billybob2002

So, did anybody actually tried to find the Newsweek article that the AFP news piece mentions? The article deals more with Israel and Iran. In fact, the articles tries to strain the fact that the United States is going for a diplomatic solution more so than going to war. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/page/0/

Oh please. The United States isn't trying to start up a new Cold War because its hands are tied up now with Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Iron+Cross, I'm totally lost by your post.

Yeah, it is too early. Probably do another post count bet.

Right now, none of the above. I will likely pick one once the field thins out or someone else enters the race that I like. I would never vote for Ron Paul because, well, I don't like his views. On a side note, I think another bet should happen again like what happened in 2004. I need another post increase. Can I go 2-0?

Ok then, but the BBC basically reported the same thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6641999.stm

I guess so. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....id=1770

I think the mods will lock this thread because of rule number three. This thread isn't about recruitment.

I still can't believe that someone thinks Iraq is just the Coalition versus the insurgents and everything will stabilize after the Coalition pulls out. The Coalition versus the insurgency is more of a sidebar compared to the ethnic violence between the Shitte and the Sunni. Civilians are probably more likely die in the ethnic violence than in the fight between the Coalition and the insurgency. I talked to number of people who favored pulling out not just because of insurgency but due to the ethnic violence. Simply, why waste American blood if they enjoy killing themselves? Oh, stop bringing up Vietnam because Vietnam didn't have the ethnic issues like Iraq does. It adds a whole new dimension.

Most people who are granted pardons, commuted sentence, or given clemency are not friends with the President. However, their controversies. For example, Clinton pardoned over 100 people on his last day in office. Some were Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich.

Actually, Clinton pardoned 369 individuals and he granted clemency to 61 individuals. Clinton is behind a few presidents for granting pardons and clemencies. He isn't a record holder. The X-Files theme should be playing now.

Huh? Libby is still a felon and he is still disbarred from practicing law. He just doesn't have to go jail. Personally, I don't think he deserved 30 months because he wasn't the leaker of Plame's status of being a CIA agent. He just misled about how and when he knew about Plame's status of being a CIA agent. Hell, LiL Kim, a female rapper, got less time for claiming that she did not know some individuals involved in a shooting but she did (conspiracy and perjury). This isn't like the Nixon pardon. However, the Democrats are trying to make it seem so with their "anger".

Ok, I just checked some other sites to learn about this case because the news article is a few months old. Well, Ponosov could of gotten five years but he didn't. He was found guilty of the charge and he was given a fine of 5,000 roubles. He was fined less than $200 with no jail time http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=11768154

The world is sick Did anybody actually read the story? Microsoft isn't involved in the case. In fact, Microsoft believes the guy shouldn't had been criminally prosecuted. It seems the prosecutor pushed the case. The prosecutor did though give the guy a plea bargain but he rejected it.

Yikes, it wasn't simple as that! Both sides weren't little angels. Even before the Crusades started, the Arabs did their fair share of looting, pillaging, and conquering of "Christian" lands. Ever heard of the Moors? Or, that Arabs forces conquest parts of Italy and Sicily? It was a two way street. D'oh!

The second video is obviously fake. Anyway, the Iraq insurgency is diverse and weird. President Bush is right that there are Al Qaeda elements, with likely a few wannabes, inside of Iraq acting aganist the Coalition and the Iraqis. Does he overemphasize them? Maybe. I don't know. Those elements, though, have pissed off other insurgents so bad that they are willing to work with the Coalition to fight them. However, the trust behind the two is very rocky. I would be shocked that Iran isn't supplying any part of the insurgency. Nations like to finance and supply insurgencies for their own interests. History has shown us this. ShinRaiden is right about LiveLeak being simply Orgish reloaded. So, I think, it is a big no-no to link that site.

Good, you understand. This is something that you wouldn't truly understand. However, most Americans don't carry to begin with. Then most Americans aren't going to complain about stricter gun laws! Only those that are obsessed with carrying guns outside of shooting ranges. No, the real problem is one of vested interests in gun manufacturers and suppliers. These are the people (and their shareholders) that would be affected the most in the advent of new gun legislation, and no one wants that do they? Now, I didn't say that. However, loaded ballot questions like this: "For the health and safety of children and the entire community, shall the State of Illinois enact a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles?" could influence the public. Yes, that was an real ballot question!

You can't really say ban handguns and lets go from there. There can be variables that could influence the test. For example, Washington DC passed an law in 1976 that virtually banned the possession of handguns. In the 1990s, the number of murders started to decrease in DC but the number of murders nationwide was dropping too. Why was that? Washington DC firearm ban is unique. Was DC just following the trend? Did the population decrease in DC contribute to the reduction of murders? Etc. Etc. I'm more of fix the problem at the root type of guy on this issue than lets apply a bandage and hope everything will be alright. Good, you understand. This is something that you wouldn't truly understand. However, most Americans don't carry to begin with.

Yet, you also mention that all those countries introduced a strict form of gun control laws which had a reduction in shooting on the street. Therefore, I take it that those type of laws are the solution. Yeah, this thread is mumbo jumbo now! Oh, I got the Russian number from RIA Novosti's website. I didn't say that I'm proud we have fewer murders than Russia. I was making an argument about simply having strict control doesn't gives you low number/rate of murders using Russia as evidence. It is not unprovable jargon. For example, here in America, gun ownership in the black "community" is lower than the white "community" but an disproportionate of urban blacks are victimized by other black individuals. Half of the murders committed each year are by black individuals, who mostly use firearms to commit the deed, but blacks make up only 13% of the total population. Most of those murders are intraracial. Why is that an disproportionate number of black individuals commit murders or crimes in general? The answer isn't because of their color. There are many confounding factors. You can't just say 1 + 1 = 2 on this issue because it is wrong. I said "socio-economic and cultural reasons" because I was going for generalization. @Dallas: Those last two paragraphs is what I have been saying but you typed in context of the thread's original intend.

Is the first part directed at me? If it the part is directed at me, I wasn't talking about myself. And, if you wanted to know, I don't carry an concealed firearm. Change in what way? Again, simply having strict gun laws doesn't fix the problem. You are seeing an correlation with those countries but is it causation? Russia has shown us that it isn't causation. Russia has very strict gun laws and, yet, they nearly had 23,500 murders in 2006. The United States had 16,692 murders in 2005 (2006 numbers are not in yet). Year after year, Russia has more murders than the United States. More people live in the United States too by at least hundred million. Clearly, this shows that simply having strict gun laws is not the answer. So, what is it then? If you found the answer, you would probably get an award.

For starters, the average law-abiding American citizen doesn't carry an concealed weapon (firearm). Only a minority of law-abiding citizens do. For example, my state, Maryland, almost never grants concealed weapon permits. In 2003, there were 6,784 armed robberies on the streets/highways of Maryland. It is hogwash to assume that the average armed criminal wouldn't/will pull out an firearm because of the possible of the victim having an firearm on them. I can bring out Russia but I'm not going to play your game. It sort of goes against your point. Look, stop trying to compare the United States to Western European countries, and Australia, with strict firearm laws because even before many of those nations introduced strict gun laws, they still had way lower murder rates/numbers compared to the United States. It is socio-economic and cultural reasons....not the availability of a firearms.

Yes indeed as was just stated, Cho Seung-hui knew exactly what he was doing! If you think that you can trust an entire college campus you need a reality check mate! Even people I've known for years have surprised me in the things that they have done. Noone EVER knows anyone else 100% and as for an entire campus! .... Also as has been said using alcohol to balance statistics is a feeble argument. Alcohol is a social drink enjoyed by millions. It has a function in society even if it is often abused. Hand guns on the other hand have no social function whatsoever if they are being carried around in someone’s pocket other than to be used in anger. I brought up the statistics first because someone brought up accepting the consequences from alcohol usage. The consequence is high in America. Anyway, I think you answer the question why firearms exist in American culture and why they are "popular": it is a social function here. Many non-Americans wouldn't simply get it but it is. Most gun owners aren't thinking about murdering another individual when they have a firearm in their possession. The numbers don't add up if they did. It is the criminal minority that abuses the tool. I guess I don't fear mods!

Having weapons doesn't protect you either, the only difference between people that have weapons and people who don't is what happens after someone decides to oppress them. If you want to talk about the second amendment type of weapon-ownership that is. I knew it! I don't want to go all hypothetical this early morning and I lack sleep. However, there is the existence of something called "fear." Fear can strike man down to his core. I'm done with this thread due to the fear of the mods!

If you don't know the American statistic for alcohol-related crash fatalities, don't try to compare it to American firearm fatalities. More people have died in alcohol-related crashes than by firearms for more than a decade. For example, in 1997, 16,711 individuals died in alcohol-related crashes compared to 10,369 individual killed by a person using an firearm. In 2005, 16,885 individuals died in alcohol-related crashes compared to 10,100 individual killed by a person using an firearm. Why? Also, I like to use fallacies but lets not using them or it would become a bad habit to kick. It is for me. For example, post hoc ergo propter hoc is an fallacy. I'm going to get bashed but what the hell. History has shown that just having a "democracy" isn't going to protect you. Now, I understand why Ralphie is an wise man.

Virgina Tech is an "gun-free zone." Restricting gun rights on campus doesn't automatically make the campus safer. The University of Utah allows concealed weapons on campus and I haven't heard of a mass shooting on their campus. Concealed weapons make campuses safer then, right? Or, are there other factors which make a campus safe? Those are naive comments. I wonder if the American revolutionaries would had tarred and fathered you for that comment. Or, the French revolutionaries would had sent you to the guillotine. Do you get my point? About the second paragraph, laws do not absolutely protect you because if they did, there would be no criminals. Some the most violent areas in the United States have the strictest gun laws in the nation. Having strict gun laws doesn't make society safe. Culture has a major impact on safety. Vermont considers having a concealed weapon without a permit an fundamental right and it isn't the Wild West there. Safer to be in Vermont than in Washington DC. But, why?

It was fun being dragged to death and then my corpse being launched into a forest by an Ural. Black Kenny has many lives though.