Hey walt, how do you use the old style smilies?

also, that gun he used. That had a rather big clip. I thaught there was meant to be restrictions? I mean, no civilian would have a legitimate use for a weapon with more than 7 shots, could they?

Humans are animals too. Worst kind of animals. Only kind that kills for no reason.

No, the brady bill was repealed, or didn't make it through, or something or another.

I'm not sure about all of the laws. I know that I have a firearms permit, and I had to have an extensive background check to get it. The VT shooter had been through psych hospitals and had a record for stalking. I would think that if they did a background check, he would probably be refused a firearms permit. Now do you need a valid permit in order to purchase a firearm? I had always assumed so but evidently in this case not.

and btw, How many gang bangers and other hoodlums and ne'er do wells actually carrey valid firearms permits and or purchase their firearms through legal channels?

and of driving licenses, I sweated the tests, I had to parrallel park correctly, I had to have my hands on "10" and "2", all with a stern man with a tie and a clipboard in my passenger seat who would repeatedly frown and scribble... But what about those 80 and 90 year olds who forget their names or where they are going? at any rate, once you past your tests bad habbits start slipping in and before long you are slouching, eating, drinking, talking on your cell phone and reaching for another CD to put in the stereo... I should lobby for repeated retesting... It seems like in the US once you have your license you are golden forever.

Ditto for Michigan

I am not an animal, humans aren't animals that's why we're called "humans." We can reason, animals can't.

Good point RTC, I'm for retesting drivers. I also think there should be an age limit to STOP driving. I would lobby for at 70 years of age it's time to hang the keys up.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Just because old people drive cautosly doesn't mean they need to have their license taken away. I agree the driving age should be raised to 18 or 20 or when people actually mature. And we should have drivers retest every few years.
Btw, I'm not old.

While I also support retesting, I don't think there should be an upper age limit. There are many drivers who are past 70 who still drive just fine. And with people keeping healthy into later years, that number will just go up. It's another case of the select few who are starting to wear down.

Exactly where in the Constitution is the separation of God and state, or even church and state, mentioned? The only thing I can specifically come up with is the First Amendment, which simply states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" regarding the topic. The major mention of this kind of separation is usually drawn from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of churchmen as an explanation of why the Government wouldn't act to shut down a specific branch of the church. (I think the clergy in question actually wanted the government to act in this case, but I can't recall offhand.)

I'll have to check out those laws at some point; those kinds of lists are always humorous.

Most products wouldn't be; a few could be shipped by plane, I suppose, although then you'd have to have farms (or buggy stops?) built exceedingly close to the airports, or else airports built close to the farms. I suppose an alternative would be to go back to mass rail transit for cross-country details. Still, the vast majority of such goods, especially perishables, would have to be used in the same locality as they were raised/made.

In this day and age, a large number of jobs might be able to continue from home (note: Not all of them, and some of those that can't are critical [manufacturing for example]), with the internet or similar local networks serving the company infrastructure.

And as to schools, we'd have to go back to the era when most students went to local area or neighborhood schools, instead of being bussed to the other side of town. [<sarcasm>Oh, horror!</sarcasm>] We ought to do this one anyway; it's a useful way to build pride in one's neighborhood and local surroundings. Schools would probably get better treatment if most of those who lived near them had a personal incentive [again, local pride] to keep them in good condition.


From what I've read, Michael Moore basically ambushed Charlton Heston about the issue early one morning, without letting Heston even have a bit of knowledge as to what was going on before the assault began. And the evidence I've seen also seems to indicate that the footage in Bowling was edited.

By the way, have you looked at Heston's outfit in the speech segment yet?



Not voting isn't the reason animals don't have rights. In human terms, it's because the animals themselves do not (and cannot) stand for such rights themselves. Or do you suppose that the elk a pack of wolves brings down tries to reason with them that they shouldn't kill it because of its right to life? Human Beings are the only creatures with the rational capacity or inherent nature to understand and respect rights. (Note: This doesn't mean that all of us* do respect them, merely that we're capable of it.) Humans may have a native duty to protect animals (and plants) from abuse or mistreatment, but this duty on the part of humankind does not translate into a right on the part of the plants or animals in question.

Work: Take your pick.

And you, I presume, know exactly what the founders of this nation meant by their written statements? Or were you present, perhaps, at the discussions that surrounded these amendments? As to the 'religious' component of your argument, I'd argue that the 'no guns anywhere' side has more of a religious component than the 'guns where needed' side does; they require a faith that guns are the source of problems (as opposed to the individuals who use them) and a faith that everyone will gladly give up their guns when asked to do so. (Which the criminal class will not, naturally...a honed or innate 'rejection of standard law' outlook is pretty much a part of the job description for 'criminal'.)

It should also be noted that one of the major reasons that governmental bodies attempt to disarm their citizens or subjects is that it increases a form of power disperity. For example, slaves weren't permitted to bear arms in early America, or the Jews under Hitler's Germany.

And on the 'National Guard == militia' argument, the National Guard is a portion of the Federal Armed Services. Its charter (or at least the parts I've seen) indicate that it serves at the behest of Congress. As such, it is not a citizens militia. The purpose of a citizens militia is to protect the citizens of the State from abuse or assault by the government of the State (In this case, the Federal Government of the United States of America). I fail to see how a body that is officially a part of the federal military, with a clear chain of command culminating in the head of state (in the role of CiC), could also serve as a line of defense against the federal government. There would seem to be a conflict of interest at that point.


*I'm at least assuming everyone reading this is human...

I'am not talking about driving cautiously, I'm talking about elderly people who take their meds and go driving to do their daily errands, and instead of parking in the parking lot at meijers ( like walmart for those who don't have one) they just pass out at the wheel, or better yet "zone out" and drive right threw the front of the store into the check out lanes ( true story). Or how about when elderly people use the passing lane as a turning lane, I could go on and on about the accidents they cause, but we all have witnessed it at one time or another. So anyhow maybe completely stripping their license is a little harsh, but I do agree they certainly need to be retested....Like evey month.