Georgia Mother's Shooting of Home Invader Puts New Spin on Gun Control Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEpEoWLk ... r_embedded#!
That's why 6 bullets aren't enough, why people "need" more. What if there had been more than one attacker?
Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!
The thing is, the Pharma companies are being sued and are settling, rather that fighting the cases, while they might be in a no win situation depending on the politics of the legal system, it can also be seen as indicative there's a problem with adverse reactions and they know about it.
This thread is right next to a thread about how drugs are bad for you, if these killers were on crack or PCP we wouldn't doubt it played a role in causing violence. Doubtless some of the jump in mass killings may be attributed to illegal drugs, but if millions of people are on legally prescribed medications and even an extremely miniscule number react violently, it would help explain the rest.
There's a petition afoot in Britain to keep Piers Morgan from returning, I'm afraid the U.S. might be stuck with him.
This thread is right next to a thread about how drugs are bad for you, if these killers were on crack or PCP we wouldn't doubt it played a role in causing violence. Doubtless some of the jump in mass killings may be attributed to illegal drugs, but if millions of people are on legally prescribed medications and even an extremely miniscule number react violently, it would help explain the rest.
There's a petition afoot in Britain to keep Piers Morgan from returning, I'm afraid the U.S. might be stuck with him.
CHoff
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
It's important to understand when it comes to pharmacology, almost all the field is empirical with no theory, meaning they find out the effects by trial and error with very little theory pointing the way.
The fact meth, LSD, Cannabis and other recreational drugs cause problems is easy to observe, but with something like "homicidal ideations" its near impossible. The people taking these anti-depressents are already depressed enough to seek medical attention, and because there is no theory of how chemistry causes homicidal ideations, when they arise there's no way to tell if they come from the drugs.
The reason people sue is judges are used to awarding people for damages based no on the harm done them, or not on the fault of the person sued, but based on whether the person sued has insurance. Judges routinely award based on coverage. So there's no help looking to the courts to get at the real issues.
The fact meth, LSD, Cannabis and other recreational drugs cause problems is easy to observe, but with something like "homicidal ideations" its near impossible. The people taking these anti-depressents are already depressed enough to seek medical attention, and because there is no theory of how chemistry causes homicidal ideations, when they arise there's no way to tell if they come from the drugs.
The reason people sue is judges are used to awarding people for damages based no on the harm done them, or not on the fault of the person sued, but based on whether the person sued has insurance. Judges routinely award based on coverage. So there's no help looking to the courts to get at the real issues.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
COMPLETE: Ben Shapiro CUTS Piers Morgan DOWN
Think he owned him here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLC ... detailpage
Think he owned him here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLC ... detailpage
Last edited by williatw on Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dianne Feinstein claiming that she would never want to take people's guns away, but video from 1995 shows otherwise
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/01/d ... l#comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DKuN2e ... r_embedded
Diane Feinstein caught in a lie. I remember this interview myself on 60 minutes where she said that, she is a lying POS.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/01/d ... l#comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DKuN2e ... r_embedded
Diane Feinstein caught in a lie. I remember this interview myself on 60 minutes where she said that, she is a lying POS.
Former Marine Responds To Sen. Feinstein's Gun Proposal: 'Unconstitutional
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAYi1XaNPg0
Former marine Joshua Boston shows Alex Jones how to debate Piers Morgan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAYi1XaNPg0
Former marine Joshua Boston shows Alex Jones how to debate Piers Morgan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw
- Barack Obama, 15 January, 2013.In the month since 20 precious children and six brave adults were violently taken from us at Sandy Hook Elementary, more than 900 of our fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun -- 900 in the past month.
So, how many of the 900 were killed by "Assault Rifles"?
How many were criminal in intent?
How many were self defense or stopping a crime?
Why do they count BB Guns?
How many were children?
How many of the children were due to lack of supervision/stupidity?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15 ... e-newtown/
This guy also provides a link to a spreadsheet that I do not have time to parse for each shooting to answer above questions.
Also found this site, which is interactive.
http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2013/01/g ... oject.html
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
-
paperburn1
- Posts: 2488
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
- Location: Third rock from the sun.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carrielukas ... -childish/
interestin perspective from forbes
interestin perspective from forbes
paperburn1 wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/carrielukas ... -childish/
interestin perspective from forbes
And it has precedent.
http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-w ... -as-props/
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... st_tyranny
Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... st_tyranny
Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view.
Wow surprised you didn't post random pictures of Clinton, Carter, Johnson and Kennedy posing with children.
I am sure those pictures of communist dictators with children were used in propaganda campaigns for gun control.
. You always throw random stuff out there expecting people to believe it without question.
I am sure those pictures of communist dictators with children were used in propaganda campaigns for gun control.
. You always throw random stuff out there expecting people to believe it without question. Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
“As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law,” said Norman Seabrook, president of the correction officers union, the city’s second largest.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2013011 ... e=outbrain
What a retard. If he knows the bad guys are not going to follow this law, why is he supporting the notion of everyone having such magazine limitations. It just irks be that such unbelievably stupid people manage all their lives to avoid natural deselection.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2013011 ... e=outbrain
What a retard. If he knows the bad guys are not going to follow this law, why is he supporting the notion of everyone having such magazine limitations. It just irks be that such unbelievably stupid people manage all their lives to avoid natural deselection.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
He doesn't disagree with the policy change. He just objects to retired law enforcement officers being included with the general public with the new restrictions. He couldn't care less if us the little people are disarmed. I understand that NY state was so eager to capitalize on the post Sandyhook shooting feeling that they rushed the law through as quickly as possible. The new restrictions I am told would actually theoretically apply to the police as well:GIThruster wrote:“As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law,” said Norman Seabrook, president of the correction officers union, the city’s second largest.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2013011 ... e=outbrain
What a retard. If he knows the bad guys are not going to follow this law, why is he supporting the notion of everyone having such magazine limitations. It just irks be that such unbelievably stupid people manage all their lives to avoid natural deselection.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=8958116
From the link: A troubling oversight has been found within New York State's sweeping new gun laws.
The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it's written, would also include law enforcement officers.
Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March.
As the statute is currently written, it does not exempt law enforcement officers.
Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries hand guns that have a 15 round capacity.
A spokesman for the governor's office called Eyewitness News to say, "We are still working out some details of the law and the exemption will be included, currently no police officer is in violation."
The Patrolman's Benevolent Association President released a statement saying, "The PBA is actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers."
State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity
.
It is possible we may get a repreive (or the people of NY state may):
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/33 ... -rosenberg
New York’s Magazine Ban: Unconstitutional?
New York’s new gun-control legislation significantly expands the definition of “assault weapon” and reduces the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to seven rounds.
In rushing his proposal through the legislature, New York governor Andrew Cuomo “waived a constitutionally required three-day waiting period between the introduction of legislation and a vote,” allowing no time for hearings or even much debate. That may have been a big mistake — or a gift to pro-gun forces — since there is a strong possibility the restriction on magazine capacity is unconstitutional.
In §265.36 and §265.37, the new law makes it illegal to possess a magazine that holds more than seven rounds, including those legally purchased before the 1994 federal ban on high-capacity magazines or the new state law went into effect, declaring in part:
It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such large capacity feeding device before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition.
An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be a rebuttable presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed that such device may not be lawfully possessed.
It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than seven but less than ten rounds of ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition.
Whether by clever design, simple ignorance, or haste-induced inattention, these provisions in effect have turned the most popular handguns bought for self-defense and recreational purposes — 9mm and .40 caliber semi-automatic pistols — into expensive paper weights, unusable for their intended and wholly lawful purposes. That’s because, with the exception of a small number of small 9mm “pocket pistols” and a slightly larger number of .40-caliber pistols — there are no seven-round magazines produced or available (magazines produced for semi-automatic pistols normally hold eight or more rounds). Thus, although the most popular handguns themselves remain legal under the New York law, the magazines that are necessary for them to work have been declared illegal.
Even though the New York law is not an outright ban of 9mm and .40-caliber handguns, it does make most of them inoperable, and thus would seem to fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, in which the Court noted that “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” Even more to the point, the Court also held that restrictions short of complete bans could also fail constitutional muster. Thus it ruled invalid the District’s requirement “that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times,” noting that doing so “makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” (The holding in Heller was applied to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago.)
In signing his new law Governor Cuomo crowed, “I am proud to be a New Yorker because New York is doing something. We are fighting back.”
Yes, New York did something. Now it will be up to the courts to undo at least part of it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/33 ... -rosenberg
New York’s Magazine Ban: Unconstitutional?
New York’s new gun-control legislation significantly expands the definition of “assault weapon” and reduces the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to seven rounds.
In rushing his proposal through the legislature, New York governor Andrew Cuomo “waived a constitutionally required three-day waiting period between the introduction of legislation and a vote,” allowing no time for hearings or even much debate. That may have been a big mistake — or a gift to pro-gun forces — since there is a strong possibility the restriction on magazine capacity is unconstitutional.
In §265.36 and §265.37, the new law makes it illegal to possess a magazine that holds more than seven rounds, including those legally purchased before the 1994 federal ban on high-capacity magazines or the new state law went into effect, declaring in part:
It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such large capacity feeding device before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition.
An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. It shall be a rebuttable presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed that such device may not be lawfully possessed.
It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than seven but less than ten rounds of ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition.
Whether by clever design, simple ignorance, or haste-induced inattention, these provisions in effect have turned the most popular handguns bought for self-defense and recreational purposes — 9mm and .40 caliber semi-automatic pistols — into expensive paper weights, unusable for their intended and wholly lawful purposes. That’s because, with the exception of a small number of small 9mm “pocket pistols” and a slightly larger number of .40-caliber pistols — there are no seven-round magazines produced or available (magazines produced for semi-automatic pistols normally hold eight or more rounds). Thus, although the most popular handguns themselves remain legal under the New York law, the magazines that are necessary for them to work have been declared illegal.
Even though the New York law is not an outright ban of 9mm and .40-caliber handguns, it does make most of them inoperable, and thus would seem to fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, in which the Court noted that “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.” Even more to the point, the Court also held that restrictions short of complete bans could also fail constitutional muster. Thus it ruled invalid the District’s requirement “that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times,” noting that doing so “makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” (The holding in Heller was applied to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago.)
In signing his new law Governor Cuomo crowed, “I am proud to be a New Yorker because New York is doing something. We are fighting back.”
Yes, New York did something. Now it will be up to the courts to undo at least part of it.