"Blanks" kill actors

So what does this tell you? It infers that it is the bad guy that has the guns and are the most likely the ones that are willing to use them. What laws will prevent the bad guy from getting the guns. On the black market, wouldn't it be the bad guys that steal them, uses them, distributes them, and even manufactures them? The right to bear arms does not give a person the right to commit a felony. A felon losses his/her rights. Unfortunately, it comes after they have used the firearm for something other than what it was intended. As far as accidents go, as unfortunate as it is, this boils down to responsibilty and education. It goes along with poisons improperly stored under the sink without child locks, swimming pools with proper baracades, electric sockets without inserts, pets in the home that are known to be agressive breeds, and the "do you know where you children are?" senerio. Accidents will happen when you let your guard down. Has there been any accidents involving a police officers weapon when it was supposedly put away when they were off duty? I don't know but it wouldn't suprise me. Bottom line, don't attack the **right**, concentrate on the individuals.

Call it what you want, but you can die through the carelessness of others, which is why we have laws to protect you. And since you're not perfect, it could be YOUR carelessness that results in the death of others, or of you.

Can't say how well the laws are that protect us from criminals, unless you want to repeal the laws and see if things get worse. Same with vehicle laws-- things might be a lot worse without licensing requirements.

Oh, you're against laws that require kids to wear bike helmets? You think kids shouldn't be safe because they have uneducated or uncaring parents, or parents who aren't watching them 24/7? THAT is uncaring.

By the way, when you use phrases like "liberal mush" you aren't winning anyone over to your point of view.

Better to risk it be stolen than confiscated by the government

I bet you can't guess how they know who owns firearms? (hint: gun "registration")

I don't give a damn about winning you or anyone else over to my point of view. I am expressing my opinion, take it or leave it. js

And I would suggest that you don't know how a business is run. It's for profit and to gain the biggest profit you report the stories that sell newspapers. You've never done any research on the subject yet you seem to know by "gut feeling" that what you presume, is factual. You say you "know" yet your only source is the general media. I say your wrong because I've done the study and research. And you DON'T know. Robert Campbell has given you some insight about both the subject of confiscation and about what the newspapers do for a living, from his experience. You don't seem to have any reply to his testimony that what I'm saying is fact. You've never looked at the Dept of Justice statistics, but you have looked at the NY Slimes archives. Do the research and compare what you hear and what you "think" you know, to the facts. Until you do, you'll not convince anyone on the basis of "feeling" and what the media has led you to presume. I've had these converstations so many times with people and you'd be amazed at how much you all quote the same information ........ all of which is media in origin.

You are exactly right on .... but not in the context that you assume. Firearms are a tool. Just like a power hammer or a chain saw it can be used for good or bad. Just because neither of these tools was developed for war use, they are just as lethal as a firearm. There are no laws pertaining to the use of these "tools" as weapons. There are no mandatory courses or training required for their use. Both can kill someone just as easily as a firearm. They are not regularly used as weapons, but they have the "potential" of doing serious harm to someone. Shouldn't they be licensed, and controled and be required to be locked up when not in use? Nope, nothing on the books covering their use, storage or ..... anything.

By the way, if my memory serves me right, I think I remember that there are about 37000 laws nation wide, concerning firearms. I think I remember somewhere reading that they were the most "controlled" item on the books.

You are compelety wrong about this and there are Supreme Court rulings through history that negates this frivolous claim. Again, you are parroting what you've heard and haven't done the reading and research.

Based on ......... ? Certainly not anything other than what the general public is fed every day by the media. I've given you information that I've come across and researched at various times over the last 30 or so years. You can take it or leave it. From your persistance in trying to convince someone such as me that you are right, simply reaffirms, that what I am saying is true. You've been led down the path that many people travel. I can only suggest that you actually look into the matter, and after a while, see if you still "feel" the same way. Opinions based on incomplete information are not good opinions, wouldn't you say?

I don't know that you are or are not "anti gun" I do know that you are under some misconceptions that you should really look into before you talk to an old hand such as me. I've been there and back again. You, on the other hand, appear to have been only ...... here.

I don't think you "said" it .... but I think you may have quoted it. Whatever!

It happens, you can't pass enough laws to prevent it and in the end they become counter-productive

Well lets see, some of the strictest gun laws are in Washington DC and New York State, look up the murder rate there sometimes and you can see how well those laws protect

I am against that, more stupid daddy state

Wanna bet? Take a look at the last few elections sometime

Stop it. You're making sense.

So you don't really know how many times a gun is used in self defense right?

Driving cars and bicycle helmets are not a right given by the US Constitution

That last part says everything about where you're coming from

"Shaun Eli" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

This is exactly the point people like you just don't get, and even when it comes directly out of your mouth. Suddenly you're an expert on everyone else's kids. You're assuming, much like the liberals, and governments, that live for ways to invade the civil liberties of its citizens, that you're suddenly experts on parenting. It's not that anyone is caring, or uncaring. These laws don't effect much of reality, they provide a "feel good" for the liberal who thinks he or she is doing something good. But that's where it ends. Reality is, you don't give two s**ts about other people's kids, nor do you know them, or their parents. You can give verbal indication that you do, so people get the warm and fuzzy you're a good person, but, the bottom line is, in reality, it's just a speech. Does the law contain a fund, for kids who wear helmets, and are injured from an accident, money for medical bills? Probably not. Does the law contain a fine to parents who's kids are injured who weren't wearing a helmet? Probably so. How does either benefit the welfare of the child? Neither does. It just assumes those parents are irresponsible. But in the eyes of the idiots creating these laws, it gives them a feeling that it will protect the welfare of a child. It's almost as ludicrous as saying maybe the State should qualify individuals before even having kids. Problem with a law like would be that the State wouldn't be able to deny responsibility. Good lord! Imagine being held accountable for your in-actions....that would be un-American.

Disingenuous comment #1: NYC and DC have high crime rates and strict gun control laws, so the laws don't work.

First of all, the laws were passed IN RESPONSE to the crime- so you can't make that comparison. Secondly, since most of the guns used in crimes in NY and DC were bought in Virginia and brought to NY or DC and sold illegally, obviously the need is for federal laws, not state laws that vary from state to state.

Disingenuous comment #2: Hammers and chain saws are just as dangerous as guns.

Come on- first of all, I can outrun a chain saw. Secondly, I can see one coming. Thirdly, how many chain saw murders are there? You can state that guns aren't bought by legal gun owners to murder people, but you can't argue the fact that guns do get used for that purpose (yes, I know, that shouldn't mean we take the guns away from the law-abiding, and to state once more, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT).

#3: "You don't know how a business is run."

Okay, I've never worked in the newspaper business. But I have a business degree and twenty years of business experience, and I understand about profits.

I'm being accused here of not looking at DOJ statistics. Actually, I have. And when you call the NY Times the NY Slimes, well, what can I saw except that you are displaying such bias that you are actually swaying undecided people FROM your point of view.

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which took no stand on gun issues until they studied the issue, and is not affiliated with gun control organizations, studied suicide in the home and determined that the suicide rate is much higher in homes with guns (again, probably not because people are more suicidal so much as that they're more successful with a gun than with other implements).

That, and that there are problems with kids getting their hands on guns, is what made me choose to want stronger legislation when it comes to gun ownership. NOT banning guns, but requiring the owners of guns to take classes, pass tests, etc.

And I'm curious- if you're against bike helmets for children, is there anything you are for? Should companies be allowed to pollute endlessly, because if it's important to you you'll wear a gas mask? Part of the purpose of government is to protect people from others. In some cases, it's to protect kids from the errors of their parents- helmet laws, child seat laws, etc.

I'm not an expert on parenting, but to respond to this:

"live for ways to invade the civil liberties of its citizens, that you're suddenly experts on parenting. It's not that anyone is caring, or uncaring. These laws don't effect much of reality, they provide a "feel good" for the liberal who thinks he or she is doing something good. But that's where it ends. Reality is, you don't give two s**ts about other people's kids, nor do you know them, or their parents. You can give verbal indication that you do, so people get the warm and fuzzy you're a good person, but, the bottom line is, in reality, it's just a speech. Does the law contain a fund, for kids who wear helmets, and are injured from an accident, money for medical bills? Probably not. Does the law contain a fine to parents who's kids are injured who weren't wearing a helmet? Probably so. How does either benefit the welfare of the child? Neither does. It just assumes those parents are irresponsible. But in the eyes of the

idiots creating these laws, it gives them a feeling that it will protect the welfare of a child."

Bicycle helmets do 'effect much of reality' to the extent that they increase helmet-wearing. This is not about 'feel good' but about saving lives. I do care about other people's kids- which is why I am for all this stuff. You can make all the claims you want about my motives, but you don't know me, so don't put words in my mouth and don't purport to know how I think.

If you don't think that taking legal action against a negligent parent decreases negligence, you're missing the point. This isn't assuming (your words) that the parent is negligent- it's discouraging negligence and also dealing with the aftermath of such negligence to discourage further negligence.

When you call strangers idiots, you aren't helping your cause. Oh, I forgot. You don't care.

I do.

Have a nice evening.

"Robert L Bass" a écrit dans le message de news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

And you know he is making a lot of sense...after all your carelessness did killed someone...

go back to sleep now..but not in your car....

They should at least qualify folks to be foster parents. Just heard on the news...

11 kids age 1 - 14 kept in small cages stacked 2 high in a foster home... There has to be a special place in hell for people like this...

You have to wonder what kind of supervision the state was providing. Of course, our good Republicans from ASA believe that the state should not intrude in matters of parenting and home life.

Actually the so-called "Right of Privacy" continues to be a liberal democrat issue, it's that whole abortion thingie

You mean it may not be Bush's fault after all? Wow!

Hmm. I just read the full story and this might not be what it seems. We'll have to see what comes up over the coming days to know what was really going on there.

BTW, these were adopted children -- not foster kids. That would explain the lack of state supervision. The state usually only checks (sporadically) on foster homes.

I heard that. Most States do qualify Foster Parents. Still doesn't hold the State responsible. If they would have occasionally monitored the welfare of the kids....

The news I heard earlier was just a radio blurp...

This morning I read in the paper that the kids were only locked up for sleeping. I guess that makes it better.

If one wishes to adopt special needs kids then one better be sure that one is equipped (emotionally, mentally and physically) to deal with those needs. Adopting 11 of them is IMHO biting off more than they could chew. If they couldn't handle it they should have found alternatives. And, the Psychiatrist (I think they said) who told them to put the kids to bed in cages should lose his license - if that was in fact what said doctor told them.

Nothing burns me up more than someone who abuses children or elderly.

Robert L Bass wrote:

I hear you, problem is you don't know how to listen to yourself. I don't know you, nor you me. The problem is your lack of understanding either on a Nation wide scale. I don't spend time thinking about what is, or isn't neglectful of Parents raising their kids. Or how some idiot kills a person with a gun. Guns don't kill people. You like to rant about it as a matter of convenience for your personal agenda. Good for you. It's all hot air to me.

Your mind is mis-leading you, and your mouth deceiving you. I only care about things that effect me personally, or members of my family, and my kids. How you raise your kids is up to you. How I raise my kids is up to me. It's a simple concept. Stop believing parents are neglectful, or are saints, such as you. It's not for you, or any other State or Federal government to get partially involved in. Stop assuming, and live with some faith.

I do apologize for calling you and idiot. I hope your just ignorant, which is not a bad thing.