CommanderKeen wrote:
WHEN HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SOMEONE HAVING A GUN POINTED AT THEM FOR NOT PAYING TAXES

stani wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

As for Stani, who said
Quote:

I'm sure the carbon footprint of humans is much bigger than that of dogs...

How do you KNOW this to be a fact? After all, you said that you are SURE. What makes you so sure?

Let see ...
1. Dogs don't commute to work (they don't drive cars either)
2. Dogs weigh less than humans (most of the time) and therefore consume less calories than humans (generally speaking it takes more carbon to produce and transport more calories worth of food)
3. Dogs life span is shorter than humans
4. Dogs don't erect complex structures (as in buildings), which requires carbon to do
5. Dogs don't go on planes, unless they're taken by humans,
6. Etc, etc

You get the point, I hope.

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

...After giving permission to put her dogs down, Manno requested that she not be fully photographed in fear that animal rights activists would take action against her for her decision...

You can be sued for putting your dog down?

No, she is afraid of getting photographed and then physically attacked by "animal rights activists" for putting the dogs down.

She remains in a lot of pain and is barely able to walk.
After giving permission to put her dogs down, Manno requested that she not be fully photographed in fear that animal rights activists would take action against her for her decision - a request that was granted by Bayonne Municipal Court Judge Frank Carpenter.

VVP_Ralph wrote:
I'm sure cows are the worst. I think there's no validity to this argument because they are LIVING creatures. Man has created the SUV. Are you suggesting we kill all dogs? I really don't understand the point of this at all. Do humans leave a bigger carbon footprint than dogs? I'm sure. So what do you suggest. This is all nonsense.

trambone wrote:
Who drives that little. Most people drive at least double that making the footprint equal.

gibbons70 wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
And that right bestows an ability to play god in a way that a knife, baseball bat, knitting needle, axe, etc. do not.

I'm a little confused. Not sure how firearms bestow and ability to play God. Since the four items you mention can also be used to dubious ends.

I've heard people make this point before, they backed it up by stating that you can do such a thing (play God) at a distance.

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:

Blasting a person away (not in self-defense) is a crime. Simply possessing one, isn't and shouldn't be.

No, it isn't a crime to possess a gun. I'll agree to disagree on whether it should be.

Where does all this stuff about black market come from? Why hasn't a burgeoning black market developed in Canada and Western Europe to arm people to the teeth?

I agree whole-heartedly that guns aren't the only part of the murder problem in the U.S. There are cultural issues at play, educational (or lack of), and the dominance of materialism over humanism to name a few. But gun folks can make all the car/GM analogies and spit out all the "guns don't kill people" bromides they want. Guns are used by people to kill people. It's not the only use of a gun, but it is a use. And many people own them for that very reason - both "bad" people and "good."

T-Bird wrote:
I specifically chose murder with guns and said so in a prior post. There is no "hidden agenda". I am interested in how many more people die unnecessarily in this country, in part because someone had the ability to have a gun either on their person or in close proximity. And that right bestows an ability to play god in a way that a knife, baseball bat, knitting needle, axe, etc. do not.

T-Bird wrote:
Dude, I heard you the first three times. The Constitution can be changed. The second amendment provided citizens to bear arms to form militias - not hide mini-cannons in their pockets so that they might blast away anyone they perceive to be menacing them. Do I think an amendment is likely? Or even possible? No. But that doesn't mean I don't think it should happen. So, thanks for stating the obvious.

Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
And again, there's no specifically enumerated power in the Constitution that gives the Fed the right to restrict weapon ownership. Therefore, the power automatically is given to the states.

Iwitness wrote:
Quote:

gibbons70 wrote:
Quote:

elvis wrote:
Agreed. So what exactly was YOUR point?

An attempt to show, that you can't say that a country with strong gun laws, or gun bans, will automatically have lower crime rates.

But you laid it out clearly. How there is no universal way of recording crime.

You can, however, say that a country with strong gun laws, or gun bans, will have astronomically lower murder rates, and astronomically lower gun murder rates, as T-Bird cited.

.

CommanderKeen wrote:
Quote:

susiederkins wrote:
Quote:

But there is evidence. Vast, heaping, seemingly incontrovertible evidence to support the notion that stricter gun laws lead to lower violent crime. It exists all over the world. Why does the U.S. rank at or near the top in almost any measure of violent crime among the OECD nations?

Let's assume for the moment that this is true---that more guns lead to more crime.

How is it a good solution to disarm all law-abiding citizens, leaving guns only in the hands of those who have them for nefarious purposes?

This is the only argument I ever hear from pro-gun people. "Why take guns away from law-abiding people? Only criminals will have guns!"

It's not a very strong argument. Especially since you're ignoring evidence that countries with stronger gun laws (or no guns) have less crime. Sure, the only people with guns might be criminals (or law enforcement/military). But there will be a lot less guns for criminals, reducing crime, reducing the need for you to have a gun.

Criminals with guns aren't making them in their basements. They're coming from gun factories that are producing them legally.

T-Bird wrote:
Why not the same gun laws for Montana and NYC? They are subject to the same tax code, even though the cost of living is much higher in NYC than in Montana. There are all sorts of regional advantages and disadvantages to living anywhere. Why should guns be different?

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

nasal_avenger wrote:

Not quite - in the absence of concrete evidence showing that stricter gun laws reduce violent crime, there is absolutely no justification to waste resources drafting, passing, and enforcing gun laws that - once again - GREATLY impact law abiding citizens like myself. The arguement shouldn't be "show me how fewer gun laws reduce crime." We should be asking "Why on earth are we making all this effort when no one can show that it makes any difference?"

But there is evidence. Vast, heaping, seemingly incontrovertible evidence to support the notion that stricter gun laws lead to lower violent crime. It exists all over the world. Why does the U.S. rank at or near the top in almost any measure of violent crime among the OECD nations?

And since the proponents of loose gun laws always fall back on the second amendment, wouldn't it be interesting if gun laws were enacted at the federal level? It seems to be a more reliable way to regulate the availability and movement of guns than the hodge-podge system that is currently in place. I would think the NRA would play along with such a change - far fewer politicians to buy if you get rid of all the state-level folks....

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Kill everything that might hurt you! YEAH!

now there's a valuable contribution to the discussion.

wibbit wrote:

And DirtMcGirt, you are the classic example of the fanatic idiot who should not own a pitbull.

teacher wrote:
jclady..I answered the question. Maybe I should let Duggie Howard MD, socialists, you, jclist and Obama guide me? Why not Stalin or Castro? I am OFF this thread and site forever. Too many closed minded liberals...most likely all union workers here..and I'm closed minded..please.
OK tomorrow I will watch Ellen DeGenerate.
haaaa haaa losers. I'll pray to Liberacci and Adam Lambert for moral guidance. better right?
as I mock another jack-azz here ROLF. LOL (dumb shit).
maybe the commie host will block this heartfelt goodbye.

wibbit wrote:
Quote:

The co-owner of the dogs, Jason Reid, showed up at the Associated Humane Society of Newark facility Saturday and told D.J. Infield, the manager and chief animal control officer, that Maria Zaldana, of Jersey City, must have provoked the dogs, Infield said today.

Infield said that Reid came to the shelter Saturday and said he owns the dogs along with Jessica Manno, his girlfriend. "He was adamant that the dogs must have been provoked" by the 70-year-old woman.

yes people like that should get off with an unleashed dog citation and have the dogs returned to them, so they can let them loose in the yards again....

I cant believe so many of you are defending those dog owners, so WHAT if the dog was in the yards, they jumped out and mauled a woman half to death! That is the owner's fault, period. Add insult to injury, the owner then came and said it's the woman's fault for provoking the dogs, yes the 70 year old must really done a number on the dogs...

You dont think those people should be throw in jail, maybe not attempted murder but reckless endangerment ( or involuntary manslaughter if the poor woman dies)

Maybe all of you pitbull owners are nutcases...

Iwitness wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
The state should be confined to issuing civil union certificates for all couples, and then letting the churches perform marriages if they want to. So one could have a Catholic marriage or a [monogamous] Muslim wedding

That position is the subject of considerable legal academic work, and has a fair share of support in the legal community. I doubt it will ever gain popular support, as that option, while probably the most legally sound position, actually does take something away from "married" opposite-sex couples who otherwise are not impacted one way or another by whether same-sex couples are married or civilly united or domestically partnered.

Telling the majority of people that the state no longer considers them "married" would be a pretty unpopular thing to do.

wibbit wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:

Jessica Manno was given two summonses for having unleashed dogs, police said.

The issue of whether pitbull can be domestic pets with proper training/care is up for debate, and i do think euthanize all pitbull are unfair to responsible owners who take care of their dogs.

The real injustice here is the punishment of the dog owner, 2 summons for unleashed dog?!?! that's like giving a parking ticket for running over someone to close to death.

The woman should be brought up on attempted murder charges, throw in jail for a good part of her life, and never be allowed to own/care for another dog.

This isnt a case of accident, the woman purposely choose not to leash the pitbull and as a result almost killed the poor woman. Why should such disgusting irresponsible dog owners not be charged with a serious crime.

2 summons for unleashed dogs?! what a joke...

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

GeorgeWBush wrote:
Outlawing pit bulls is as stupid as outlawing guns. Operator behavior is the problem, not, by and large, the animal.

for the record, I'd like to outlaw guns.

Iwitness wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
I don?t think government should be involved in marriage at all. That should be between consenting adults and a religious institution, if applicable. Legal partnerships can be formed through a lawyer, if necessary. There?s really no reason to get the state involved at all, but they love to stick their noses where they don?t belong ? in this case, gay marriage.

I agree that the State shouldn't be involved in the marriage business. As do a number of legal scholars. But it is. And it's going to be for a long, long time. And so long as the State is in this business, people will fight for this business to treat equally all people who wish to receive the benefits and accept the responsibilities of civil marriage. Regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, intention to have or not have children, etc.

That being said, I wish those who lobbied for gay rights also did the same for economic rights.

Ah, the whole "let's minimize the efforts of groups who fight for a specific cause by smugly suggesting they're hypocrites or petty" tack. *yawn*

Blumpkin wrote:
How many times do we need to read about this? Euthanization of all Pit Bulls is the only answer. Why isn't this a priority on a local level?

jc73 wrote:
Good for them I wish all jobs were like this.

heights wrote:
Quote:

Eleanor_A wrote:
Yes, in these financial times let's bilk the insurance companies and screw everybody else when their rates increase.

They already do, car insurance companies rate you on your level of education, credit rating, and type of employment. What's next having the insurance companies shell out all of the expenses for the entire fire department's costs and needs ? We can hold the residents liable for their actions tracing where and how the fire started. I heard some companies would not pay out IOD (injured on duty) medical expenses if the employee was at fault for his or her stupid accident.