My guess is that 80% of Americans don’t even know who Putin is so featuring him on the cover would drive Time Magazine’s U.S. sales lower than they already are.
That really begs the question though – are modern Americans intellectual idiots because outlets such as Time Magazine refuse to report objective news events and stories or do outlets such as Time Magazine simply reflect the already dumbed-down intellect of Americans by appealing to the lowest common intellectual denominator? Is it cause or is it effect?
Enter the NRA’s Banned Guns Raffle for a chance to win a gun (or guns) of your choice from a menu of 12 cool guns that Mother Government would like to ban.
I selected the (American made) Centurion Kalashnikov AK-47-style rifle, and the Sig Sauer SWAT rifle. But, each one of the 12 guns included in this raffle would make a fine addition to anyone’s collection.
The NRA is gonna ask you for an OPTIONAL $5 contribution for each gun you select. It’s [I]optional,[/I] but don’t be cheap — contributions go directly to the NRA’s efforts to defeat the “gun banners”. Stand up for your Second Amendment rights. Send a message to Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Bloomberg, and all the other misguided government control-freaks who want to disarm law-abiding Americans.
Anybody stupid enough to drive headlong into the barriers that have been there for god knows how long, would be also just as likely to jump to conclusions, draw a gun, shoot first, and ask questions later.
Remote raise/lower barriers (see them being lowered later in the video).
Obvious breakdown in communications - barriers should have been in lowered position, probably raised in response to the incident report.
It is easy for us armchair generals to conclude that the driver was ‘stupid’, I know a red light driver, he emphasizes the absolute need for clear communication, the margin of error is zero.
Extremely sad story, easy to use emotive language, not so easy when you have to make life or death decisions without the luxury of being able to ask questions.
As much as I hate to say it, while I enjoyed the read of that article, I don’t buy ANY of their stories.
Rand’s, Obama’s, Boehner’s, Reid’s… None of them. There’s no white hats and clean suits in Washington right now. It’s a bunch of showboating, and grandstanding. Very few of them have a clue as to what they are playing with.
Here’s a sample of the intellect we are represented by:
If you’re bored and looking for something to do, see how much of this crap you can read before you throw up.
:42:
Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve Cartel dump $85,000,000,000 per month
in the laps of The Ruling Class, so that they can run their country this way.
That’s right, it’s [I]their[/I] country. This country belongs to The Ruling Class.
We’re just inmates here.
:42:
When you’ve overrun your budget, how do you fix it? Just do as The Ruling Class does —
On page 13, Section 123 of this Appropriations Bill says,
Section 3(a)(6) of Public Law 100-676 is amended by
striking both occurrences of “$775,000,000”
and inserting in lieu thereof “$2,918,000,000”.
See how easy that is?
When some line-item in your budget gets busted, just increase it by 276%.
That paragraph should be the motto of the Congressional “Budget” Office.
Looks like another gun rampage in the US. I’ve softened my stance against guns and am wondering how gun advocates would respond in a situation like this, assuming guns were fully legalised in an airport? Suppose you have a pistol holstered, you hear gunshots and screams in the distance, and you see a man looking around carefully, pistol in hand. What do you do? Is he the perp, or another concerned armed citizen? What if he thinks you’re the perp and starts shooting? Or perhaps he’s the perp himself? You don’t know. Will you shoot back? What about other armed bystanders who run into the commotion? What if there was more than one gunman on the loose?
As someone who carries a concealed weapon, the number one priority is self defense. Someone who is using the gun in self defense only has it drawn when the assailant is within line of sight. It really would not be in the slightest bit ambiguous who was who to an outside observer. The liability is far to great for a bystander to pull a gun and start blasting away trying to be a hero. If any of your bullets hit anyone you are going to jail, regardless if you bring the bad guy down. Therefore 90% of the time… If someone has a gun and can escape without using it they will. If they do have to pull their gun in self defense and end up shooting the assailant… They would be holstering their gun immediately. Their would be no confusing him for the shooter. If the attacker shot the bystander who was holding the gun… The assailant would keep his gun out and continue the rampage.
Clint, do you think that our founding fathers had any intent for people to be able to acquire dangerous weapons, or if they could have envisioned our society and the issues we face, would have written anything that allows the average person to carry or acquire a deadly weapon.
I’ve read the whole ‘organized militia’ section, and admittedly I’m not an attorney. But I’ve never understood as to why that allows individuals the right to buy or carry guns. I would guess that if I fired a gun at a range, it’s possible that I might enjoy it. I’ve never had to defend my home, so I suppose I might feel differently (g.d forbid) if I had. I don’t hunt, but I don’t think it should be illegal just because I don’t care for it. But I don’t understand why gun ownership is presumed to be a constitutionally given right when what I’ve read so far is a bit foggy.
I respect that some people feel that gun laws are like a gate, that protects all of their other freedoms, but as a total liberal, I have no desire to take away people’s freedom, I just want to know that the world is a tiny bit safer by making it as hard as possible for people to own weapons that cause others to die with the minimal effort of pulling a trigger.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008.), the Supreme court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding that the second amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. So given that the Supreme Court is THE authority on interpreting the constitution I would have to say you do not have much of a case in arguing that individuals have no constitutional right to carry weapons.
I think what strikes me most about liberals is their extreme naïveté regarding human nature. It is extremely easy for someone to kill another person, with or without a gun. Read this Osaka school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia … If a crazy person can’t get a gun they will still kill. All you do is limit the ability for “the good guys” to obtain them. The real facet of gun ownership and rights is regarding the protection an armed citizenship provides against an oppressive government… If you increase gun regulations you will NOT decrease violence (checkout Chicago’s gun crime violence and its gun regulations which are some of the toughest in the nation) but it will increase the vulnerability of government oppression.
Life aint nice. People aren’t inherently good. Their are people who are raised in a broken family environment (a product of the liberal movement mind you) that have no impulse controls, rage issues, and selfish tendencies mixed with mental instability that are essentially born to kill. They will take someone’s life regardless of method. The question is do you want to be limited in the ability to defend yourself based on your naïveté that if guns were outlawed or harder to obtain the world would be rainbows and butterfly’s? Bad guys have a keen talent for obtaining illegal contraband… Regulations will be laughed at as they find their avenues for obtaining what they want.
See the note by Samir Alibaba above. The average person is not a criminal. The average person is law abiding. Those of us who carry a gun are concerned with our own self defense and safety. The consequences of using a gun in self defense are costly and can be life wrecking. As gun owners we are trained to avoid armed conflict at all cost, except for the cost of our own lives or the lives of our loved ones with us.
Armed robbery, murder, school shootings and this last shooting in LAX are all committed by criminals. Gun control laws are very effective against law abiding citizens but they have no bearing on criminals. All they do is making law abiding citizens defenseless against criminals.
Your statement here is speaking volumes about your mindset. Are you saying that you will probably consider changing your mind only if and when you will have to protect yourself?? Are you taking it for granted that if God forbid, this ever happen, you will live to change your mind? Not a pleasant thought, I know, but I had that same thought. I decided to be prepared. Contrary to common accusation by hoplophobes, I’m not a paranoid, I’m simply prepared. You can choose not to be prepared, I have no problem with that. But please don’t vote to take away my right to be prepared. Remember, I carry to protect myself, not to assault you or anyone else.
That too, is an old one. Hope the video above helps to clarify that a a little. Speaking of unpleasant thoughts … this is another one that I truly don’t enjoy. This militia thing is referring to us, the people, being armed to protect ourselves from tyrannical government. Relevant to the time of the Founders who wrote this 2nd Amendment. Not so relevant to our time (yet) but in historical retrospect it makes a lot of sense. The first thing a government with tyrannical inclinations would do is to promote your point of view quoted above.
As said, please don’t throw the term “people” referring to law abiding citizens and criminals at the same breath. Gun control takes away the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves but does nothing to take away the ability of criminals to arm themselves. Criminals do not obey the law and they don’t obey gun laws either. Gun control does not make the world “a tiny bit safer”. It makes it less safe for law abiding citizens and safer for criminals who become less likely to encounter deadly force while committing a crime.
