DraconisRex

quote:Originally posted by Wolferz: yup and they continue to sock it to the working man. maybe we need to go to dc and fire the lot of them.Actually, this last election, we did fire a bunch of them. And I didn't have to drive 40-miles south of here to do it!

quote:Originally posted by Kiran: I smell a revolution in the next century...pathetic, really.Me too. Us that know how to play the games vs. those that don't. Now, who do you think the winner will be, and who will be at the end of a pike???

quote:Originally posted by IceCold: The crash happened on "Black Tuesday," not "Black Friday," Darn history books, always misprinting things.Actually, I had forgotten, so I made the mistake of looking it up on the Internet.... It said Black Friday -- all I had to do was check the calendar...

As for Education, let's look at the International Averages... ÔÇ£The Condition of Education in BriefÔÇØ contains charts and other graphics illustrating the current trends in international education. The following information was converted from one of those graphics into text: International Reading Literacy: Average age reading literacy score of 15-year-olds, by country:2000 (The International Average has a base-value of 500) quote:Finland 546 Canada 534 New Zealand 529 Australia 528 Ireland 527 Korea, Republic of 525 United Kingdom 523 Japan 522 Sweden 516 Austria 507 Belgium 507 Iceland 507 France 505 Norway 505 United States 504 Denmark 497 Switzerland 494 Spain 493 Czech Republic 492 Italy 487 Germany 484 Liechtenstein 483 Hungary 480 Poland 479 Greece 474 Portugal 470 Russian Federation 462 Latvia 458 Luxembourg 441 Mexico 422 Brazil 396The United States is four-points above the International Average, but, based on what we are paying for this "education," we should be in the low 600's instead of barely above average. According to statistics that I've found, the following illustrates the differences between public and private schools. Pay particular attention to the items I've marked in bold italics: quote:SCHOOLS: TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS: 14,891 TOTAL NUMBER OF K-12 SCHOOLS: 118,464 Elementary: 81,812 Secondary: 26,205 Combined Schools: 10,447 TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 91,062 Elementary: 65,189 Secondary: 23, 718 Combined: 2,155 TOTAL NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS: 2,357 TOTAL NUMBER OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS: 27,402 Elementary: 16,623 Secondary: 2,487 Combined: 8,292 TOTAL NUMBER OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS: 8,144 Elementary: 6,923 Secondary: 1,221 Combined: N/A ENROLLMENT: TOTAL K-12: 51,610,806 Elementary: 36,168,631 Secondary: 13,989,239 Combined: 1,452,937 TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 46,534,678 Elementary: 33,343,787 Secondary: 13,190,900 TOTAL CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 579,880 TOTAL PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 5,076,119 Elementary: 2,824,844 Secondary: 798,339 Combined: 1,452,937 TOTAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 2,500,416 Elementary: 1,877,236 Secondary: 623,180 TEACHERS: TOTAL: 3,284,000 Elementary: 2,014,000 Secondary: 1,270,000 TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS: 2,887,000 Elementary: 1,733,000 Secondary: 1,154,000 TOTAL CHARTER SCHOOL TEACHERS: 36,019 TOTAL PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS: 397,000 Elementary: 281,000 Secondary: 116,000 TOTAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS: 144,642 Elementary: 97,692 Secondary: 40,226 Combined: 6,724 STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO: PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO Elementary: 17.6:1 Secondary: 14.1:1 CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO: 16:1 PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO Elementary: 16.4:1 Secondary: 11.5:1 CATHOLIC SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO Elementary: 18.7:1 Secondary: 15:1 Combined: 11.2:1 EXPENDITURES: TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL EXPENDITURES: $334.3 billion Current Expenditures: $285.5 billion Instruction: $176.5 billion Student Services: $96.5 million Food Services: $11.7 billion Enterprise Operations: $776.4 million Capital Outlay: $36.2 billion Interest on School Debt: $7.8 billion Other Current Expenditures: $4.8 billion AVERAGE PUBLIC SCHOOL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE: $6,662 AVERAGE PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION: $3,116 Elementary: $2,138 Secondary: $4,578 Combined: $4,266 AVERAGE CATHOLIC SCHOOL TUITION: $2,178 Elementary: $1,628 Secondary: $3,643 Combined: $4,153 SALARIES AND WAGES: PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS: District Superintendent: $112,158 Associate Superintendent: $97,251 Assistant Superintendent: $88,913 PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS: High School: $79,839 Middle School/Junior High: $77,382 Elementary School: $72,587 PUBLIC SCHOOL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: High School: $60,999 Middle School/Junior High: $63,706 Elementary School: $59,080 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL: Counselor: $48,195 Librarian: $46,732 School Nurse: $35,540 AVERAGE TEACHER BASE SALARY: Public School: $41,820 Private School: $33,220 Catholic School: $21,898 PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPPORT STAFF SALARIES: Clerk/Office Positions: Secretaries/Stenographer: $28,540 Accounting Payroll: $24,560 Clerk/Typist: $23,200 School Building Level: Secretary/Stenographer: $22,650 Library Clerks: $16,980 HOURLY WAGE RATES: Teacher Aides: Instructional: $10.00 Specialized: Custodians: $11.35 Cafeteria Workers: $9.02 School Bus Driver┬╣s: $12.48 PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOL EMPLOYEES BY CATEGORY: Teachers: 52.2 percent Aides: 10.8 percent School Staff: 7.9 percent Support Staff: 4.4 percent Other Staff: 20.2 percent FUNDING: TOTAL FUNDING OF PUBLIC EDUCATION: $325,976,011,000 Federal: $22.2 billion (6.8% of total) State: $157.6 billion (48.4% of total) Local: $137.8 billion (42.3% of total) Private: $8.3 billion (2.6% of total) On the assumption that we changed over to private instruction, and the average tuition remained somewhere in its current range, then we would get an effective 53% savings, less the cost of feeding low-income children and administration costs. That's $177.179 Billion Dollars to start with. Let's assume (as a high-estimate) that those extra costs ran $50 Billion. That's still $127.179 Billion in savings. Wanna know what impact that would have on your wallet? On average (2.5 people per household,) with 184 Million people, half of which have kids in school, that's 36.8 Million checks being issued by this action. Or, in dollars and cents, a tax-savings of $3,455.95 average per household with school-age children. The Department of Education would still set the standards that schools would have to follow, but would not have a public school system. Based on statistics, accounting, and common sense, there is little reason to continue our current trend of spend, spend, spend. I don't know about you, but I could use a few thousand dollars extra per year come Christmas time....

On October 29th, 1929, which is called "Black Friday" in the history books, the Stock Market crashed, and burned. At the time, "The New Deal" was a good way of dealing with the situation, since the nation would not survive without splitting the resources of what few of the wealthy that remained, to include the US Treasury. We entered World War II on December 7th, 1941. Although we weren't actually in the war until that point, we had been selling many weapons and unofficial "assistance" items to Great Britain and others in an effort to bolster our economy. In 1945, we won the war against both Germany and Japan, and the Social Programs we had started should have ended, since our economy and the society at-large was on a major upswing, right? Wrong! The IRS was founded originally to pay war debts and get us back-on-track in the world-scene. A great idea -- no problem. And when it has completed that, it would be disbanded, right? Wrong! Our Federal Debt actually started when a certain group of morons decided that it would be a great idea to be able to print all the money they wanted. They did this by taking us off the ÔÇ£Gold Standard,ÔÇØ which was where every dollar in the treasury was backed-up by the same amount of gold, and could be exchanged for gold at any Federal Bank. Without the Gold Standard, the term ÔÇ£inflationÔÇØ would have little meaning, since you didn't lose any value just because prices fluctuated. At the moment, the only reason that American money has any value is because we believe it does ÔÇô it isn't worth the paper it's printed on! The last time I checked (which has been awhile,) US Dollars were worth 27 cents. Prior to Black Friday, the US Government was ÔÇ£in the black,ÔÇØ meaning that there was no debt owed to anyone; in fact, there was a surplus. This all changed when the Stock Market plunged to an all-time low. The US Treasury has a table, shown below, that tells us the history of the US Debt, from 1940 to the Estimated Value in 2005. quote:1940 $ 50,696 million 1941 $ 57,531 million 1942 $ 79,200 million 1943 $ 142,648 million 1944 $ 204,079 million 1945 $ 260,123 million 1946 $ 270,991 million 1947 $ 257,149 million 1948 $ 252,031 million 1949 $ 252,610 million 1950 $ 256,853 million 1951 $ 255,288 million 1952 $ 259,097 million 1953 $ 265,963 million 1954 $ 270,812 million 1955 $ 274,366 million 1956 $ 272,693 million 1957 $ 272,252 million 1958 $ 279,666 million 1959 $ 287,465 million 1960 $ 290,525 million 1961 $ 292,648 million 1962 $ 302,928 million 1963 $ 310,324 million 1964 $ 316,059 million 1965 $ 322,318 million 1966 $ 328,498 million 1967 $ 340,445 million 1968 $ 368,685 million 1969 $ 365,769 million 1970 $ 380,921 million 1971 $ 408,176 million 1972 $ 435,936 million 1973 $ 466,291 million 1974 $ 483,893 million 1975 $ 541,925 million 1976 $ 628,970 million Transition Quarter $ 643,561 million 1977 $ 706,398 million 1978 $ 776,602 million 1979 $ 829,470 million 1980 $ 909,050 million 1981 $ 994,845 million 1982 $1,137,345 million 1983 $1,371,710 million 1984 $1,564,657 million 1985 $1,817,521 million 1986 $2,120,629 million 1987 $2,346,125 million 1988 $2,601,307 million 1989 $2,868,039 million 1990 $3,206,564 million 1991 $3,598,485 million 1992 $4,002,123 million 1993 $4,351,403 million 1994 $4,643,691 million 1995 $4,921,005 million 1996 $5,181,921 million 1997 $5,369,694 million 1998 $5,478,711 million 1999 $5,606,087 million 2000 (Estimate) $5,686,338 million 2001 (Estimate) $5,768,957 million 2002 (Estimate) $5,854,990 million 2003 (Estimate) $5,946,792 million 2004 (Estimate) $6,033,583 million 2005 (Estimate) $6,118,364 millionOn the assumption that the value shown in 1941 was the effect of the Great Depression, we spent $57.531 million dollars to support our local citizens. Not too bad, considering the devistating impact of Black Friday. By 1950, the debt should have been taken care of, the IRS abolished, etc. That didn't happen, because Congress saw great use for that extra money they had no right to have. Having to do nothing and collect great sums of money, thanks to the 1930's and early 1940's, had become the American Dream! Who would have thought that the American people could be so helpful! Let's see what ÔÇ£social reformÔÇØ has done for this great land, shall we? Assume that the value shown for 1941 has a ÔÇ£base valueÔÇØ of one, or ÔÇ£1ÔÇØ for the uninitiated. Let's check that value to see what's happened in the past 61-years.... 1940 to 1950 ÔÇô Increase from 1 to 4.46 ÔÇô Acceptable, since the first half of the 1940's was still in the Depression. 1950 to 1959 ÔÇô Increase from 4.46 to 4.997 ÔÇô Okay, so we didn't pay our bills. Korean ÔÇ£police action.ÔÇØ 1960 to 1969 ÔÇô Increase from 4.997 to 6.36 ÔÇô Viet Nam Conflict ÔÇô still not paying our bills. 1970 to 1979 ÔÇô Increase from 6.36 to 14.42 ÔÇô Wait a minute, wrong direction!!! 1980 to 1989 ÔÇô Increase from 14.42 to 49.852 ÔÇô Damn, people, what y'all thinking?!?!? 1990 to 1999 ÔÇô Increase from 49.852 to 97.444 ÔÇô Somebody, put on the breaks!!! 2000 to 2002 ÔÇô Increase from 97.444 to 101.771 (Estimated) ÔÇô Almost acceptable. 2003 to 2005 ÔÇô Increase from 101.771 to 106.349 (Estimated) ÔÇô Slowed down, at least. Still too high. What this tells me is that we still haven't paid for the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, or even Dessert Storm. Excuse me, but wasn't that the point of having the IRS in the first place? To help raise money to pay for our expenses? That was the excuse they used to start it, but.... Now, I hear people trying to convince me that we need more social programs, and to continue to let government run Education. Based on their past track-record, that would not be a sound business decision ÔÇô how would you react if someone with a history similar to what Congress has asked to run your business, or even do your taxes? My answer would be a resounding No way in hell!!! How about you?

Anyone (besides me) seen the movie "The Fourth Protocol"? It came out in 1987, and stars Michael Caine and Pierce Brosnan. I'd never heard of it before, but found it at a used video store. I'd give it a 9/10. What worries me is that it was feasible at the time.... From the Video Jacket: quote:In an undercover plot to destroy NATO, the KGB plans to annihilate a peaceful English residential area and a US Air Force base. Their diabolical weapons: a miniature but high-yield atomic bomb that has been smuggled into the area in nine innocent-looking pieces, and their most murderous agent (Pierce Brosnan) who has assembled and armed this hellish device. Only one member of British Intelligence (Michael Caine) senses the impending havoc but his break-the-rules methods have led to banishment from Her Majesty's service, mysterious rebuffs from his former superiors, and ever-looming death threats. Based on the best selling novel by Frederick Forsyth, The Fourth Protocol is packed with action and betrayal, breathtaking danger, and the ever-shifting deceptions that lead to the success or failure of the deadliest cold war act ever conceived.It's a little better, in my opinion, than The Sum Of All Fears, although I thought that was better than what the critics rated it.

quote:I tend to speak in riddles, and getting a straight answer out of me is indeed a notable moment. While I may act a little crazy, I am actually quite lucid and tend to be the voice of reason. My sanity is in a good balance with my insanity.42% Mad... This is the 3rd time I was certified sane... Kinda scares me, knowing the rest of you guys...

It is a variation, but semi-current....

quote:BUSTED. I was playing advocatus diaboli just for the sake of discussing the issue (since I have some reservations about easy access to guns). I hope you guys don't mind. [smile]I don't mind a bit. I was just surprised at the contradiction of military/anti-gun thoughts. quote:My point precisely. People who want to own guns should show their sincerity by submitting to training and testing. I'd say that testing isn't required. If you make gun-owners subject to the same laws that Peace Officers have to follow about Excessive Force, then most people will get the training they need before they buy the weapon. The ones that don't, and blow their license will be in jail anyway, and even after their release, won't be able to get another gun. quote:It's hardly a ceteris paribus comparison, since the implementation of gun control laws wasn't the only thing that happened in that decade. There's recession, a general tendency/readiness for violence etc. Thus you can't exactly know if gun control laws can be blamed intierely for the raise in crime.I will concede that there are elements involved that cannot be accurately measured in determining what the entirety of effects are.... quote:I guess the Brits and Aussies would mind, but you could still send the criminals to a moon or mars penal colony.... Nah... Better idea, and a LOT cheaper. After someone is convicted of a felony crime that requires one or more lifetime sentences, and they have exhausted all appeals, take them off The Peoples' payroll.... You do this by using 3 members their State's National Guard, and issue them one-each 30-cent rifle bullet.... Line the prisoner up, and order the Guards to shoot-to-kill. Why should The People continue to pay for a prisoner that will not be leaving prison in the first place??? This will make serious crimes considered serious by the would-be and actual criminals. [ 11-22-2002, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

quote:Originally posted by Kiran: I'd like to know where you got that info. An M-16A1 has full auto capabilities and an M-16A2 has safe-semi-burst (where semi fires 1 round per trigger pull and burst is a 3-round burst) and trust me there's no way to get more than 3 rds out on a single trigger pull, I've tried! Besides, AFAIK M-16's are not available to the general public. AR-15's on the other hand, I don't know much about except that it's the civilian counterpart and is supposed to only have safe and semi.You are correct -- I'm running off three hours of sleep, so bear with me. However, I have seen an M16A1 fire as many as 4 rounds in a single auto-burst. The ones we were using were made by Matel, which is still funny to me. I thought the NCO's were kidding us until I saw the insignia... "Uhhhhhh...." quote:The constitution and bill of rights were put in place to avoid the need for an aggressive take over of gov't. (although since somehow people in large groups lose their common since, voting is somewhat ineffective at times) That was the reason, but they also wanted to make sure that Congress understood they worked for US, not themselves. Should legal routes fail to hear The People, the Second Amendment gave The People the power to implement Anakin Skywalker's "Aggressive Diplomacy." The Federal Courts have acted outside the scope and intent of the Constitution, and "twist-terpret" whatever new law they feel is necessary. However, that right has never been granted them by Congress or the Constitution -- ask the average citizen how they feel about their rights, and they'll ask, "What rights?" The only entity in existence that can do legal interpretation on the Constitution or anything related to it is the US Supreme Court. The lower courts, when they pass laws that inhibit rights and freedoms, are doing so as renegades -- read the Constitution as it is written about how the Court System works, and you'll understand what I'm talking about. That means that about 80% of the laws on the books, if they could ever make it to the Supreme Court, would be tossed out on their ear.

quote:Originally posted by Starfighter08: quote:Originally posted by DraconisRex: quote:Originally posted by Starfighter08: IIRC that's the old fight about the 2nd amendment allowing individuals to own guns vs. allowing state militias.Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue in several of his writings (I will get references on request.) The Constitution only allowed the existance of an Army and a Navy to be governed by the Federal Government. The State Militias were Minutemen, private individuals who guarded and protected our shores from invaders, such as what we saw during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. They were front-line military men that were highly trained in the art of protecting these shores, and they did a fantastic job, imo. If you want to get technical, the National Guards are not required or authorized by the Constitution, although they exist in the basic form that the Second Amendment permitted. The Right to Bear Arms was granted to us to ensure that the Government would never again be our nemesis to freedom. This right ensured that, should Congress be so stupid as to try to take away our rights, we would have the ability to beat the ever-loving crap out of them, just as we did to King George. With some help, courtesy of the French king. quote: I don't think there is anything to dispute -- it's American freedom in its purest form, and anyone wanting to argue with my rights had best be prepared to meet me (and 80 million other gun-owners) on the battlefield. With 1/3rd of the population marching on DC, I think it would be a short war indeed.An armed population is indeed harder to suppress than an unarmed one. But I fear that only a blunt coup d'etat by the feds would trigger that reaction you describe. What about the tactics of taking away civil liberties one by one? Where do you draw the line? Or don't you have any second thoughts concerning homelandsecurity or similar agencies? Oh, I know that without France, we would have remained a Colonial Government, under the thumb of good ol' King George, for a lot longer. As it stands, my thanks to France in this regard. Now, if we could just get some cooperation at the UN on certain other international matters.... Our liberties are disappearing, one by one, but just like the Civil War, somebody's toes will get stepped on. When that happens, will it be North Vs. South, East vs. West, or East & West vs. the Central States? I'm still studying the Homeland Security Bill, in detail, and will issue a report on a seperate thread at a later date. At this point, stopping nukes from showing up in Los Angeles is a bit more important to me than being harrassed at the airport, or them learning that I am pro-liberty. I mean, all they gotta do is ask. Which line did you want to discuss? The one about my rights protecting me against the state, or the ones stating that the government is supposed to guarantee my safety from foreign powers? The lines are close, granted, but there is a small border between them that must give way to freedoms, but you must survive long enough to enjoy them....

quote:Originally posted by Fractux: I still want to go and check out this movie. It's probably not going to be playing in a large number of theaters though. http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/ I have yet to go see it, but a lot of my friends who have said it was very interesting. Admitedly, this film has it's own bias, as you will no doubt tell from the intro on their site, but it's supposed to be very well made, as it won at the Cannes Film Festival. Anyways, I'm going to check it out when I get the chance and see what it has to say. Cheers! BTW, this was made by an American, just to clear that up.As for Columbine and the other guns-in-school issues, I stated earlier that guns required responsibility first. Parents need to be involved in their children's lives, but even so, there are other ways to get guns, legal or otherwise. We have a great set of Gun Control laws here in Batltimore, yes sir! Most of them deal with Automatic Weapons and the like, which are already addressed by federal laws, and are totally redundant and only take up space on the lawbooks. Semi-Automatic Weapons are not regulated in most areas, although an M-16 (yep, it's semi...) can fire from 1 to 6 shots with a single trigger pull. They go on and on about how to regulate -- when are they going to address the real problem -- criminals with guns? In Texas, Convicted Felons and people who can't take care of themselves are the only ones who can't apply for and get a handgun, and even a license to conceal it. If you carry, you have to have a gun-safe in your car, and can't be within 1000 yards (I think...) of any school. Wanna know what the voilent crime-rate is? Look it up, and compare it to the rest of the States and let us know...

quote:Originally posted by Starfighter08: IIRC that's the old fight about the 2nd amendment allowing individuals to own guns vs. allowing state militias.Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue in several of his writings (I will get references on request.) The Constitution only allowed the existance of an Army and a Navy to be governed by the Federal Government. The State Militias were Minutemen, private individuals who guarded and protected our shores from invaders, such as what we saw during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. They were front-line military men that were highly trained in the art of protecting these shores, and they did a fantastic job, imo. If you want to get technical, the National Guards are not required or authorized by the Constitution, although they exist in the basic form that the Second Amendment permitted. The Right to Bear Arms was granted to us to ensure that the Government would never again be our nemesis to freedom. This right ensured that, should Congress be so stupid as to try to take away our rights, we would have the ability to beat the ever-loving crap out of them, just as we did to King George. I don't think there is anything to dispute -- it's American freedom in its purest form, and anyone wanting to argue with my rights had best be prepared to meet me (and 80 million other gun-owners) on the battlefield. With 1/3rd of the population marching on DC, I think it would be a short war indeed.

Mild side-note: Someone earlier posted an entry about "Guns don't kill people...." I read a tagline a few months ago on this subject: quote:Guns don't kill people. Death kills people. Ask any doctor. Don't remember the origin, and it could be from these forums, but I think it was on a DoveNet echo....

StarFighter08: quote:Reading this shows clearly that it would be much harder to get a gun. That means that less people will have some. So long as they still make iron pipes and firecrackers, I can assure you, I will still have access to a gun. One that is just as deadly as the ones they are trying to "control." As soon as they get the criminals to register their weapons, legal or otherwise, they'll have something to control. quote:As soon as a criminal knows you have a gun, it becomes a me or you situation. The risk of getting killed is now significantly higher. You better know how to use a gun and actually do use it otherwise you're dead meat. They tell me that a handgun is a defensive weapon. I disagree with that, because its use is quite offensive to whatever it hits... Knowing how to use, clean, and oil a gun I consider to be very important -- at the same time, I'm not as afraid of a Peace Officer as I am a 24-year old who shakes when they hold the weapon... A Peace Officer will wing me, whereas the novice will simply shoot the weapon, and I have no idea where its going to hit. Neither does the criminal, which makes the situation more interesting. It's simple, really -- if you pull a gun, be prepared to use it. Back in the Old West, the right to defend property and family was guaranteed by the law. In lawless areas, which means corrupt politicians and criminals running the show, the crime rate was not really that bad -- you don't steal from home, you steal from those that have stuff. Nowadays, the roles are reversed -- heavily populated areas have staggering crime-rates (crooks killing each other, mostly) and bad political bosses, and suburbs have an excess of crime, since that's where most of the rich reside. If you were given a choice as an infantryman, which would you rather attack all by yourself -- A tank battalion or a lone soldier on patrol? Criminals aren't stupid, and if they know you have a gun and think you may use it, they will normally leave you alone (unless they see a tactical advantage to the conflict area they have in mind -- that's a problem for the victim, as they weren't paying attention.) quote:Is there a way a cop can spot if somebody is armed? It's only one step from there to check if the weapon is legally owned. Actually, if they aren't a convicted felon, and are committing no other crime, then the "Gun Control Law" is totally unconstitutional (in the US, of course.) quote:"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." -- From the Second Amendment, US Constitution It doesn't say that the States have the right to change this, nor does it give the Courts the power to impose any laws that defeat its purpose. Any law passed that does so is illegal. Period. It seems the Courts have forgotten terms like "Democracy" and "Freedom." So have many of the State Legislatures. quote:You haven't seen gun control work because it hasn't been introduced/enforced thoroughly yet. Saying that you don't know if it works but being against trying is not a tenable stance, especially if you're even against hypothetically speaking/inquiring about the effects of gun control. I have a great idea for Gun Control. Give everybody guns. Require that they be trained in both usage and cleaning. Then, the crooks that want to kill each other would get it over with, and the ones that survived would be on Death Roll. Finally, we would have peace, as few would dare to attack anyone if they knew they had a gun. The ones that did would not be missed.... quote:The discussion is not about gun control being constitutional or not. It's about the question if it should be constitutional or not. Since a majority of congress can amend the constitution, the discussion is not completely moot. Congress can do whatever it wants to. Our founding fathers, in their wisdom, gave the Several States the ability to petition for a Constitutional Convention (Article V, I think), and pass whatever laws the people want. As for Congress making the Amendment to control arms, they will probably be signing their own death warrants, as that is a basic right of Americans. There are too many independent militias that were given rights to exist by the same Amendment you are proposing to change. If the members of Congress act outside the will of The People, may God help them. quote:I'd also like to add that gun control doesn't mean that nobody should have arms. At least not for me. Being a Swiss militaryman (like half the male population of this country) I have my assault rifle and ammo right here at home and I think that free people should be allowed to own guns. It's just that the restrictions should be tighter IMO, especially if peole without military training can get guns easily. Now I'm confused -- there's a 50% probability that any male you assault in your country will shoot you, yet you're arguing against the right of a free people to defend themselves?!?!? I will concede that training on both usage and proper maintenance of any gun you own should be required -- but then again, how much training do most people get before they sit down in front of a computer for the first time? Owning a gun is a responsibilty first, and defense second. In closing -- It makes no difference whether or not laws should exist or not; the only impact is results. Crime rates in both Great Britain and Australia have soared to astronomical levels in the past ten-years, as they make tighter and stricter gun-control laws. Taking the abilty to defend oneself away only increases the probability of a crime. What do you think of this idea? Instead of convicting our local criminals through the courts, how about simply revoking their citizenship, and sending them away to Great Britain or Australia? At least they should feel right at home.....

The test says that I'm a Leftist/Libertarian, although barely on the Libertarian part... -3.38/-0.27 Although my leanings may be to the left, I still hold to my ascertion that I am not a Democrat or a Republican -- I am an American, and hold to my beliefs that no American should be hyphenated, or discriminated against, because of their ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds, nor because of the color of their skin, their sex, their sexual orientation, etcetera. I do not feel that the United States has the right, at any level (to include the court systems,) to deny Prayer in Schools or saying the Pledge of Allegience at the option of the child. To remove that option is to oppress; Freedom of religion also means freedom from oppression, which is the primary reason 80% of Americans came to these shores, be it political, religious, financial, or simply the desire to be free. When the Federal Court in California made it illegal for Prayer to exist in schools, they committed a criminal act, in my opinion. quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Federal Government is specifically forbidden by the First Amendment to interfere with The Peoples' right to practice religion at any level. It doesn't say the courts are subject to this law -- it doesn't have to. This was a Federal Court, which means it represents Congress when it passes any new law, and must not act against the Constitution. It did so anyway. Which means the law is unconstitutional, and should be fought with all our might, since it denies democracy by its action. Freedom with oppression is a lie.

Actually, FireStorm was my hero, as he wasn't just one person -- it was both a young man and a professor that combined when he was called into action. That's where I finally learned that teamwork was more powerful than any great plan to do just about anything. Only love is stronger, but who is going to attack love with a superhero???

US Army, 1988 - 1989, Private First Class (E-3), Giessen, West Germany. Cannon Crewmember 13B10 (apparently means TDY to Battery Supply of same unit for duration of duty...) Hindsight is 20/20.... Had I known then what I know now, most of you would have been calling me "Sir." Probably a Warrant Officer, but I was rubbing shoulders with the right people, just didn't realize it at the time. Ah, we live, we make our mistakes, and eventually die. For those with the courage to protect this great country, from all enemies, foreign and domestic, be ye civilian or be ye military (federal, state, or militia,) I salute you!

Currently, the Odyssey is in Spacedock, awaiting parts for a computer refit. On or about December 1st, this work should be completed. Barring other orders, we will travel to an unspecified location for two-months to run the new RC24 Simulator through its paces (unless this gets upgraded in the interim.) Between Naval, Marine, and Pilot Operations Drills, it should prove to be an interesting shakedown cruise. Requests for logs, etc. will only be accepted by Orion Command. On a personal note, I'm not too sure about those new civilain advisors we got stuck with. I'll try to keep an open mind, but.....

quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: The money earned on savings would somewhat off set (admittedly by a tiny bit) the interest on the debt and be feel good to boot. Uhm... Not really... What follows is only an example, and totally ignores compound interest, but gives a better picture of what our "in-the-red" status is... It assumes a $1 Billion surplus with 9% interest trying to offset a $1 Trillion debt at 9% interest. All numbers below in millions: quote:Capital: ..Cash-in-bank (Surplus).........$1,000 ..Interest Earned (9% Flat)..............90 Capital Balance........................$1,090 Less: Liabilities ..Bank Loan.......................$1,000,000 ..Interest Paid (3% Flat)..........30,000 Total Liabilities.................$1,030,000 Net Capital......................($1,028,910) Obviously,earnings of $90 Million is in no way offset by a $30 Billion interest payment. They need to pay off all of the deficit before they should be permitted to hang onto any extra money. Congress only knows how to spend. That needs to change before we can let them save.... Would you take a new store clerk and put him in charge of your portfolio, especially if he already had bad credit? That's our current situation.....

Menchise: quote:The problem that anti-war people face all the time is the assumption from pro-war people that we're for inaction. It's annoying to say the least, especially when it's just one of a dozen other assumptions about the anti-war left. I hate war. I hate death and destruction (except in games, of course -- I love analyzing the enemy in detail, even though it's not real.) However... If given a strict choice between learning to speak Arabic or firing a couple of well-placed nukes to end it, guess which one I'm gonna choose? What you're not considering is the danger of not going to war to end needless bloodshed and international terrorism. If you're so hot in this 'anti-war' position, which of the warring countries do you want to be your Master? Inaction is a choice -- the choice to be ruled by others, not of your choosing.

quote:Originally posted by Grayfox: perhaps i should get crayons and draw you a map so you would understand better.Hoo-Ah! Game, set, and match!

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: quote: not assinine children who want their way, only their way, and they'll take your candy bar ah-way if you don't keep an eye on them..... Who are you talking about? I was talking about the UN Representatives. They remind me of bad kids in Junior High. Oops! Gotta be 'politically-correct" here! Middle School. Based on average test-score coast-to-coast, it's more like Muddle School.... About the $1.50 for gas.... Try pricing that overseas, and get back to me on the average costs compared to the US.... [ 11-08-2002, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

quote:You mentioned negative numbers earlier. Would you rather have negative 10 or negative 20?When you're in debt, someone else owns something of your's that is very precious -- your captial. In this case, it's our Capitol. Banks own what is our's, be it $10 or $10 Trillion. Would be a bit hard to collect, thanks to the sovergnty, but... quote:I'll agree with you then continue to argue against it. [Wink] You also used a personal analogy. Well, every self help/ money management thing I have have seen says pay off your debts first. Ok fine that's great. But then they also tell you to have about three months income saved up for persaonal disaster. So whatcha gonna do now? Pay off your debt and risk a personal disaster really wiping you out or knocking you back to square one or do you do both at once? Work hard to pay off debt but also save as much as possible? I htink yes and that's why I am willing to allow a bit of both.I agree with the idea that the government should have a mild surplus. But that should be on a level-basis, meaning that the States need to start paying what is their expense only, instead of the Feds having to be involved in a lot of personal crap. The Federal Government was never meant to become the overwhelming monster it has become, and needs to quit paying every whine-bag that comes to see it.... There are limits to what we should have to pay. Again, until they get the debt paid-off, it makes no sense for them to be in control of excess revenue, since it doesn't exist at all at this point. If you issue more money than you have capital, that's called debt. When you sign the order for that debt, it's called a "hot check." If I did that (especially for how much $$$ we're talking here,) I'd be Bubba's girlfriend. No thanks! I don't feel that our Representatives should be able to do that without prosecution, just like any other corporation. As they prosecute those corrupt corporations, I find myself thinking about a kettle calling a pot black....

quote:Originally posted by Greg Miller: Yep, you are so right. They took the sacred event of Funeral, and turned into a rallying party. I'd be PISSED AS ALL HELL if that was my funeral. I rather doubt that, Sir, unless you're Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, and able to attend your own funeral... Still, if I were a family member, and they pulled that stunt, I'd let them finish their foolishness, and then sue the ever-loving hell out of them. That is a disgrace, and every politician and important person who participated in that crap owes that family big-time! I got to thinking about it, and I think G. Gordon Liddy said it cost the American Taxpayer about $130 thousand dollars just for the plane tickets in that fiasco. Since there were several politicians with Secret Service personnel as their shadows, plus whatever else it cost us, it might have reached the $1 Million dollar mark. Okay, so when do I get my refund???