The middle east should be a completely nuclear weapons free zone. That means Israel doesn't get them either. That is what the majority of Americans want that is what the overwhelming majority of the world wants, that isn't what the government of the United States is ever going to allow. Democracy....fuck it.

Jeez Israel, can't even decimate a country without sexually abusing children. ^Im on the fuck Israel bandwagon too, weeeeeeee

addendum: Geo321 maybe that should be nuclear non-proliferation free zone. Also while we're on the fuck Israel thing it's should also be fuck America since the same criticisms leveled at Israel can be applied to America. Multiplied by the fact Israel commits it's crimes with the full backing of the US we really should be saying ass-fuck America with a 12 inch black rubber cock with AIDS.

If there are any Americans reading this, I'm sorry. I'm not sorry if you're offended, I'm sorry you're an American. Lol, Hicks. Just kidding, I know you have no control over your democracy like most of us 1st world plebians

Israel is a nuclear proliferation free zone, Free from the international justice of the ICC, and free to violate peoples human rights continuously. Saudi Arabia bothers me in that all women are treated like property. Israel treats an entire civilization like they're their property. Israel has shown over and over that human rights are discarded. No, this following statement is not anti-semitic...Fuck Israel.

These guys are the funniest comedians alive. If you don't think so you're a socialist, a fascist, a communist, an anarchist, or whatever it is you hate in your heartless fun free zone of life.

If you want to understand them to any extent you have to understand a few things that don't tend to hit the news a lot. I'll try to touch on a couple quick.

http://www.prisonsucks.com/

Those racial statistics are as real as it gets. Part of the reason for them I explained a bit in another post here a fair time back. Additional reasons I didn't get into there include the 100:1 disparity between the way we sentenced powder and rock cocaine, and yes that's 100:1. 5 grams of rock bought the same 5 years as 500 grams of powder, we put stupid kids in cells with real dealers then we wondered why they came out like they did.

That's almost one young black man in eight between 25-29 years of age behind bars right now, today, with mandatory minimums and overlapping drug free zones rather than worse crimes playing too large a role in it. And we wonder at the single parent homes, low incomes and other issues and wonder why they can't get their acts together. We might want to take a real close look at the system we've built here. The problem isn't all on one side or the other but the faults of the system damned sure don't help them to solve theirs.

After they get through with all of that stuff we've got to consider the civil penalties drug convictions carry such as loss of eligibility for education loans and other types of aid as well as housing and other stuff. That's been better and worse at times and in places but it's played a role as well. And too much of it isn't due to worse crimes so much as it is wrong places.

I've got to get some sleep so if anyone expects an answer to anything you'll have to wait a few hours at least. I'll get to it though.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Blago should restore dignity to his office in the only way possible: suicide by cop.
In other news, Team Obama has studied the situation and--surprise!--determined Obama had nothing to do with this mess. Whew! What a relief!


>> ^vairetube:
didnt you hear emperor obama? this is a taint free zone, qm. cough taint cough


First ye and your merry band of fuckwads demand transparency from Obama, then when Obama releases his own report, it has nothing damning, you mock how that's too easy, and cast aspersions like it's some sort of cover up?

The famed quotes from Fitzgerald's criminal complaint, transcripting portions of the wiretap of Blagojevich talking about Obama are:

You're telling me that I have to "suck it up” for two years and do nothing and give this “motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him.” Blagojevich states that he will put “[Senate Candidate 4]” in the Senate “before I just give fucking [Senate Candidate 1] a fucking Senate seat and I don’t get anything.”

And:

BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them.”

Clearly, Blagojevich is calculating enough to make fake comments like that to protect Obama, but not calculating enough to refrain from saying "I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for fuckin’ nothing."

This is going to be the position the you two take?

I think since you're both assholes, and sore ones at that, that you've probably been sodomizing each other. I demand you produce a report detailing all your physical contacts with each other, in order to prove your innocence. When you inevitably tell me you don't even know where the other lives, I'll just make fun of you -- accuse you of lying to try to avoid admitting you love to lick each other's taints.

Turnabout is fair play, right?

I'm going easy on ya too, I'm not even accusing you of something illegal, or even immoral, just maybe something you're embarrassed to admit to the rest of the world.

didnt you hear emperor obama? this is a taint free zone, qm. *cough*taint*cough*

Half of the registered guns in the united states are untrackable, because half of them are stored on a Legacy Database. Meaning the information on them is stored on paper in a file vault. Tracking guns, is like trying to control the internet and the things you can find on it.

Just recently the started tossing the gun registration on the computer, but they still mostly do every thing by paper. Which amazes me.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
>> ^HadouKen24:

Louisiana state law does not require gun owners to have permits. You only need a permit for concealed carry.


Interesting. How do they track stolen weapons? If you don't have a bill of sale, I guess you'd just be screwed?

I did a little more digging into Louisiana gun law. Found this great link which designates procedures for law enforcement officers when seizing and disposing of weapons: http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=97862

The officers appear to have violated section D of the code here which requires them to return the firearm if they can't prove it was used in violation of any law. I think what New Orleans will argue in court is that there was in fact a law put in place by the mayor that effectively outlawed all firearms in the city. Of course, those suing will argue this is a violation of constitutional rights. However, I'm wondering if New Orleans will counter with the fact that it is perfectly constitutional to declare areas such as schools "firearm free zones" and that the mayor merely extended that zone temporarily to include the whole city due to the emergency.

>> ^HadouKen24:

Louisiana state law does not require gun owners to have permits. You only need a permit for concealed carry.


Interesting. How do they track stolen weapons? If you don't have a bill of sale, I guess you'd just be screwed?

I did a little more digging into Louisiana gun law. Found this great link which designates procedures for law enforcement officers when seizing and disposing of weapons: http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=97862

The officers appear to have violated section D of the code here which requires them to return the firearm if they can't prove it was used in violation of any law. I think what New Orleans will argue in court is that there was in fact a law put in place by the mayor that effectively outlawed all firearms in the city. Of course, those suing will argue this is a violation of constitutional rights. However, I'm wondering if New Orleans will counter with the fact that it is perfectly constitutional to declare areas such as schools "firearm free zones" and that the mayor merely extended that zone temporarily to include the whole city due to the emergency.

I replied to your well-reasoned post.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Ahoy! A reply.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
Quantumushroom, I presume you base your views regarding gun control on the inconsequential short term effects of gun control legislation on crime rates, most likely tested as a policy in various US states and typically cited by the NRA and various pro-gun lobbies supporting their industrial constituencies.

Washington DC: near-total "gun control" and highest murder rate in the US. The long-term failure of 60,000+ ill-conceived American gun laws on the books that only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is my proof that it doesn't work. "Gun-free zones" don't work. What works: burglars and carjackers thinking twice in states with concealed carry laws.

You should try living in a country which has utterly insignificant gun ownership levels due to restrictions on ownership over a sustained period. Perhaps then you would not think that every law abiding citizen needs a gun for his or her protection and would be more than satisfied with the protection police, or privately hired security guards for business purposes can provide for you.

America's Second Amendment is not about "needing" a gun, it's about recognizing self-defense as a fundamental human right from God (or for you atheists, "by the virtue of human birth"). It doesn't matter why anyone wants to own a gun and its none of the State's business.

BTW congratulations liberals, on the Clintons' recent confession to being part of the Evil Rich. Hell, I thought they couldn't be worth more than what, 10 million? Does anyone know how much of their 100 million dollars they've personally spent helping the poor?

You're right gun-free 'zones' don't work. When you're one of few states in country that on the whole has liberal gun ownership laws and simply ludicrous gun ownership levels compared to any other developed country, you'd be naive to propose than it would be anything but marginally more difficult for criminals to smuggle legally purchased firearms in from neighbouring states, unless you enforce highly stringent cross border checks.

There are more peaceful countries with more guns per person than the USA. Mind you, they have small, homogenous populations and guns are more a part of their sport culture. No matter the country, the bad guys have guns and can get guns. Always will.

I've lived in both kinds of states. The People's Republic of Mexifornia has stringent gun control laws in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Unless carrying illegally, the citizens there are unarmed sheep. The idea there is to keep people dependent on Big Government. Individual victims are unimportant.

In right-to-carry states (close to 40 states now) crimes shift from invasion (victims at home) and carjacking to theivery when the victim isn't around, though I always enjoy reading about a 90-year-old granny with an S&W permanently recalling some deserving idiot who tried to break into her home.

In the same way, a universal ban on firearms would likely not have any immediate drastic effects on violent crime involving firearms, other factors such as living standards, unemployment levels notwithstanding. A governmental requisitioning of all registered firearms would be far more effective, such the one conducted in Australia which saw 650,000 firearms surrendered in 1997, and a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths in just four years. Again though, with an estimated 50% of US households owning guns with a significant number unregistered, and a potentially far higher average gross amount, the effects would be unlikely to be felt immediately.

My understanding is that crime went up after Australia's gun ban.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

It only makes sense. If a guy holding a cricket bat doesn't know if I have a gun behind my back, he might not be so quick to attack. Take away that criminal's certainty that he won't be seriously injured and you only embolden him. There's simply no reason to believe that criminals will stop acquiring guns by any means necessary. Gun control punishes only the law-abiding.

Pushing the libertarian approach of the Second Ammendment is skirting around the issue in two ways. Firstly the Second Ammendment talks about the need for a well trained armed militia which is arguable at best in terms of modern necessity and the likely initial motivation for the clause.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not share the liberal view that 'The People' refers to organized militias. It is defined as an individual right.

Secondly where is this connection between the assumption that gun ownership is a supposed human right and the Second Ammendment? That's an separate argument entirely and is very debatable.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Firearms are merely a technological extension/expression of this right. People who believe in non-violence to the point they would not resist an attack from someone trying to kill them have the right to not resist and be killed, though most people would call such a thing "suicide by murder." But people do not have the right to hinder or remove others' right to self-defense just because they think disarmament will create "a safer environment". If there was a walled village somewhere that wanted to ban all guns, and all the people living there agreed to it, I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless they were going to be robbed.

The state's role is to provide collective security, it's not simply true that individual freedoms should be protected at any cost and to any extreme case by default, that's a circular argument. How far would you take that absolute argument exactly?

In addition to the right to bear arms--which truly is a right that should apply to every human being save criminals--I believe there are reasonable standards for self-defense that should never be infringed upon. There's no valid reason why any adult citizen of sound mind could not have a firearm to protect the lives of family and to a limited degree, property. Most Americans are unaware it's perfectly legal to own machine guns, and many hobbyists and collectors pay the extra licensing fees and do. We all know a missile launcher for home defense is as impractical as driving a dragster to work; it's not really an issue.

Hard drugs like cocaine? Biological weapons? In my view collective security includes restricting gun ownership to police and trained security personnel. Obviously your view differs but it's not logical to claim that by default without any justification as to why you draw the line exactly where you do.

I understand your point of view. Again, in countries like Japan where people are obedient rule followers, the State can get away with total gun control. However, the downside of that level of obedience is when the Emperor commands, "Go crash your plane into ship." There are certain segments of societies that can and do live without guns. But it only works if it's by choice and there are zero criminals about.

Oh and just out of interest, how likely do you really think that faced with a gun pointing at your face, you'd be able to protect yourself with a loaded and armed firearms conveniently with you at all times (which you of course know how to use) and not tucked away and unarmed in a desk drawer to ensure your 4 year old doesn't get their hands on it?

I think you've answered your own question in a roundabout way. If you think that it's impossible to defend yourself with a nearby firearm, how do YOU expect police and trained security personnel to save you? In America, there's no law that says a cop has to take a bullet for you or is required to give their life to save yours. American law loosely defines police as supposed to "protect society." That doesn't mean anythng to you and me personally. The joke is: 9-1-1 is govt.-sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

The 4-year-old and gun safety issues are aided by the same thing that allows people to move relatively safely in a world of chainsaws, cars and not smoking while pumping gasoline: education.

Regarding your Wild West scenario, most criminals are after cash or other valuables. They don't want to have extended shootouts, and even when they're nutballs like the coward at Virgina Tech, they don't want anyone else being able to shoot back. While no single student with a gun may have been able to take out that nut, the more people that might've had a gun the better the odds would've been of stopping him sooner.

In the USA, guns are used to save lives over 2 millions times a year. Most of those incidents, the gun isn't fired, merely drawn.

Even if you never own a gun, don't you owe it to yourself to learn firearm basics and safety? They are a part of this world.

For those wondering about the relevance of these posts to this sift, B. Hussein Obama is a gun-grabbing leftist. Those that don't trust a citizenry with guns should not be trusted with power.

You're right gun-free 'zones' don't work. When you're one of few states in country that on the whole has liberal gun ownership laws and simply ludicrous gun ownership levels compared to any other developed country, you'd be naive to propose than it would be anything but marginally more difficult for criminals to smuggle legally purchased firearms in from neighbouring states, unless you enforce highly stringent cross border checks. In the same way, a universal ban on firearms would likely not have any immediate drastic effects on violent crime involving firearms, other factors such as living standards, unemployment levels notwithstanding. A governmental requisitioning of all registered firearms would be far more effective, such the one conducted in Australia which saw 650,000 firearms surrendered in 1997, and a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths in just four years. Again though, with an estimated 50% of US households owning guns with a significant number unregistered, and a potentially far higher average gross amount, the effects would be unlikely to be felt immediately.

Pushing the libertarian approach of the Second Ammendment is skirting around the issue in two ways. Firstly the Second Ammendment talks about the need for a well trained armed militia which is arguable at best in terms of modern necessity and the likely initial motivation for the clause. Secondly where is this connection between the assumption that gun ownership is a supposed human right and the Second Ammendment? That's an separate argument entirely and is very debatable.

The state's role is to provide collective security, it's not simply true that individual freedoms should be protected at any cost and to any extreme case by default, that's a circular argument. How far would you take that absolute argument exactly? Hard drugs like cocaine? Biological weapons? In my view collective security includes restricting gun ownership to police and trained security personnel. Obviously your view differs but it's not logical to claim that by default without any justification as to why you draw the line exactly where you do.

Oh and just out of interest, how likely do you really think that faced with a gun pointing at your face, you'd be able to protect yourself with a loaded and armed firearms conveniently with you at all times (which you of course know how to use) and not tucked away and unarmed in a desk drawer to ensure your 4 year old doesn't get their hands on it?

Don't say criminals are dissuaded by the possibility of concealed weapons, anyone smart enough to conceptualise the above example knows they're empowered instead in any REAL situation.

Quantumushroom, I presume you base your views regarding gun control on the inconsequential short term effects of gun control legislation on crime rates, most likely tested as a policy in various US states and typically cited by the NRA and various pro-gun lobbies supporting their industrial constituencies.

Washington DC: near-total "gun control" and highest murder rate in the US. The long-term failure of 60,000+ ill-conceived American gun laws on the books that only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is my proof that it doesn't work. "Gun-free zones" don't work. What works: burglars and carjackers thinking twice in states with concealed carry laws.

You should try living in a country which has utterly insignificant gun ownership levels due to restrictions on ownership over a sustained period. Perhaps then you would not think that every law abiding citizen needs a gun for his or her protection and would be more than satisfied with the protection police, or privately hired security guards for business purposes can provide for you.

America's Second Amendment is not about "needing" a gun, it's about recognizing self-defense as a fundamental human right from God (or for you atheists, "by the virtue of human birth"). It doesn't matter why anyone wants to own a gun and its none of the State's business.

BTW congratulations liberals, on the Clintons' recent confession to being part of the Evil Rich. Hell, I thought they couldn't be worth more than what, 10 million? Does anyone know how much of their 100 million dollars they've personally spent helping the poor?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

OK yeah- here's the deal. The Internet is full of porn - I've heard. When we started VideoSift - we intentionally decided to make VideoSift a "porn free zone" not necessarily because we hate porn, but just because pornish type content in online video is so prevalent.

I don't know how many times I've done this over the last 2 years, but pop over to VideoBomb and check out their "most watched" section to see why adult content is not a good idea on a video voting site.

Maybe this isn't porn- but it's sexual content designed to arouse. It definitely arouses me. (yes, it fails that test- it's Nicole Kidman's bum!) So I don't think this should be here.

Just look at the UK. Recently gun crime has suffered a massive increase, despite the handgun ban. Know why that is? Because we were never allowed to carry loaded guns on our person anyway, so they were never a defensive mechanism. Removing them did nothing. Modern gun crime in the UK is committed by people who wouldn't have been able to gain legal access to a firearm in the first place and all of them are black market goods.

What do you think would happen in the US if you introduced a handgun ban? Suddenly a lot of criminals would be armed while the populace would become defenceless. Its not like the UK where very few people have guns, so only the gangs get them, nearly any criminal is likely to be armed because they have been so freely available before.

The most telling point in this show was that killing sprees tend to occur in "Gun free zones". Now make the entire country a "gun free zone" and see what happens