Ok, here is the Bio of the shirtless man:
FURIOUS

Usually not wearing a shirt, Furious stays true to his roots; the ghetto's of Harlem. Being the only black man in the show he is prone to be subject of racism, which leaves him little choice but to carry a piece.

Other than packing a .45 he is a peace-loving man who makes an honest living by selling ponies and standing up for his people. Despite this fact of life he has been falsely accused several times of slander, fraud, thefth, battery, carjacking, homejacking, illegal possession of firearms, pimping, assault, manslaughter, bribery, obstruction, perjury, burglary, provocation, arson and robbery.

The latest accusations also involve unfair competition in games such as Call of Duty 4 and CS:S, where he allegedly owned other players to the point of virtual rape and humiliation.

"Monk watches T.V."
"Monk uses a laptop"
"Monk goes to school"
"Monk gets laid in public"
"Monk raises kittens"
"Monk commits armed burglary in broad daylight"

>> ^ElJardinero:
>> ^imstellar28:
^defensive gun uses per year: 2.5 million. how many rapes/burglaries/murders do you have over there? If 5 people break into your house, police or tazers aren't going to help you. how are you going to repel an invasion or fight oppression from your government if such an event arises? slingshots?

Sorry, but how do guns prevent rape? Burglaries? Murder? The USA has none of this?
Murders here are below 1 per 100.000 inhabitants, compared to over 5 in the states. As to rapes.. couldn't gun ownership increase the chances of rape? And do probably nothing to prevent them? A rapist with a gun is far more dangerous than one without one.
Another thing that might make you happy, there's nothing in our law which addresses self defence. As far as our law is concerned, violence is never justified.
Imagine that.


There are always situations that will arise that require extreme prejudice. Just because you haven't been raped or haven't had a weapon save your life does not mean that it does not have merit.

The reason we fight for the right to carry guns, is because the Authority carries guns.

guns guns guns I hate that shit, I can fight with my the weapons I was born with.

I invite you to take a look around your house and see how many weapons you have at your disposal. To a master every thing is a weapon.

A gun in a self defense situation does is allows the most feeble of people to defend themselves.

What you fail to see is that in the US it is easy to get a gun illegally, do you think that by taking the weapons out of the hands of the Citizens that it will help ease crime rate? Criminals do not care for laws, why would they follow the law when it comes to guns?

We have guns in the US and they cannot take that right away, as the second amendment. The right of the people shall not be infringed, I am opposed to any law that keeps this right from any citizen who is of sound mind.

You can disagree with that right, its your 1st amendment right, but you cannot actively work to subvert the 2nd amendment because that is denying other people their right, and to do that makes you a criminal.

I am for regulations, the way the are, and no more.

Did you know than more half of the registered guns are on legacy paper databases?

>> ^imstellar28:
^defensive gun uses per year: 2.5 million. how many rapes/burglaries/murders do you have over there? If 5 people break into your house, police or tazers aren't going to help you. how are you going to repel an invasion or fight oppression from your government if such an event arises? slingshots?


Sorry, but how do guns prevent rape? Burglaries? Murder? The USA has none of this?
Murders here are below 1 per 100.000 inhabitants, compared to over 5 in the states. As to rapes.. couldn't gun ownership increase the chances of rape? And do probably nothing to prevent them? A rapist with a gun is far more dangerous than one without one.

Another thing that might make you happy, there's nothing in our law which addresses self defence. As far as our law is concerned, violence is never justified.

Imagine that.

^defensive gun uses per year: 2.5 million. how many rapes/burglaries/murders do you have over there? If 5 people break into your house, police or tazers aren't going to help you. how are you going to repel an invasion or fight oppression from your government if such an event arises? slingshots?

>> ^rougy:
I like Ron Paul, but I'm just hearing some double-speak here.
It's like he's saying "we don't need any more cops, we just need law enforcement."


Its kind of like when all the cops are out enforcing speeding tickets and possession violations, when there's a high percentage of burglaries and violent crime.

Here is my attempt to derive a political system from "the right to life", using only market concepts and voluntary cooperation.

This is our current system in action in 2007:
........................................(billions).............(%)
national defense...............$552.................19%
education.........................$91...................3%
health...............................$266.................9%
medicare...........................$375................13%
income security.................$365................13%
social security....................$596................21%
veterans benefits...............$72..................3%
environment......................$31..................1%
transportation....................$72..................3%
community development....$54.................2%
international affairs.............$29.................1%
general science...................$23.................1%
agriculture......................... $25.................1%
admistration of justice.........$41................ 1%
general government............$18.................1%
interest...............................$226...............8%
total....................................$2836

If we use pre-occupation levels, we spent $275 billion on national defense. This places the cost of a government functioning only to ensure "the right to life" at 275+41+18=$334 billion. If we are generous and keep in education, transportation, and the environment that adds an extra 91+31+72=$194.

The national income as reported for 2007 was about $14,000 billion dollars. To finance a government whose annual budget is $334 billion, 300 million people would have to donate $1,113 each or 2.38%, on average. If you take the median income in 2007 of $50,233, this represents a 2.22% all-inclusive tax rate. For the poorest, who make only $12,000 a year, this represents 9.26%―higher, but roughly half the level of taxation they currently endure.

In 2007, the census reported the bottom 20% of Americans made $19,178 or less, while the top 20% made over $100,000, and the top 6.78% held over 1/3 of the national income―or around $4.66 trillion dollars. If only the top 80% paid taxes, their fair share would rise to $1,390―and the poorest 40 million Americans would get a free ride. If only the top 6.78% paid taxes, they would only have to donate 6.9%--an amount almost equal to our current sales tax alone. Despite shouldering the entire financial burden of the country, the income of the top 6.78% would rise by over 40% current levels.

However, if the only moral system of taxation in a free society is a voluntary one, why would anyone be motivated to pay taxes? The answer comes from property rights. Property is secured by the police, national defense, fire department, and the legal system. Police can be dispatched to prevent or stop acts of vandalism, burglaries, riots, and violent crime. The army provides a defense against invasion from foreign entities, and the resulting occupation and looting. The fire department suppresses destructive property fires triggered by arson, carelessness, or natural causes. And the legal system prosecutes violations of individual/property rights.

The successful entrepreneur, who has amassed great wealth, has a lot to lose from the violations of these rights. A working family struggling to make ends meet, however, has much less capital to lose. Thus, the wealthiest individuals will have a large incentive to voluntarily subject themselves to taxation―for the selfish reason of securing their wealth. The lower and middle class will be motivated as well, but to a lesser extent―one that, as for the wealthy individual, is proportional to the sum of their assets. To some degree, the wealthy will rely on private security in safeguarding their assets, but even the wealthiest individual cannot finance a private security force capable of repelling a foreign invasion by a modern army, nor could they maintain their high standard of living while surrounded in anarchy―where the lack of a public police force and legal consequence would present little resistance for those willing to violate the rights of others. In this way, the wealthy minority will voluntarily fund the basic roles of government, while the majority benefit at little to no cost.

So what about social services such as education, transportation, healthcare, and unemployment insurance? There are many ways to achieve these on the free market―either through private businesses or non-profit organizations. The implementation and management of a privately funded business and a publicly funded state program are really quite similar―both are funded by large groups of people (shareholders or voters), and both have concentrated leadership which is democratically elected (CE0/board or president/congress). The difference arises when business is bad: a private organization which does not provide a service in demand, or provides it inefficiently will go bankrupt, while a state program which does the same will likely result in increased taxation or national debt. If the government is forbidden from forced taxation―all differences between the two vanish. Thus, it is possible to have a privately funded non-profit organization which provides education, transportation, healthcare, or unemployment insurance―regardless of whether its leadership is elected through the state. And by making financial information public, the organization can ensure a healthy supply of donations―if the service it provides is in demand.

Let's apply the same analysis to a public service: say, education. Most Americans believe in providing an education for all those who desire to pursue it. However, the top tier of society is already donating 6.9% of their income in taxes, and may not find any additional benefit in educating the poor―after all they have the police and army which is what they really need to protect their property. The lower 80% of America is different―they are not yet wealthy, so they can see the benefit of a public education which can be used to generate wealth-- the bottom 20% even more so―although they cannot afford to donate much. We are thus left with 60% of America, or the 180 million Americans that make up the middle class. If every member of the class donates a mere $1000 a year towards education, or 2% of their median $50,233 income (of which they are paying no taxes so far), together they could pool about $180 billion―twice the $91 billion spent on education in our current system.

Now enter the teachers. Teachers can't teach without students, so in the selfish interest of providing themselves with an income, a group of teachers may form a non-profit organization called the United Teachers For America, whose goal is to provide a quality education free of charge. Their annual budget is $91 billion―but we have already shown that by donating a mere 2% of their income, middle-class America alone could provide up to $180 billion. Since they are operating on donations, which may vary from year to year, the UTFA may decide to maintain a surplus―in order to sustain operations for several years with below-average donations. This same strategy has been successfully adopted by private companies who keep cash on hand to protect against a downturn. Then, by making their financial information public, the leadership can solicit extra donations during below-average years--analogous to the spike in donations local blood drives receive after a crisis. The UTFA, competing in the free market, receive income (in this case donations) based on the quality of service they provide. This creates a strong motivation to provide efficient, high quality education―not only to sustain operations, but also to provide competitive wages for the teachers they employ. Likewise, there will also be a thriving private sector, which through competitive action in the free market, will offer a multitude of degree and tuition options--at a much lower cost than exists today. Similar arguments can be made for any number of public services such as transportation, healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc.

The departure from forced taxation alone will impact the lowest-income families in the following ways: income will increase 15-23%, prices of goods and services will decrease up to 8%, housing costs will decrease by up to 5%, heating/fuel costs will decrease by up to 12.5%--resulting in an effective increase in wages by ~20-35%. When one compounds the action of a free market, where income has also increased by up to 40%, and harmful regulations are lifted―the effective increase in wages could be as high as 60-75%. Low-income families will be free of taxation, have increased wages, and not only have access to cheaper goods and services, but access to goods and services that were previously unavailable.

>> ^MrFisk:
What goes on four legs in the morning, on two legs at noon, and on three legs in the evening?


Man (or woman)

>> ^charliem:
A better analogy would be the sudden removal of "burglary" from the list of things that are not legal.


I don't know, there's a moral question with removing burglary from the lawbooks, theres not so much with regulation.

I was more going for who's responsible. Whether the door is locked or not the burglar is still the guy committing the crime.

Same with the mortgage industry, regardless of whether the regulation is there or not. Personally though, I'm all for the government locking some doors.

If a house gets robbed, the robber is still to blame whether the doors were locked or wide open

The problem with that analogy is that the act of robbing is still ilegal, wether the door is open or not.

The regulations that the govt. removed made it legal to give out unethical loans, and on a massive massive scale.

A better analogy would be the sudden removal of "burglary" from the list of things that are not legal.

I have nothing against guns myself, when handled properly. My dad was a hunter and I went to the gunranges with him when I was about 10. But, he had a shotgun, not a frigging semi-automatic!

To me, there is no reason why a little girl should handle a gun like that. I see she is having fun with her dad, but there is a reason why weapons like this should be kept locked all the time.

This is not your 'defend you house in case of a burglary' weapon. If you think I am wrong to put this under 'terrible', well, it made me feel pretty terrible. You want to change the tags, please help yourself, I am not doing it just to get your vote.

>> ^Aemaeth:
I'll upvote when the tags change. It's too bad more people don't understand that gun are less dangerous when proper education takes place.

So then you open the door to deconstruct any other freedoms because the document is "just old." First you avoided the idea of guaranteed freedoms and talked about feelings of safety without guns, or in essence needing overwatch in specific areas of life. Now you say that because the constitution is old, it's contents no longer have merit. This is just plain wrong. The US Supreme Court has defined the 2nd amendment as protecting "from infringement by the federal and state governments the right of the individual to keep and to bear a weapon which is part of the ordinary military equipment or which use could contribute to the common defense."

That is not very ambiguous. Ordinary military equipment does not include weapons of mass destruction by the way. Yes, grenade launchers are legal in the US. Yes, an AR-15 which is quite close to the weapons issued to US troops is legal. Civilian versions are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. One round for each pull of the trigger. What does that matter? Your argument basically follows that since the constitution is old, and guns kill, it's perfectly acceptable to forcibly disarm the population of an entire country without even having actual data to backup claims that it will reduce crime. I just can't agree with that. Look for reports on the results of gun bans and see if you can find a conclusive scientific study that proves a notable increase or decrease in public saftey. What you end up with is spikes in burglaries, assaults, and home invasions. This can't positively be linked to gun bans either since crime was usually on the rise before the bans and no one can seem to agree on the how of it. Crime in the UK doubled in the years following the 1997 ban and is now only in recent years beginning to decrease. Crime continued to rise independent of the gun ban. Your own country saw a drastic rise in home invasions and assaults following the final removal of all guns. Was it related? It's very difficult to tell with many outside factors involved.

Having a decrease in shooting deaths, but an increase in stabbing deaths solves nothing. You take away a gun? No problem, get a knife. Take away knives? No problem... plenty of big rocks and sticks laying around. The idea that passing legislation to ban a weapon will make an area safer is not taking human nature into account. Someone determined to commit a crime will do so with or without the help of a gun. If there was notable scientific data to prove that gun bans created a safer society with actually less violent crime, then that might at least make it appear more justified for a country like Australia that didn't have a guaranteed right to bear arms in the first place. That data just doesn't exist. In fact, in 1996, John Lott from the University of Chicago Law School published 15 years of FBI analysis on over 3,000 countries to find a correlation, if any, between violent crime and the prevalence of concealed weapons on law-abiding citizens. The results showed a major decrease in countries where citizens were more likely to be armed.

The point I've been trying to make over and over again is that none of that even matters anyway. Removing something with good intentions doesn't make it the right decision. This goes beyond just rights to firearms. When you make it acceptable for the government to alter your fundamental rights, for whatever reason, that is like opening Pandora's box. What prevents the same logic that bans a previously guaranteed right from applying to anything else that is deemed a threat? Dramatizing everything by calling people gun nuts, or thinking in terms of extremes, like having shootouts over a fender bender with depleted uranium rounds, is just trivializing an important issue.

In regards to your example of the 3rd amendment, it still has merit today. There are still scenerios where National Guard troops could be deployed within the borders of the United States (although this is increasingly rare). Disaster relief comes to mind as a recent example. This amendment prevents the government from tossing you to the curb to use your home or forcing you to shelter a soldier. Is it likely to be used anytime soon? Probably not, but every citizen is still constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to have a say in soldiers using their property. You seem to view this issue as something almost inconsequential. As if it's just common sense that all guns should be banned regardless of prior laws and in total disregard to individual freedoms because it would secure you peace of mind. I personally consider this to be ignorant of the future consequences involved with allowing the government that kind of control. There is no possible way to enact a complete ban of all personally owned firearms in this country without violating the law.

Presumably, the burglars felt they had to steal to pay for food, shelter, or drugs. Maybe they were mentally ill. Maybe it is the duty of the state to take care of the mentally ill, educate all, and produce conditions in which its people don't think they need to prey on each other to survive. But after a million years of guaranteeing survival and reproductive rights to everyone, what will become of humanity through evolution? Multiplication of severe genetic disorders? Balkanization into different species upon socioeconomic boundaries? If the intervenor had a long-range nonlethal weapon capable of reliably and immediately disabling the burglars until cops arrive, that would have been a better choice ("set phasers on stun!"). Such weapons do not yet exist. Tasers are torturous, short-range, and short-duration. Tranq darts are too slow, unless you shoot them out the window and hide until the darts take effect. He could have shot low to prevent them from walking away without killing them. I'm ambivalent about whether he should have done nothing. In a perfect world the situation would never arise that someone would feel they had to become a burglar to survive. I doubt that anything more than a small percentage of burglaries are thought of by the perpetrators as other than a matter of survival. Living meagerly is preferable to risking your life for luxury; in the mind of some homeless people burglary may be the alternative to certain death.

I doubt most of the folks that showed up were duped. More likely they assumed the fraudulent ad provided some legal cover for burglary.

As for Craigslist not providing the identity of the poster - hell yeah they better wait for a warrant! And given the circumstances, it should be trivial to get - for law enforcement agents. Imagine for a moment if craigslist had given this woman the name, number and address of the poster. They would be subject to endless litigation due to vigilante justice and would rightfully be driven into bankruptcy (not to mention potential federal criminal charges).

Downvote for idiots not securing their property and later whining about it getting vandalized.

This one? It's not the same thing at all.