alone in this mode of appeasement. The defiance of "never again" is not so much a warning to potential oppressors as it is a challenge to Jews to reject the passive response to pogrom. Third, it hardly seems concvable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Thr foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance. To project backward and speculate thus is to fail to learn the lesson history has so painfully provided.

The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's szing guns. "

Buh-bye.
________
Free Joomla Themes (http://themesfree.org)

[Betty Jane]

Your religion tells you it's a sinto use religion to harm someone. (Does it? What religion am I? How do you know?) Which is what you're doing at the end of your posts. (How?)Well, trying to. Can't make a difference since it isn't real. (So, what are you upset about?)

It always amazes me when so-called open-minded, tolerant, intelligent people get offended when anyone mentions religion. WantaghDem, God's gift to intelligensia, is trying to teach me the principals of my religion on the one hand and then tell me it's a bunch of superstittion on the other.

You have once again proven your superior intellect. I know that when I chose you as my Shaman it was the correct thing to do. You are omniscient! Oh high one, I will know that yours is the correct position on every issue. Your narrow-mindedness and intolerance have shed a light for me. Whenever someone disagrees with you, belittle them. If someone opposes you, call names. If someone blesses you, say you're offended. If someone likes something you disapprove of, lobby to ban it.

I see the only way to be intelligent is to convince yourself that only you, and those like you, are educated and sane. You are a shining example for us poor lost souls who carry guns. Thank you.


WantaghDem, I pray that God's countenance is made to always shine upon you.

[WantaghDem]

Betty Jane announced her or himself on this thread with the following:

"I notice that Wantagh Dem falls into that same sophmoric trap that all intolerant, condescending, liberals do by saying Hitler was the same as an American conservative of today or anytime."

So, it's only ME who is calling someone names? Sophomoric? Intolerant? Condescending? Yeah, OK, it's only me. Right. If you pretend something long enough, you can believe it.

And then good ole superstitious Betty said that Hitler enacted the following policies:

1.gun control
Which I proved that there was no gun control under Hitler.

2. anti-smoking
You know, I asked her to PROVE this ridiculous statement, but she's been UNABLE to. I guess I have to take it on "faith", huh?

3. vegetarianism
You know, I asked her to PROVE this ridiculous statement, but she's been UNABLE to. I guess I have to take it on "faith", huh?

4. anti-capitalism
You know, I asked her to PROVE this ridiculous statement, but she's been UNABLE to. I guess I have to take it on "faith", huh?

5. government control of all aspects of business and property
You know, I asked her to PROVE this ridiculous statement, but she's been UNABLE to. I guess I have to take it on "faith", huh?

All she's been able to do is call me names and pretend to be a religious person (when in fact she seems bitter and taunting, which is, well, actually, yes, that's a religious person, so I guess she's bng true to form there). Oh, and to deny the historical facts which proved her wrong. I guess she's staying away from the rest of her idiotic statements because one embarrassment is enough for her today.

By the way, she also claims that the above 5 policies are also bng pushed by the Democrats....along with....let me check...anti-christianity and eugenics. Like I said, buh-bye now.

Let's call this "Mirror Reading":
faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/...nition.pdf
________
Vermont Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (http://vermont.dispensaries.org/)

[Cicero]

Wantagh, NY -

Investigative reporting has concluded that the LIPolitics Poster commonly known as WantaghDem and occaisionally Crossover Republican has been revealed to be none other than the ubiquitious comic book merchant often featured on the Fox 5 animated series "The Simpsons."

If his posts are read keeping the high-handed, know it all voice of this famous character in mind and taken with the fact that the comic book shop in Springfield has been conveniently closed due to "Dungeons and Dragons Convention" in recent weeks, this concluson is beyond question.

Furthermore, photographic evidene shows a remarkable physical likeness between Legislative Candidate John Clark and the Fox Character, adding to speculation that another link in this twisted identity crisis may be forthcoming.




________
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSORY (http://www.dispensaries.org/)

[Betty Jane]

I would give you proof of all of my assertions, but I've decided you're not worth my time.
After I did, you would most assuredly not answer my question concerning which NAZI planks you or the Democrat Party disagree with. You would, of course, disagree with my conclusions by deriding my sources, or you would just change the subject in that holier than thou attitude of yours.
There can be no discussion with someone who has decided that my ideology is a mental problem, because some leftist professors, who you believe are the only people who count, have declared it to be so.

I will, however, prove all my assertions, after the holiday, for those others on this board who may like to be able to discuss with thr liberal friends the NAZI-Dem similarities.

WantaghDem, May God Bless You and everyone else on this board.

[WantaghDem]

The of this site, who sometimes goes by the name Cicero, has "busted me."

Yep, he kept removing my posts about Dennis Dunnce - because he's in Dunnce's pocket (what a sad place to be) - so I posted two or three threads under the name Crossover Republican to fool him, since he seems so reactionary that he wouldn't actually read much of the posts, just who's posting, and what subject, and POOF they'd be gone.

And it worked.....none of my Crossover Republican posts, even though they were critical of Dunne (actually, more of the Republicans in the Legislature, but you can't get subtle with Cicero...he starts to cry) were EVER removed.

So I decided to get rid of that tag, post as WantaghDem, and see what would happen.

And exactly what I thought would happen, happened.


Gee, who busted whom?


And by the way, I could see where YOU might think that I'm the candidate - you're so desperate to help your moronic buddy keep his VULNERABLE seat that in your mind the only person who could be anti-Dunne would be the guy running against him. Newsflash: in two months it's going to be the MAJORITY of voters in the 15th!

Alas, this is not so, for many many reasons I could not be "that guy"...not the l of which I'm MUCH less nice.....sorry!


I feel sorry for you, so on edge and hypervigilant that all you can do is constantly check the boards for evidence of people posting under different names....a skill you have perfected, it seems...
________
Medical Marijuana Card (http://mmjp.org)