Saipan Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Whoops.... Except that isnt a word. There is "law-abiding" Yes, in American English. We use lawbiding or law abiding. http://thesaurus.com/browse/lawabiding Btw, how many angels can dance on....... And can you split a hair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) http://thesaurus.com/browse/lawabiding A thesaurus... Id try a dictionary if I were you. Edited January 27, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 A thesaurus... Id try a dictionary if I were you. I did. We use apostrophe, such as I'd. Even during Gun Control Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Cus you're a simpleton I will spell it out.... "I'm not in favor of making firearms more easily accessible or obtainable. Just to let law abiding citizens the choice to carry a weapon for personal protection if they so desire Cant be more accessible than on ones hip. Which by the way will not be here in your lifetime . Its english, I know sorry. Given the context I used the phrase it's easy to see the way I meant it. Now you're just playing games. You know what I mean Guyser, give it up please. And if you didn't before you surely do by now. Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 When Arizona made it legal to conceal/carry personal crime plummeted. Coincidence? I think not. Thugs will think twice about mugging, robbing, raping someone if they know everyone could be carrying a firearm. Arizona isn't the only state to see a drop in crime rate, and just because it works in the US doesn't mean it will work here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Arizona isn't the only state to see a drop in crime rate, and just because it works in the US doesn't mean it will work here. Arizona is not the only state with concealed carry. You think Canadians are more dangerous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Costs aside, the big argument from those who favour the registry is that it helps prevent crime, but so far I have not seen any evidence presented to that, has anyone hear seen evidence or proof that the registry will, or has prevented a crime ? Actually I believe the contrary to be true... I think there are a lot more hand guns in the hands of criminally minded people than before the long gun registry came into being... Simple logic really, what's easier to smuggle in or illegally obtain, an illegal handgun or an illegal long gun? Too bad really, Canada had very strict, but logical and good gun regulations in place prior to the stupid long gun registration which does nothing to prevent illegal guns in the hands of criminals and burdens honest long gun owners with a load of BS regulation and expense for no good purpose... ps - I live and have lived in Winnipeg most of my life and there's way, way, way more shootings, almost all with hand guns or modified long guns, both illegal prior to the LG registry anyway, now than there ever was prior to the long gun registry... Hello Mr. Government, are you listening? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I live and have lived in Winnipeg most of my life and there's way, way, way more shootings, almost all with hand guns or modified long guns, both illegal prior to the LG registry anyway, now than there ever was prior to the long gun registry... Indeed. Even before the 1934 handgun registry it was illegal for someone with criminal record to posses a firearm. Apparently the law is the last thing criminals worry about. They only worry about being shot by member of another street gang. Or home owner during robery. Hello Mr. Government, are you listening? First thing that goes out the window is the failed long gun registry when CPC get majority. For now amnesty will do. Instead repeat offender will spend considerably longer time in jail, or for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Personal Privacy Mozilla Leads the Way on Do Not Track Earlier today, Mozilla announced plans to incorporate a Do Not Track feature into their next browser release, Firefox 4.1. Google also announced a new privacy extension today, but we believe that Mozilla is now taking a clear lead and building a practical way forward for people who want privacy when they browse the web. Why We Need Do Not Track Privacy advocates have been calling attention to issues of pervasive online tracking for some time. Often intertwined with the issue of behavioral targeting, online tracking refers to the difficult-toelude mechanisms by which most or all of our reading and other activities on the Web are recorded by third parties, without our knowledge or permission. The technical details of online tracking are multifarious. They include traditional HTTP cookies as well as flash cookies and many other kinds of supercookies, web bugs, JavaScript trackers, HTTP Referrers, and fingerprinting. And new ways to track browsers will continue to be invented. Even consumers who take steps to delete their cookies or use private browsing mode remain unable to prevent third parties from observing their clickstreams. Currently, a subset of advertisers offer a mechanism for opting out of behavioral advertising through the Network Advertising Initiative — a project that has been widely criticized for failing to provide consumers with meaningful control. The NAI opt-out suffers from several problems: the biggest is that there is no consistency on what “opt out” means. Some tracking companies recognize that an “opt out” should be an opt out from being tracked, others insist on interpreting the opt out as being an opt out for receiving targeted advertising. In other words, the NAI allows its members to to tell people that they’ve opted out, when in fact their web browsing is still being observed and recorded indefinitely. Read the rest of Rainey Reitman’s article on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Newfoundland farmer named Angus had a car accident with an Eversweet Company truck. In court, the Eversweet Company's hot-shot solicitor was questioning Angus. 'Didn't you say to the RCMP at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine?' asked the solicitor. Angus responded: 'Well, I'll tell you what happened. I had just loaded my favourite cow, Bessie, into the... ' 'I didn't ask for any details', the solicitor interrupted. 'Just answer the question. Did you not say, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine!'?' Angus said, 'Well, I had just got Bessie into the trailer and I was driving down the road.... ' The solicitor interrupted again and said, 'Your Honour, I am trying to establish the fact that, at the scene of the accident, this man told the police on the scene that he was fine. Now several weeks after the accident, he is trying to sue my client. I believe he is a fraud. Please tell him to simply answer the question. ' By this time, the Judge was fairly interested in Angus' answer and said to the solicitor: 'I'd like to hear what he has to say about his favourite cow, Bessie'. Angus thanked the Judge and proceeded. 'Well as I was saying, I had just loaded Bessie, my favourite cow, into the trailer and was driving her down the road when this huge Eversweet truck and trailer came through a stop sign and hit my trailer right in the side. I was thrown into one ditch and Bessie was thrown into the other. I was hurt, very bad like, and didn't want to move. However, I could hear old Bessie moaning and groaning. I knew she was in terrible pain just by her groans. Shortly after the accident, a policeman on a motorbike turned up. He could hear Bessie moaning and groaning so he went over to her. After he looked at her, and saw her condition, he took out his gun and shot her between the eyes. Then the policeman came across the road, gun still in hand, looked at me, and said, 'How are you feeling?' 'Now what the fuck would you say?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Arizona isn't the only state to see a drop in crime rate, and just because it works in the US doesn't mean it will work here. Perhaps but it's t he only proof we have to work with. It might be worth a shot. We don't have anything to lose, the bad guys already have guns and are killing innocent people so that cannot get any worse. The Jane Creba shooting may have unfolded very differently if her parents or family friends had handguns on them. It would even the odds a little bit I would think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Perhaps but it's t he only proof we have to work with. It might be worth a shot. We don't have anything to lose, the bad guys already have guns and are killing innocent people so that cannot get any worse. The Jane Creba shooting may have unfolded very differently if her parents or family friends had handguns on them. It would even the odds a little bit I would think. Of course it would have made a difference... Potentially even more innocent people might have died from stray bulletts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Of course it would have made a difference... Potentially even more innocent people might have died from stray bulletts... Naaa, no way, don't you know that in the U.S. of A everybody is a crack pot-er-shot and nobody ever gets "accidentally" shot... Don't you watch television? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Naaa, no way, don't you know that in the U.S. of A everybody is a crack pot-er-shot and nobody ever gets "accidentally" shot... Don't you watch television? Oh yeah!! Silly me... The NRA is right...Guns don't kill people...People kill people... Smith and Wesson thank you for your support.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Oh yeah!! Silly me... The NRA is right...Guns don't kill people...People kill people... Smith and Wesson thank you for your support.... I see you're "old school", nowadays it's "Mr. Glock" except for the oldest standard of them all Mr. A. K. Fortyseven... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Of course it would have made a difference... Potentially even more innocent people might have died from stray bulletts... Perhaps Jane Creba would still be alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Perhaps Jane Creba would still be alive. Or perhaps Jane Creba would still be dead plus a half dozen,or so, other innocents??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Don't you watch television? You're watching too many Disney movies. Try real STATISTICS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Or perhaps Jane Creba would still be dead plus a half dozen,or so, other innocents??? Well not everyone is of the opinion that we should be victims at the mercy of street thugs. If the bad guys have guns we should be allowed to defend ourselves likewise. I guess some people believe that only the bad guys and police officers can use guns properly. Edited February 18, 2011 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Well not everyone is of the opinion that we should be victims at the mercy of street thugs. If the bad guys have guns why shouldn't the people they're looking to victimize be allowed to defend themselves likewise? Your thought is that only the bad guys and police officers can use guns properly? Is that your position? My position is that those,and only those,who have been properly trained in the use of guns should be allowed to carry them.I'm simply not as paranoid as you,and I don't think using the feeble excuse of arming the entire "law abiding" populous to protect themselves from the "Bad Guys" is a valid one. It's simply fear dressed up as responsibility and false bravado Perhaps a better use of those funds used to certify people who have no business owning a gun could be better spent in border control in keeping those firearms out of this country entirely??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 My position is that those,and only those,who have been properly trained in the use of guns should be allowed to carry them. Glad you agree with the National Firearms Association. Just like driver's classes licences. All should have the same qualification, depending on class of firearm used. Cops, civilians, military, guards.... I'm simply not as paranoid as you,and I don't think using the feeble excuse of arming the entire "law abiding" populous to protect themselves from the "Bad Guys" is a valid one. Do you have any bears in your yard? It's simply fear dressed up as responsibility and false bravado Yes, what are the liberals afraid of? Perhaps a better use of those funds used to certify people who have no business owning a gun Indians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 http://www.karenselick.com/CL9501.html "About 36 percent of all homicides in Canada involve guns. By coincidence, about 34 percent of all homicides in Canada involve family members. One might conclude that families are just slightly less dangerous than guns..... " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Making two shots sound like one. http://www.vincelewis.net/fastdraw.html And fast draw world champion Nicole Franks from Langley, British Columbia, Canada. She has 35 World Records. She set 21 World Records at the age of 14. In 2006 she set another 13 World Records. Her fastest World Record is also the fastest traditional record ever shot by a woman at 0.263 of a second ! http://www.nicolefranks.com/videos/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 I'm all for "Gun Control"... I'm totally against the "Long Gun Registry"... What was the point again? And so what? "The only way to reach your long-range goals is through achieving your short-range objectives." - unknown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 What was the point again? And so what? Who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.