Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

I'd assume you'd be more upset with the Mexicans than the Canadians. Canada is basically America lite. Just about everything in Canada is similar to America. The dozen or so times I've been in Canada, I couldn't tell I was out of the U.S. until I saw a license plate or a sign with French on it.

I agree with the majority of your statement. I dislike the notion that I would suddenly be without rights or left to the mercy of the politicians who decide which rights I have and which circumstance they apply. Another idea I dislike is that Mexico is a violent and poor nation while the U.S. and Canada are respectable. So it would end up the U.S. and Canada having to prop Mexico up which would squander resources and manpower. Mexico would end up being a rotting limb that would risk killing the whole.

You misunderstood what I had said, though I should have made it more clear. I was referring to Mexico. Drug cartels are constantly kidnapping and killing people on both sides of the U.S. Mexican border. Mexico is becoming a hellish country where even the government can't keep a leash on the violent cartels.

I just wanted to share this little note. If either of you are unwilling to change your opinions then don't bother posting. I would rather see open minded dialogue supported by articles, studies, reports and general facts. Something that bothers me is people who are unwilling to change their stance regardless of any reason. I couldn't care less about your respective positions on the subject. Next time please allow your minds to at least entertain the ideas presented by the opposing arguments.

Edit: I'm not targeting you specifically Rayne. Your comment just gave me the motivation to make the statement towards everybody.

The current ban (as far as I know, it may have changed in the last year) is specifically for embryonic stem cell research.

I'm for Adult stem cell research but, I disapprove of the embryonic.

From my current knowledge of the subject, Adult stem cell research has claims to be more productive and doesn't cause the destruction of potential human lives.



I won't push the whole "what counts as a human" argument. As we already have one of those going on.

Edit: I'll post some studies or articles later after I acquire some sleep.

Japan v. U.S.

Different mentality of the population. Guns are more easily kept out of the hands of people due to being an Island. The U.S. is bordering one of the most violent countries for an ordinary citizen. Lots of guns and crime flow into the U.S. from Mexico. We've been over this before, you can't ban guns without shutting America's boarders from both the Mexico & Canadian boarders to the U.S. Searching every shipping container in that enters the country,etc. Unless you fundamentally change how society thinks and behaves on the lowest levels. Gun bans in the U.S. would only lead to more violence as those who commit crimes don't always go the legal route when obtaining weapons. Which would leave the average citizen who is non-violent defenseless.

As for the decrease in crime. Compare the cities goonsquad mentioned to the statistics I posted earlier about Kennesaw,Ga. Kennesaw has a MANDATORY gun ownership law and yet the crime rates dropped. The average citizen with a gun isn't a problem and we have measures to keep them out of the hands of radicals and "crazies".

Let me rephrase the statement into a question. Why would somebody (anybody) want to take away your ability to defend yourself?



It's being worked on

Link.

I find it even more chilling to know that at any moment A.T.F, F.B.I, W.T.F. could barge their way into my home and I wouldn't have a way to defend myself. All it takes is one more "bush" or "obama" type of politician the route would be different but, the end result would be the same. The rights of the citizen would mean nothing, people would either be forced via law to hand their weapons over or forced at gunpoint to hand them over. The only reason why a politician wants you to hand over your firearm or restrict your access to them is because he/she wants a state where you can't resist the government (i.e. them).

I'm all for common sense gun control, background checks on criminals, mentally ill,etc a short waiting period (no longer than a week),etc. Nothing more, nothing less. I am also for safety controls like finger print readers

I've fired a few guns over the years but, they were always small arms like 9mm- 10mm. So I'm completely lost on what some of you guys are talking about. What I want to own is something .45 handgun and/or a shotgun. Something that when you put somebody down with it, they stay down.

I never said anything about protecting the government with a militia. The militia is meant to defend the state from outside aggressors which includes the federal government overstepping it's authority. I'll agree with you on the topic as a whole.

You have no privacy on the internet. The state has every right to monitor where you go on the internet. I can't answer the second half as I'm unsure what you mean exactly by the question.



Never unless they get your explicit consent to do so. Also the companies should never be allowed to "force" you to give them permission to do so during the sign up process. So the company would have to approach you after you sign up and ask your permission to sell your personal information to a third party.

Dictionary.Com's definition


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FPoD's definition:
Militia:The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

Under this definition, every able bodied man and woman would be a member of the militia. Which I find to be more in line with the founding fathers ideas. All people are to bear arms and act as the militia of their respective states when called upon. The militia would be called up to

"Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws."

I had work to do. I've been doing the job of about five people for the last week. I also never claimed to be that random of a person.

Calling me random is like calling you subtle. Just not a part of who we are.

@Oriens Astrum: I'm not going to bash you for your decision on not eating meat but, I would like to ask why you didn't trade steak for a healthlier meat like chicken instead?

As for the waiter, everybody has already pointed it out that American society finds it more common for the male to order a steak and the female to order something else.

Also don't feel bad, something similar happened to me a couple days ago.

First

Second*

Third


Really it's the second but, it's "technically" the third so it "technically" matches the criteria.

*I only had for it for less than a day but, it's still technically the second one.

I remember a forum I visited for a short while having it require you read the rules as part of the "i accept" part of registration. You had to scroll down a small box that contained the rules in a shortened version which would allow you to click the box for I accept.

Get the user before they even post for the first time.

There is a city in Ga, just north of Atlanta called Kennesaw, Ga. In 1981 they passed a mandatory gun ownership law for all heads of households. Since that law was enacted the crime rates for the city have dropped even dramaticly when the law was first enacted.

Link

Data Tables at bottom of Article.

Better version if you don't trust free republic



That's fine just no kissing on the lips.

Just a question to you personally. What is the average citizen supposed to defend themselves with if the government went Facist/Despot? The idea of "It'll never happen here" isn't a valid counter argument. Unless people had the ability to stand up for themselves with their own weapons then the average citizen is nothing more than cattle.

Just take a look at history.

Edit: not trying to push or anything. I just want your input.

I confess that I actually collect penguins. Current count is somewhere near 100.

I got another 1,000 before I'll be as old of an oldfag as you. Still pretty old though when compared to these damn younglings. Maybe you're right and I am dramatizing it but, maybe I know or see something that everybody else is missing. I do know people outside of S.D.

The problem is we have been trying to get some sort of feedback and all we get are empty words and promises. Considering how long the community has been complaining and seeing what has come of it. Nothing is going to change, at least positively. It'll keep going downhill until Jacob is forced to make changes due to some reason down the road.

Many of the "oldfags" have already left seeing how this place has gone down hill. I suspect more will do the same.

/rant

I was just recalling the effects it had on people I knew personally. I've seen everything from the drunk who cries and apologizes to everyone for the things he did or didn't do. Idiots who drove while shitfaced, flipped their truck half a dozen times then walked away from an accident. Which I bumped into the guy at wal-mart and he felt compelled to tell me this awesome story of how he got drunk, wrecked his truck in a ditch somewhere and walked home. Only to be arrested the following day and released the day before he met me.

People wondered why I moved...

I guess what I meant to say was it lowers the inhibitions that prevent you from doing stupid things. Either way you're correct that it affects people in different ways.

What exactly do you not agree on? Though, rereading the quoted statement I realize that I wasn't clear what my intentions where when I said restrict. There wouldn't be any laws specifically against a certain religion. The only "restrictions" I personally would place is that you can practice your religion so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of people. Jehovah's witnesses could refuse blood transfusions unlike in Cuba. Rastafarian's could refuse amputations due to religious beliefs. Religions would have to work within our laws but, laws wouldn't be written against them.

I could go into the marriage thing but, that would completely derail the topic due to my rather unique outlook on marriage.

As for the abortion thing that many people claim only religious people are against. I'm an Atheist and I'm against abortion on the grounds that I believe people have a right to live as spelled out by America's declaration of independence. You can be against abortion and not be a religious fanatic.