yes, its easy to get distracted,,,,

none of those are african american nations,, so again,, not the same thing


those individual 'countries' happen to be on the African CONTINENT,

marx is still the most read economist and Marx stated very clearly that he was not a Communist. What you see is the use of his theories, starting with Bismarck- you @#$% the people too much and so you have to do something good for them. Obama is not a communist, your country has already fundamentally changed to fascism (corporate state) and now he is implementing some corrections for the sake of the people. This reminds me of something Dick Gregory once said, I paraphrase: If they take away the booze, cigarettes, drugs, etc from the people, then they will have to call out the tanks to control you instead. Tanks? Remember Tinnenam Square, riots started due to the governments adoption of Freidman economic policies where profit is king and people are disposeable.

back to the OP

what is going on with PEOPLE,,


(hint: ID wager 9/10 are not especially concerned or privy to international relations,, so I kind of doubt thats whats going on that is leading to the behavior in question)

Whether or not a state allows a public place to decide if people can or can't carry on their property wasn't my point. I was just stating that I don't think any public establishment should be given the option to not allow legal carriers from carrying. The whole point of having a CCW permit in the first place is to be allowed to carry in public. Restaurants/etc are considered public places, so why should they be allowed to say that they don't apply to public laws?

I totally agree with that, but at the same time I think that if a citizen has a carry permit then any public place shouldn't be able to stop them from entering while carrying in the first place.

That's ridiculous about the cops and I agree its a slap in the face.

That's ridiculous about the cops and I agree its a slap in the face. If these cops were off duty; I could see the concern but they were on duty and they are there to protect the public whereas the average citizen is only protecting himself.I trust a cop with a weapon as like us military people; he spends a lot of hours training with weapons which is more than I can say for the average citizen.

In a nutshell, every citizen should be packing a deadly weapon?

-Chicago reached a grisly milestone last week when its 500 th murder victim died, bringing the city’s yearly total towards the number of homicides for all of Canada.

-In graphs that map income inequality alongside murder rates, the US stands far off in a class of its own, with both the highest levels of inequality and of homicides of any wealthy nation.

-A mounting body of evidence suggests that income inequality erodes social cohesion and trust, and contributes to a breakdown in the fabric of the community. Extreme inequality has been identified as causing humility and loss of face, particularly among young males. These in turn can contribute to ‘competitive aggression,’ domestic abuse and violent crime.

-Those at the bottom are more often the perpetrators – and victims – of gun violence. But just as conservative politicians are untouched by cuts to social assistance, they are unaffected by most of the gun crime that has turned the United States into a kind of war zone for the poor.

That has got to be the singularly most pathetic pro gun argument yet.

Do you think that if some armed hooligan wants to rob you on the street he's going to walk up to you and say, "I beg your pardon.
Do you happen to be armed?" Do you think he is going to stand twenty feet away and say, "Draw pardner!"? You'd be knocked on the head, rolled into the gutter and maybe even shot with your own weapon before you could get that smoke box out of your pocket.

Do you really think you and your AR15 are going to hold of a company
or even a squad of heavily armed well trained determend men for more than a few seconds?

Think again.

criminal statutes DETER as well

thats also part of our 'civilization'

I am sure the person with the knife who surprises a gunman in their sleep or seated and comfortable, by walking up behind them and quickly slicing their neck,, has the upper hand over the man with the gun

other forms of combat would.....

FBI Uniform Crime Reports Table 1
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

FBI Uniform Crime Reports Table 16
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

FBI Uniform Crime Repots Table 8
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Crimes Detected in England and Wales 2011/2012
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

we didnt declare war on Pakistan, thats why a drone was more logical than bombs and military

it was about the person, not the place

why would I want that.

My mother has a handgun.
My brother is navy seal trained with weapons.

they are RESPONSIBLE people , not prone to anxious or impulsive behavior.

I have no problem with responsible/non anxious citizens


my problem is those weapons that 'law abiding' citizens get who are only 'law abiding' until they have such a weapon of power to exert their anxious ridden desires upon others,,,,

but in terms of the victims, I cant see an angle where there is a 'best' gun

Now when we acknowledge the relationship between education and gun ownership … that is not to be interpreted as saying only smart people choose not to buy guns or that only stupid people buy guns. That is not what that means. I haven’t quite absorbed the correlation but it does stand out and it is interesting. The obvious point by Nate Silver is that if you own a gun the more likely you are to be a Republican. Plenty of Democrats own guns naturally but the statistics find a tremendous correlation to guns and conservatism.