I see what you did there. If we disagree with your statement we are automatically "left" and therefore there is room for us to move to the centre.

I would hope that everyone disagrees with the original, satirical statement, but the horror is, there are people who actually speak and think that way, and the majority of them are on the left. Political correctness came from the left side of the aisle. It is the left that has never taken the threat of communism seriously, even though 100 million people have been murdered by communist regimes the world over.

I call poppycock on that, in fact the whole argument of left vs. right is utter nonsense in my opinion, what matters much more is rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth.

From a certain point of view, left versus right seems arbitrary and bizarrely divided. For example, if the left values "equality" then they would demand women and especially the elderly become handgun experts so as not to be victims of larger or multiple attackers. Conversely, if the American Right championed individual rights as much as it claims, hooking and drugs would already be legal for adults.

Rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth? I'm a big fan of all three. Rational thought is too rare to be made national policy and while it's possible for atheists to be moral, a solid moral foundation is still owned by religion. The third, "truth" has very few friends, because it doesn't care who is offended by it.

Regarding this sift, since few will take a stand, I will: islam is not worth saving. It was founded by a gigolo/pedophile warlord, then layered with still-more bizarre interpretations after his demise. islam is "supercessionary", meaning its laws and doctrines "override" Christianity and Judaism. islam offers 3 choices for followers when they meet infidels: kill, convert, enslave. Any muslim who does not do one of these three is also considered an infidel to be killed.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

No nation that wishes to survive should allow more than a handful of muslims to immigrate; they are ill-suited for life in First World Western nations in the 21st century, or the 19th century for that matter. No sane woman should want to see muslims take over, either.




>> ^ghark:

>> ^quantumushroom:
According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.

I see what you did there. If we disagree with your statement we are automatically "left" and therefore there is room for us to move to the centre. I call poppycock on that, in fact the whole argument of left vs. right is utter nonsense in my opinion, what matters much more is rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth.

I'm not incensed, not in the least. But I definitely would be afraid if I saw some random dude carrying a handgun in the wide open. Why? Because I know some people who carry - and I certainly would rather they didn't carry, given how well I know them... And since it's our right to carry, it's also a responsibility. Not just to be aware of safety when we carry, but also aware of the safety issues regarding other people carrying. Just like driving, you can't assume everyone on the road is a stellar driver... If you see some creepy dude walking around with a handgun, you'd be stupid not to raise an eyebrow.

But I strongly disagree with the comments that guns are only intended to kill people, are for quick and efficient murder, or that carrying one says "I'm willing to kill someone." Those kinds of statements only reinforce what Blankfist is saying - that the entire subject is being doused in fear and hyperbole...

>> ^blankfist:

Still not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

National Justice Institute
In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm. Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns. In 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 42 percent of robbery offenses and 22 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.

The statistics show that firearms are the murder and suicide implement of choice in the United States as firearms are used in 2 out of every 3 homicides and half of all suicides.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/
http://www.americanfirearms.org/statistics.php#8

Firearms made the top 10 leading causes of death list in the US.
http://www.americanfirearms.org/images/Chart__big.gif

Murders with firearms (per capita)
United States is #8 in the world

Murders with firearms (total)
United States is #4 in the world

If you had a choice would you rather be stabbed or shot?
The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.
http://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(97)00144-0/abstract
*edit: The brackets break the link so please copy and paste if you care


I am a Canadian who owns guns and I do NOT support the federal gun registry as it does nothing to prevent crime or protect citizens.
However I do support the proper licensing, secure storage, and transport of firearms. I believe that some level of gun control is required but the majority of issues can be addressed through proper firearm education.
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^blankfist:
Not sure why people are so incensed by people carrying guns.

No? No idea? How about fear of death? I live in Canada and if me or anyone I knew saw a civilian walking around with a gun we would call the police immediately. Doesn't really matter if they have no 'ill intent', they're walking around with a weapon that can kill someone in the blink of an eye. There's no use for a gun other than killing. Like someone said earlier, this isn't the wild west, have some common sense and at the very least it should be concealed with the proper permits.

I don't think this guy lives in Canada. He lives in the US and in a place where open carry is legal. Some of us don't give in to fear. Sure a gun can kill someone in a blink of an eye, but so can a car or a steak knife. Should we ban roads and steak restaurants?

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^moodonia:
Dicks and all that but I hope her family explained ( ie went apeshit) to her about how stupid she was to put her cars safety ahead of her own. One of those gorilla sized half wits lands a punch and she has a life changing recovery ahead of her, or worse, but these things are easy to evaluate when they are on video and not unfolding around you.

I hope they buy her a handgun.


Yeah, introducing firearms into that situation would've made it so much better....

>> ^moodonia:

Dicks and all that but I hope her family explained ( ie went apeshit) to her about how stupid she was to put her cars safety ahead of her own. One of those gorilla sized half wits lands a punch and she has a life changing recovery ahead of her, or worse, but these things are easy to evaluate when they are on video and not unfolding around you.


I hope they buy her a handgun.

@Gwiz
Yes, but crazy people with assault riles rarely do those types of things to police officers. Yes, officers die commonly enough--but not an everyday occurrence when you include mad firepower, and veterans at that. Just like police brutality, that's an ultra rare occurence. I understand why you note what you note--and personally, we just disagree on the heart of the matter. It's a difference of opinion is all. However, you do explain things in *wiener* a way that I can appreciate; you have a better personality in regards to reaching my line of thinking.

The only true things that get under my skin are peoples comments, like the one that viewed the cop as less than human, like some ape scum that deserved to be shot and laughed at. Yes, that's assuming the worst about the vague comment, but we are adults and can logically do a case by case assessment.

On the note you made; what do you think about the second admendment and assault rifles? I believe in reasonable arms, and that does not include those. Obviously most agree--but I also view the law as more important than my own feelings. With that said, arms can be regulated, I think, within reason. *handguns versus assault rifles for example*

@bareboards

It's funny--I would have thought this sift talk would have prohibited an external link too, since it's just another way of posting snuff into the site--albeit in a round about manner. That's why I never thought of using Sift Talk as an outlet. Now that I know--thanks to you and Sagemind; I can use this format in the future. Which, although it doesn't completely change my opinion, at least helps with the limits and therefore improves my disposition of the sift.


***On a side note, and no offense to you lucky, why does the Lucky Charms' icon make me twitch with agitation? That's not normal, I don't think. That's outside of the cereal-box thinking. Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun.

>> ^residue:

Police allege that the former Marine was involved in drug smuggling, robbery and human smuggling.
But a search of the home found nothing illegal. Officers found a handgun and body armour in the house.
The five SWAT team members remain on active duty. No criminal charges have been filed and no disciplinary action taken.
Mr Guerena's wife, Vanessa, said she heard her husband moaning as he lay dying, his body struck by 22 of the bullets.
Ms Guerena told ABC News: 'I saw his stomach, all the blood on the floor'.
She said her goal now is to 'clear his good name'. Ms Guerena said their son Joel keeps asking about his deceased father, 'Is he a bad guy?'
Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-1391567/Iraq-war-vet-Jose-Guerena-did-open-SWAT-team-killed-him.html#ixzz1NZJKnTZx


Can we stop noting the number of rounds used? One 15 round clip can be unloaded in about 5 seconds, so with two or three shooters, that's not much. Besides, the point of firing one round is to kill, the others are to confirm.

I am not even going to watch this video. I have had enough death videos for the day. (I just read the comments.)

Police allege that the former Marine was involved in drug smuggling, robbery and human smuggling.

But a search of the home found nothing illegal. Officers found a handgun and body armour in the house.

The five SWAT team members remain on active duty. No criminal charges have been filed and no disciplinary action taken.

Mr Guerena's wife, Vanessa, said she heard her husband moaning as he lay dying, his body struck by 22 of the bullets.

Ms Guerena told ABC News: 'I saw his stomach, all the blood on the floor'.

She said her goal now is to 'clear his good name'. Ms Guerena said their son Joel keeps asking about his deceased father, 'Is he a bad guy?'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391567/Iraq-war-vet-Jose-Guerena-did-open-SWAT-team-killed-him.html#ixzz1NZJKnTZx

>> ^MayaBaba:

Transportation Security Administration officers are working on the edge where bad people are and bad things happen. They are doing a job I for one would not wish to do, they are doing the job well!
Do I want to know about every actual terrorist or nutter, (it's not always political) they capture?
No I wouldn't. I’d rather they dealt with it secretly, and no big press release is made.
What do you think they should do when they discover a device on a passenger?
1) Tell them to go away and not do it again?
2) Take the device off them and then 2 above?
3) Expose the device to the adjacent crowd and try to embarrass the fool?
4) Say "Hands up you under arrest"?
5) Wrestle them to the ground and hope?
6) Place a handgun against their temple and pull the trigger?
I know which of those I would want to happen, but you can sleep easy because I’m not in charge; dedicated people from the TSA are in charge and make no mistake about it, thats the front line they are guarding!


Educate thineself young fool.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-other-states-form-caucus-to-oppose-tsa-intrusions

Written by Sen. Sam Slom, R-Hawaii

"For years, a growing number of people and organizations have raised red flags about the operations of the TSA, its costs and its effectiveness, or lack thereof, of ever identifying a single terrorist or crime, while inconveniencing and traumatizing hundreds of citizens. Now TSA will be unionized."

>> ^MayaBaba:

Transportation Security Administration officers are working on the edge where bad people are and bad things happen. They are doing a job I for one would not wish to do, they are doing the job well!
Do I want to know about every actual terrorist or nutter, (it's not always political) they capture?
No I wouldn't. I’d rather they dealt with it secretly, and no big press release is made.
What do you think they should do when they discover a device on a passenger?
1) Tell them to go away and not do it again?
2) Take the device off them and then 2 above?
3) Expose the device to the adjacent crowd and try to embarrass the fool?
4) Say "Hands up you under arrest"?
5) Wrestle them to the ground and hope?
6) Place a handgun against their temple and pull the trigger?
I know which of those I would want to happen, but you can sleep easy because I’m not in charge; dedicated people from the TSA are in charge and make no mistake about it, thats the front line they are guarding!


that was either a masterfully delivered piece of satire or you are functionally retarded in a very literal sense of the word........im leaning toward the latter

Transportation Security Administration officers are working on the edge where bad people are and bad things happen. They are doing a job I for one would not wish to do, they are doing the job well!
Do I want to know about every actual terrorist or nutter, (it's not always political) they capture?
No I wouldn't. I’d rather they dealt with it secretly, and no big press release is made.
What do you think they should do when they discover a device on a passenger?
1) Tell them to go away and not do it again?
2) Take the device off them and then 2 above?
3) Expose the device to the adjacent crowd and try to embarrass the fool?
4) Say "Hands up you under arrest"?
5) Wrestle them to the ground and hope?
6) Place a handgun against their temple and pull the trigger?
I know which of those I would want to happen, but you can sleep easy because I’m not in charge; dedicated people from the TSA are in charge and make no mistake about it, thats the front line they are guarding!

Your argument seems confused to me sir. Access to guns = Killings at school?
You are right though, same 'pattern' can be observed here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/23/finland.schoolsworldwide .
IMO only certain trained professionals (+psych eval) absolutely require, and therefore, should have access to non-sporting guns, thats it. If you want to have access to guns designed to kill people (alot, quickly, efficiently), and defend your fellow countryman, become a trained professional. >> ^Buck:

"In 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech -- 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building. He didn't need high-capacity magazines because he had two guns and reloaded.
There was no one to stop him.
School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property.
In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.
Thrre dead.
In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.
Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.
Two dead.
In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.
Two dead.
In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.
One dead.
See the pattern?"
---------------------
"Letter writer Barry Ruhl is concerned about a new gun law being proposed in Florida. The changes would bring Florida's laws in line with Utah's. Both require a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but in Utah open-carry is also allowed. It would also allow non-felons to carry in all public places including schools. Ruhl fears that this will degrade public safety.
I would like to point out that Utah's murder rate is just 1.3 per 100,000 and it has never had a school shooting. When Utah enacted its handgun carry laws in 1995, its murder rate was 3.9, three times higher than it is today. Canada's murder rate is 1.8.
In each and every state that has passed a handgun carry law, all rates of crime have dropped immediately and significantly."

"In 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech -- 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building. He didn't need high-capacity magazines because he had two guns and reloaded.
There was no one to stop him.
School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property.
In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.
Thrre dead.
In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.
Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.
Two dead.
In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.
Two dead.
In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.
One dead.

See the pattern?"

---------------------

"Letter writer Barry Ruhl is concerned about a new gun law being proposed in Florida. The changes would bring Florida's laws in line with Utah's. Both require a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but in Utah open-carry is also allowed. It would also allow non-felons to carry in all public places including schools. Ruhl fears that this will degrade public safety.

I would like to point out that Utah's murder rate is just 1.3 per 100,000 and it has never had a school shooting. When Utah enacted its handgun carry laws in 1995, its murder rate was 3.9, three times higher than it is today. Canada's murder rate is 1.8.

In each and every state that has passed a handgun carry law, all rates of crime have dropped immediately and significantly."

It's become part of the Sift, not unlike Westy's spelling and QuantumMushroom finding a rightist slant that blames leftist forces for everything.


Oh, not EVERYTHING. After all, 98% isn't a 100%.

Liberals' 50 years of dreadful domestic policy
Posted: December 23, 2010

by Larry Elder

For the past 50 years, the Democrats – and many Republicans who should know better – have been wrong about virtually every major domestic policy issue. Let's review some of them:

Taxes

The bipartisan extension of the Bush tax cuts represents the latest triumph over the "soak the rich because trickledown doesn't work" leftists.

President Ronald Reagan sharply reduced the top marginal tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent, doubling the Treasury's tax revenue. President George H.W. Bush raised the income tax rate, as did his successor. But President George W. Bush lowered them to the current 35 percent.

President Barack Obama repeatedly called the current rate unfair, harmful to the country and a reward to those who "didn't need" the cuts and "didn't ask for" them. If true, he and his party ditched their moral obligation to oppose the extension. But they didn't, because none of it is true. Democratic icon John F. Kennedy, who reduced the top marginal rate from more than 90 percent to 70 percent, said, "A rising tide lifts all the boats." He was right – and most of the Democratic Party knows it.


Welfare for the "underclass"

When President Lyndon Johnson launched his "War on Poverty," the poverty rate was trending down. When he offered money and benefits to unmarried women, the rate started flat-lining. Women married the government, allowing men to abandon their moral and financial responsibilities.

The percentage of children born outside of marriage – to young, disproportionately uneducated and disproportionately brown and black women – exploded. In 1996, over the objections of many on the left, welfare was reformed. Time limits were imposed, and women no longer received additional benefits if they had more children. The welfare rolls declined. Ten years later, the New York Times wrote: "When the 1996 law was passed ... liberal advocacy groups ... predicted that it would increase child poverty, hunger and homelessness. The predictions were not fulfilled."

Education

The federal government's increasing involvement with education – what is properly a state and local function – has been costly and ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. Title I, a program begun 45 years ago to close the performance gap between urban and suburban schools, burns through more than $15 billion a year, and the performance gap has widened. The feds spend $80 billion a year on K-12 education, as if money is the answer. States like Utah and Iowa spend much less money per student compared with districts like those in New York City and Washington, D.C., with much better results.

Where parents have choices – where the money follows the student rather than the other way around – the students perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. But the teachers' unions and the Democratic Party continue to resist true competition among public, private and parochial schools.

Gun control

Violent crime occurs disproportionately in urban areas – where Democrats in charge impose the most draconian gun-control laws.

Over the objection of those who warn of a "return to the Wild West," 34 states passed laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Not one state has repealed its law. Professor John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," says: "There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate: As more people obtain permits, there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent and robberies by over 2 percent."


"Affirmative action"

Race-based preferences have been a disaster for college admissions. Students admitted with lesser credentials are more likely to drop out. Had their credentials matched their schools, they would have been far more likely to graduate and thus enter the job market at a more productive level.

Preferences in government hiring and contracting have led to widespread, costly and morale-draining "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. Where preferences have been put to the ballot, voters – even in liberal states like California – have voted against them.

Minimum-wage hikes

Almost all economists agree that minimum-wage laws contribute to unemployment among the low-skilled – the very group the "compassionate party" claims to care about.

Economist Walter E. Williams, 74, in his new autobiography, "Up from the Projects," describes the many low-skilled jobs he took as a teenager. "By today's standards," he wrote, "my youthful employment opportunities might be seen as extraordinary. That was not the case in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, as I've reported in some of my research, teenage unemployment among blacks was slightly lower than among whites, and black teens were more active in the labor force as well. All of my classmates, friends, and acquaintances who wanted to work found jobs of one sort or another."

Obamacare

This ghastly government-directed scheme will inevitably lead to rationing and lower-quality care – all without "bending the cost curve" down as Obama promised.

Any party can have a bad half-century. Merry Christmas Solstice.

I just had an interesting conversation with my Oklahoman, ex-military, gun-loving 87-year-old father. Conservative to the core. Big NRA supporter.

I asked him how he felt about possibly making semi-automatic Glocks with 30 bullet magazines illegal. That the only purpose for them was to kill and kill quickly.

He got mad. Big surprise. "There are no handguns that have 30 bullet magazines. You read that in the New York Times, didn't you?"

When I found on Glock's website that the magazine actually held 33 bullets, he got real quiet. And he agreed that banning such a gun made sense.

There is hope, my friend, there is hope. And it is facts that will lead the way.

That is becoming my mantra. I love facts.

Hope you and your extended family and friends are safe down there, with all the water worries.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
While America's gun laws remain, so shall the massacres continue.