The idea that control of the population's access to guns is beneficially linked to violent crime is one of the biggest political frauds of our lifetime.After trillions of dollars and manhours spent, the government has absolutely no control over the possession or easy flow of illegal narcotics. Assume for a moment that a ban on guns and the ensuing war on guns would be equally successful, this means that at least 50% of highschool students would have easy access to guns. Career criminals would have no problem obtaining them.In fact, this is what we see in places that have instituted strict gun control: total violent crime increases. This includes at least DC, Chicago, England, and Australia.It is simply a fraud perpetrated by ultra-liberals and peacenik idealists. Notably, over 40,000 people die every year as a result of DUI, yet none of you would support a ban on alcohol. Guns are related to only 30,000 deaths per year; less than 15,000 if you exclude suicide. Even if you make the extremely egregious assumptions that criminals will become law abiding without access to guns, that they will in fact not have access to guns, that suicidal people will not jump off buildings or use simple and painless household cleaners as they do in Japan, there is still absolutely no reason to pursue a ban on guns before a ban on alcohol.
The "right to bear arms" is a mythology nurtured by many millions of Americans and by powerful political interests. This ugly, trigger-happy side of America cries for tighter weapons laws. In 1791 the new American constitution was amended with the following words: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen. We don't need guns anymore today to protect ourselves.
Russians (and their Eastern European buddies) are uncivilized people who are unable to live under democracy -- they just can not see themselves building a normal society. Their people are lazy drunkards and thieves, who refuse to work and honestly but constantly complain about their salaries. Eastern Europeans are passive individuals, weary of change, unaccustomed to lofty motives, and prone only to deviant and deeply individualistic actions. Their vision of themselves borders on fantasy. They suppose without grounds, for instance, that their people are highly spiritual, hospitable, and ready to make sacrifices for others -- in reality they may easily be characterized as zoo animals.
Well, dru, there are some hotels (even 5-star ones) that do not deserve a dime from you! I mean, Jesus, some of them don't have Internet access fast enough for you to be able to watch a YouTube video!
Well, Diana's own mother called her a "whore." She didn't like the fact that her daughter had had romances with Muslim men. This was before the princess' romance with Dodi Fayed. Shand-Kydd said that Diana was "a whore and that she was @ # ! * i n g around with Muslim men."
Quote from: premiermaw on June 14, 2008, 03:03:11 PMWell, dru, there are some hotels (even 5-star ones) that do not deserve a dime from you! I mean, Jesus, some of them don't have Internet access fast enough for you to be able to watch a YouTube video! I am not sure that's really the case ..
Quote from: cocky on May 31, 2008, 02:22:45 PMWell, Diana's own mother called her a "whore." She didn't like the fact that her daughter had had romances with Muslim men. This was before the princess' romance with Dodi Fayed. Shand-Kydd said that Diana was "a whore and that she was @ # ! * i n g around with Muslim men."Frances Shand Kydd"In the end, strange as it may seem, Diana's funeral was probably the proudest day of my life as a mother."