text:
Ten Arguments Gun Advocates Make, and Why They're Wrong
There has been yet another mass shooting, something that now seems to occur on a monthly basis. Every time another tragedy like this occurs, gun advocates make the same arguments about why we can't possibly do anything to restrict the weaponization of our culture. Here's a guide to what they'll be saying in the coming days:
1. Now isn't the time to talk about guns.
We're going to hear this over and over, and not just from gun advocates; Jay Carney said it to White House reporters today. But if we're not going to talk about it now, when are we going to talk about it? After Sandy hit the East Coast, no one said, "Now isn't the time to talk about disaster preparedness; best leave that until it doesn't seem so urgent." When there's a terrorist attack, no one says, "Now isn't the time to talk about terrorism." Now is exactly the time.
2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.
3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.
If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.
4. We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.
The people who say this are the same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible. Our current gun laws are riddled with loopholes and allow people to amass enormous arsenals of military-style weapons with virtually no restrictions.
5. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?
The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.
6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.
Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.
And we all know that if this shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, plenty of Americans, including plenty of gun owners, will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free.
7. Widespread gun ownership is a guarantee against tyranny.
If that had anything to do with contemporary life, then mature democracies would be constantly overthrown by despots. But they aren't. We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.
8. Guns are a part of American culture.
Indeed they are, but so are a lot of things, and that tells us nothing about whether they're good or bad and how we want to treat them going forward. Slavery was a part of American culture for a couple of hundred years, but eventually we decided it had to go.
9. The American people don't want more gun control.
The truth is that when public opinion polls have asked Americans about specific measures, the public is in favor of a much more restrictive gun regime than we have now. Significant majorities would like to see the assault weapons ban reinstated, mandatory licensing and training for all gun owners, significant waiting periods for purchases, and host of other restrictions (there are more details here). In many cases, gun owners themselves support more restrictions than we currently have.
10. Having movie theaters and schools full of kids periodically shot up is just a price we should be willing to pay if it means I get to play with guns and pretend I'm Wyatt Earp.
OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make. But it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments. All that we suffer because of the proliferation of guns—these horrifying tragedies, the 30,000 Americans who are killed every year with guns—for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay. If only they'd have the guts to say it.
You must be unfamiliar with Australia if you're under this ignorant mindset.
"...for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay."
I think it's more accurate to say "it's a price they're willing for someone else to pay." They're usually not the ones being shot up or losing children and other family members.
James from http://www.4insure.us
Want some modern examples? Look at Egypt, a new democracy that has immediately been taken over by their new dictator Morrisey. All the unarmed people could do was demonstrate while being beaten, gassed, and shot at. Lets not forget all the children slaughtered in Norway. Gun laws in Norway are about the the strictest in the world and what happens? 75 children are killed!
First of all let me say its a damn shame so many young innocent live were lost in Connecticut. My prayers go out to the families. But maybe just mayber if one of those teachers was armed we would be having a different discussion. That being said, that young coward would have killed regardless of weather or not he could have found a gun. Actually ironically Connecticut has some of the most strict gun control in the country including an assault weapons ban.
This is discussion is about more than that though. It has to do with the 2nd Amendment in America. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It has to do with the ciitizen's defense from a tyrannical government. Not protection of the state, protection of the free state. As such every citizen should be as well armed as his/her government. It CAN happen here!
So your saying you support citizens shooting cops? Over the past ten years there have been numerous occasions where protesters have been gassed, beaten and even shot and killed by police in the United States. Your solution would be to arm the protesters to shoot and kill the police officers?
See, we have this thing called democracy, and it isn't a young democracy with little history or tradition to support it. It's the oldest democracy in the world. It allows you and I to have our disagreements without killing each other. It allows us both to appeal to our fellow citizens to support our causes. Sometimes we get what we want, sometimes we don't. Most Americans have done pretty well by this system, at least compared to any other system out there. The best part about the system is that it is non-violent. I don't need a gun to revolt against the government. All I have to do is vote - or volunteer on a campaign, if I really want to make a difference.
It requires a deep disdain for the Constitution of the United States to believe that you need a gun to revolt against it.
Where did he say he supported citizens shooting cops? All I saw was a claim that you have a right to defend yourself when government becomes tyrannical enough to threaten your life.
If you disagree with that, then you probably didn't pay very close attention in American history class.
Number 7's hedge-against-tyranny argument is usually expressed differently, in my experience, from the way it's characterized here. The fear is not that our freely-elected democracy will be overthrown by some exogenous, despotic force; rather, it is that our freely-elected democracy will itself turn despotic, a fear which is characteristic of a segment of our citizenry that already feels beset by modernity and marginalized in a society that is liberalizing on social issues. Though there's a goodly dose of paranoia in this view, I have to admit that recent events, from the Patriot Act to warrantless wiretapping to Citizen's United and the general sense that we are transitioning to a government of the people, by the moneyed, for the moneyed, make it seem less absurd than it once did.
Underlying this is an argument that a government that can take away your AR-15 will come next for your deer rifle, and proceed from there to revoke your right to free speech, assembly, etc. This, too, makes a certain amount of sense, at least in respect of its own internal logic. The way to counter it, I think, is to acknowledge that a government with the power to protect itself from foreign adversaries in a world as dangerous as ours will also possess the means to protect itself from internal ones. The disparity in this power is exponentially greater today than it was at the time of the 2nd amendment's drafting, when the iron cannonball was state-of-the-art weaponry and the very idea of a standing army was controversial. That a band of armed citizens could fight off the military might of a government-gone-bad was still plausible in those days.
It is simple fact that the handheld anti-personnel weapons we're discussing here would be of little avail against drones, cruise missiles, and FAEs. If the government wanted to turn on its own citizens, it could do it, and unless we expand the scope of the 2nd Amendment to include private ownership of Patriot missiles and the like, your best defense is not to hunker down with your gun collection but to remain fully engaged in the political process, to make sure that (small d) democrats remain in charge.
And where do criminals get all these guns? They steal them from other people who have legally (and usually unnecessarily) purchased guns. There are JUST TOO MANY GUNS all over the place in this country. If you want to hunt, fine; have a rifle. But assault weapons and hand guns are for one thing only - killing people.
Let's say you were successful in eliminating all the gins in the U.S.. What would happen? How long do you think it would take a foreign manufacturer to make and import millions of new ones? We can't stop countries from building nuclear weapons, how do you propose we are going to stop Russian gun manufactures from making hand guns? Then, how are we going to stop them from coming into the U.S.? We can't stop drugs or people from coming in illegally, so the guns will get in. Who will those guns go to? Criminals, as you will effectively have disarmed the law-abiding population. Such a prohibition just stacks the deck further in favor of the criminals, as they would spit on your laws.
Hey, look long before there were even guns at all there was murder. In fact go back and look at the statistics for Medieval society. That was a brutal time, with significantly more murder going on. None of these measures anyone is suggesting would have stopped the Connecticut shooter from what he did. It might have taken him a little longer to get a black market weapon, but it would've still happened. Or maybe he would've used a car bomb? Or used Molotov Cocktails to burn the school down with the children inside. Crazy and evil isn't stopped by laws, even good laws. None of these suggestions are good laws.
It seems to me like most of the argument against gun control arises from people's fear of being unable to protect themselves. Gun advocates will claim that banning guns will leave them vulnerable to any manner of threat, including the criminal that illegally obtains a firearm.
If the argument is indeed protection, then I believe what is needed is a more creative way to solve for the protection problem. Why do we need to kill someone in order to protect ourselves, and why do the weapons needed to protect have to be lethal? What I believe Americans on both sides should be advocating is the ban of lethal weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, and the research & development of effective non-lethal weapons to replace them.
If one could develop for example, a non lethal firearm that could render an attacker immobile for a period of time long enough to phone an authority or escape from the situation, then you've effectively accomplished the same goal as shooting someone with a gun.
The added benefit is that you don't have millions of lethal weapons floating around, which lowers the probability that events like what transpired in Connecticut occur. If someone feels the need to carry the non lethal weapon for protection they can still disable the would be attacker.
This problem can be solved, it just requires a disruption in the way we think about the problem we are addressing.
Although I don't own a gun, the article is pathetic as it does not contain anything factual or of value. In fact, if the majority of the respondents still had a reasonable amount of function from 8 pounds of mass in their heads, they could research the data and see the information/opinions in the article is simply not with basis: "since the so-called assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have declined". This does not take away from the tragedy of the situation but proves more about how this country has become more "cattle" or "sheep" to the ones really running it and don't wish to address problems proactively instead of reactively. Any model of training is designed to teach proactive activities since reactive generally means to late. Additionally, ones proactive decisions should be made on solid facts and positive performances.
These "sheep" responding are just simply to lazy to actually research anything for themselves. They want to be spoonfed information, want their jobs to have little performance with high pay, don't follow the facts surrounding the information their fed and making them think pharmaceutical companies are helping them when in fact they are on an international trial for Genocide, and the food they eat is actually near empty in value and full of an inconceivable amount of chemicals not to mention worthless calories. ie.. Fat, dumb, failing health country - look at the statistics before you gripe at this one.
You "sheep" are just yes, yes, "yessing" and following the rest of the pathetic crowd people which don't think for yourselves. There was plenty of information provided that this individual had issues and they continued to push him aside because it would inconvenience their already pathetic mundane existence and didn't want to actually do anything effective to address it ahead of time and the situation finally exploded.
WAKE UP AMERICA - Ya'll are sabotaging yourselves and it is starting to show up. The system is crashing and our patterns of living are causing problems on an international level. We need to go back to the basics of living from the land, raising our children at home and nursing them into their adulthood with positive reassurements and constructive criticisms. Not scraping for an existence that keeps us away from our families most of the day. The loss of these little souls and their protectors is tragic indeed but the retarded baseless articles and responses shows the true tragedy of our country.
lets remember folks criminals don't obey the law. Imposing more gun laws/restrictions will only effect the people who follow the rules, it does nothing but make it better for the criminals knowing that they have fire arms and rest of the civilian population doesn't , its unfortunate but there will all ways be crazies/evil people out there. As long as there are murders/criminals with gun owning the streets I would like to able to have my own firearm, Keep in mind I've never shot a gun in my life.
Gee..I never thought of the Constitution of our country as being "wrong"
Why idiots are wrong:
Every YEAR law abiding citizens thwart over a MILLION crimes by showing or using their legal guns. Often against criminals, who really don't give a shit about the law and will use them anyway. Of those over 1 million crimes a year, FAR MORE would have resulted in the death of an innocent citizen than the 26 that died in the school on Friday.
The second amendment is NOt going to be repealed. If that is what you are hoping for, then you may as well move to another country. And believe me, there will not be one person who will cry when you leave. NO ONE wants you here anymore...including your own mother.
I would agree with all the points apart from number 2. If these people can not find guns they will find another way to go on a killing spree. For example we have reports of arson on an almost daily basis. Over in China there have been several reports of schools getting attacked by people with knives, axes and swords. Less than 20 miles from where I'am (Wales, UK) we had one person drive around the city (Cardiff) mounting the pavement, killing one and wounding may others. I presume that when you get to the level of mental breakdown you simply reach for the nearest and most harmful weapon to hand. For some this will be a book of matches, car keys or a gun.
Other than that I'm 100% behind these points
"If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.If that were true, then how come it never happens? "
Ummm, have you done any research before posting an ignorant comment like this?
A QUICK Google search next time will help you write a more informed article.
Its people like you that make lobby groups like the NRA 100% necessary.
Here are some articles where guns saved a life.. Again, random Google search:
Here is one : http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3414
Here is another : http://fox6now.com/2012/03/25/man-credits-concealed-carry-weapon-for-sav...
Good points in this article. Here is some research to back things up:
Check out the understated last sentence in "Conclusions"
Yet another anti gun article with not a single fact to back up the slew of opinions posted. The only attempt at a fact in this article is #3 in which the author claims that people carrying concealed weapons could stop someone from committing these mass killings. Well, look at where these mass killings occur and you'll see they all have one thing in common....GUNS ARE NOT ALLOWED AT THESE LOCATIONS!!!!! That's why you don't see concealed gun owners intervening, the people who commit these mass shootings choose places where they know there aren't any guns. The shooting that occurred in the theater when Batman came out could've chosen 7 theaters that were closer to his house but chose an 8th one further away. The 7 that were closer all allowed concealed guns and the 8th one, the one he chose, was the only one that visibly posted signs that it didn't allow concealed weapons. You see what happens when you look at FACTS?
Propaganda piece on #3 especially. They do happen its just that the press are not interested in screaming it from the rooftops as they are if someone succeeds.
Here are several instances.
"If that were true, then how come it never happens?"
Any "journalist" who uses this type of grammar sounds as if they have a third grade education. And the view points from above are so lame, tired and worn out.
I do not know one gun owner who wants to play Wyatt Earp and "play" with guns.
Criminals WILL always have banned guns as they do now because they have no respect for the existing laws.
We DO need to enforce the existing laws so that someone who is mentally ill is not in the same house as an "assault" weapon.
I have NEVER seen nor have heard of a gun suddenly springing to life and killing anyone.
And YES the Constitution does protect my gun ownership rights.
You are quite full of the same old worn out arguments. You don't like guns, move somewhere that outlaws the ownership of guns.
#1. Timing is never an issue. People will talk about anything whenever they want. This is a moot point, and the fact you used it as your first point just shows how stupid the rest is going to be.
#2. I'm pretty sure no gun every killed anyone without someone pulling the trigger. They are designed to kill, both in defense and offense. It is unfortunate that they exist, but they exist because evil exists, not because they are evil. If evil has a gun, I'd want the right to protect myself with the same power that evil has.
#3. In fact, there are plenty of example where citizens have stopped mass murders.
Just like this 71 year old man did this past summer:
And here's a bunch of documented examples from the libertarian party's website:
A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
#4. It isn't an issue of more laws or no more laws. It's an issue that laws these days tend to make more problems than they solve. I'd rather have less laws that are enforced well, and keep my liberties and right to protect myself, than to create more laws to disarm the civil obedient in the face of the disobedient.
#5. Criminals will indeed always find a way to commit their horrific act. It's not a question of trying or not trying to reduce violence, it's the fact that stripping ordinary citizens of their right to defend themselves is not the right way. We need more security where it is important. Why do we not have a standard for armed security guards at our children's school? It's our most precious resource, yet we remove all security. That doesn't make any sense to me.
#6. The Constitution is right. The 2nd amendment was written to protect against tyranny.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution)
There's a reason why every dictatorship first starts with disarming the public under the guise of safety. It's not made up. There's history to prove it. Our era is no different. If you believe it is, I believe you are sorely mistaken, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
#7. The same as above. I don't like to repeat myself.
#8. Slaves are people. Guns are objects. Guns don't have rights. People do. People have a right to own a gun. They don't have a right to own a person because that person inherently has the right to his life. It was a compromise for the time period that that was allowed. It was eventually corrected. Please don't play stupid with me.
#9. Training, waits, registration. Fine, but how much is enough. Where does it stop? Who is considered a crazy bastard?
#10. Please, do let everyone see how sarcastic you are, and how you like to put everyone into the same box and treat them the same. That's very non-discriminatory of you.
Full disclosure. I do not own a gun. Never have. Probably never will. I support liberty first and foremost. I'm not a democrat. I'm not a republican. I do not play team politics, so please don't do that with me.
I don't know who the editor is on this website but they should seriously reconsider giving this emotional nutcase the ability to post his "blog" here... You've got an article filled with untrue facts and no citations.
Go back to holding an "The end is here" sign outside the super market.
Posting this again - which was a reply to someone above:
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms."
The National Guard is nothing like what is being described by Madison, Lee and Mason. And it shouldn't be a "moot point", and we shouldn't even have a standing army - the Founders you selectively quote were opposed to having a standing army. They did, in fact, make provision in the Constitution for a Navy to protect our shores. Without a standing army, the U.S. wouldn't have troops in over 100 countries and we would be focused on protecting our own country instead of Japan, Germany, South Korea, Iraq, etc...
Then there's this:
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops"
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed."
Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
You seem to disregard the "shall not be infringed" portion of the amendment. A proper reading of the amendment in the context of the writings of the Founders is:
"Without a standing army - which we are opposed to and specifically stated that no appropriation for an army shall be for more than two years - a militia is necessary. Since a militia is necessary, we want everyone to have guns and know how to use them - from their youth up. While perhaps not every person in the country will be a current member of the militia, we want them all familiar with guns so that they will be prepared to assist us in the militia if we need to expand it in the event of some sort of attack on the country - from within or without."
Harvard University has something to say about this in the study:
See here:
"... the National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes. "[T]he felons most frightened 'about confronting an armed victim' were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms." Conversely, robbery is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership."
"a study comparing the number of guns to murder rates found that during the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, the number of handguns owned by Americans increased 160% while the number of all firearms rose 103%. Yet over that period, the murder rate declined 27.7%. It continued to decline in the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, despite the addition in each year of two to three million handguns and approximately five million firearms of all kinds."
"Norway has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%), and Sweden lies midway between (15.1%) the Netherlands and Norway. Yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian, and the Swedish rate is even higher, though only slightly."
For everyone that wants stricter gun controls, or to ban them completely I am willing to compromise. I will gladly give up my firearms that I use for home defense and recreational use, as long as you give up the keys to your automobile. Swear that for the rest of your life you will only use approved public transportation. I think this will also solve the many fatal accidents caused by an automobile every year in our country. In those fatal accidents many being children either crushed or severed in half. I think by this solution we will get rid of the many careless idiots who put the lives of each and every automobile operator at risk every day due to their insane driving. Out of how many of these people who wish for stricter control drive intoxicated, text while driving, or have other distractions? "But that isn't fair what about all the rest of us who are excellent drivers with good records" Well too bad blame that on the select few who ruin it all for the 99% who are good law abiding citizens.
All the gun law talk aside, we do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Democracy is nothing more then mob rule. We have certain rights in this country that no matter how many people don't like it, it can not be taken away. A republic protects the rights of the minority. If any of these rights (freedom of speach, freedom of religion, and yes the right to bare arms among others) are removed from the constitution, the dead count will be enormous because civil war WILL ensue. I don't care if you don't like it, or if 90% of the country doesn't like it. I AM protected by the republic. This should not be a federal law discussion. It should be a state law discussion. This is why we have states, so that different people can live their different ways. This was the whole point of the republic. Just like a guy from San Francisco doesn't want some hick from Amarillo dictating how he should live his life and vice versa.
If you can't ban guns, at least raise taxes on ammunition. By 100 per cent or even 500 per cent. The US would be a safer place and the gun lobby would have less reason to be up in arms.
Excuse the pun.
But the whole idea of taxing ammunition has an excellent pedigree. Back in Dec 1999, a very provincial Barack Obama, at the time no more than an Illinois state senator, was reported by the Chicago Defender newspaper to say that he was in favour of increasing "federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] – weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." The report went on to say that Obama made the proposal at an "anti-gun rally," where he proposed a host of other gun control policies.
The report fed into the fear psychosis induced by America's politically powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), which claimed, back in 2009 that the then newly elected President Obama would "increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent". At the time, the NRA added that it was all an insidious part of what it called "Obama's 10-Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment." That is Americans' 221-year-old constitutional right to bear arms.
The Annenberg Policy Centre debunked the claims back in June 2009, saying it "found no record of Obama introducing legislation to this effect while in the Illinois state Senate, or in the U.S. Senate. Now, after further research, we can find no record of the president, or any other administration official, saying that an increase in the ammunition tax is part of his current agenda either."
So far, so depressing. If Obama believes more guns in a system kill more people, why doesn't he do something about it? Realpolitik? Perhaps. If so, surely the best way forward is to raise tax on ammunition to levels that would make buyers stop and think and probably neglect to buy. Prohibitive taxation has worked in many countries, especially with cigarettes and alcohol. Why should guns and the ammunition that makes them dangerous be off-limits?
It is important to say at this point, that increased taxes on ammunition are hardly a bold new idea. In 1993, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed a 50 per cent tax-hike on most handgun ammunition, and one that came in at more than 10,000 per cent on slightly more lethal arsenal.
It did not go through.
Somewhat dispiritingly, President Obama's remarks (on Wednesday, Dec 19) that a "majority of Americans" back changes to some laws seems fairly anodyne. At most, Obama is proposing a renewal of an assault weapons ban (which existed 1994-2004), limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines and an end to loopholes allowing gun purchases with no background checks. But this would not mean an end to private, no-questions-asked sales at gun shows across the country. This would not take the estimated 300 million guns currently owned by Americans out of the system.
The only option? Tax ammunition to levels that make it unaffordable to buy, practise with and actively use a gun.
I'm pro-gun rights, but at that point I'd honestly rather them be banned all around the board. Doing that will still let criminals buy a few round of ammunition for the ACTUAL crime, but just make it impossible for legitimate gun owners to hunt, or simply train with their own weapon
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns,"
Google: Chinese man kills 9 people with knife. If there's a will, there's a way. Whether it's a gun or not, if an insane person wants to kill, they will with whatever they have. Of course more people are killed with guns because that's a murderer's weapon of choice. It's quick, easy, scares people and they can protect their selves from their victims. I bet you if guns didn't exist, the crazies would find other tools to use. Not everyone has intentions like that. The focus should be on preventing people from becoming psychos and not on guns.
I'm not a gun owner, and don't want to be one. I do believe in the 2nd amendment and the right to own guns. However, I do have 1 question, which I would love a gun owner/lover to answer. But first,
Every person who is against gun control, spews the same crap over and over...
1- if there was an armed security, teacher, or whatever at the school that day, this would never had happened.
2- The reason there is more crime in gun free zones is because the bad guys know there won't be anyone confronting them.
3- I have the right to carry a concealed weapon for protection
On these 3 points, I'll give them to you. You are correct. But my question revolves around the 1 thing. Why are you so against banning assult rifles?
On point 1- a trained person would be able to take out a bad guy with 1 bullet. No need for an assult rifle. You may as much damage as the bad guy.
2-Again same thing, all you need is 1 bullet. No need for an automatic assault rifle
3- those that do carry a concealed weapon, have you ever concealed an automatic assault rifle? My guess is no.
So the question again, is, why are all the gun owners/lovers and those who believe in the right to bear arms, so vehemently against banning automatic assault rifles?
Sure can't conceal an Assault Rifle.... :)
(By the way... that's SEMI-Automatic!)
As I've said before... for personal protection I'll take a .38, .357, .45 ACP, or 9mm Para.
Or in my house a good ol' shotgun -- magnum, slugs and shot!
And I _still_ don't want an Assault Rifle if I've got a big tract of land to defend --- I'll take a .30/06 w/ a scope.
Assault Rifles are _wimps_!
You don't need "assault" rifles? Do you know the definition of an assault weapon? I doubt you do, so here it is:
-A rifle with a 16" barrel or less
-Select fire capability (full automatic in other words)
-Able to accept standard capacity magazines
-Can mount a bayonet/bayonet lug
-Pistol to intermediate rifle caliber
Back to the point: Cars kill more people per year than guns. So why do you need a 200mph Corvette? Why punish the 99% of gun owners for the actions of a few? Research shows that less than 2% of murders committed with guns are "assault" weapons. Unless you have professional training with full automatic weapons, chances are you would do less damage than a 12 gauge shotgun due to all the consecutive recoil. Even in the Sandy Hook shooting, the killer used two pistols and a shotgun. His AR-15 was in the trunk the entire time. I love the things, and I don't want it to be revoked from me for no logical reason.
Actually.... No. 3 DOES happen... It just doesn't make the news. (At least two stories I saw on it in the last MONTH.)
Mass murder is news... taking out a gunman w/o anyone getting hurt is not news.
As to police shooting bystanders -- They are not disciplined enough!!!!
They should not be allowed to carry a gun if that's the best they can do!
A lot of police are just in the job to push people around. And when the DAs fail to prosecute the police when they act wrongly it fails to make them MORE CAREFUL. They need to be held accountable. Just as do all Gun Owners.
LACK of Responsibility in America is the damn Problem.
Along with Rights goes Responsibility.
Only after years of seeing Politicians and Corporations have Power w/o Responsibility EVERYONE have abandoned Responsibility.
I have the solution but no one will be smart enough to agree with me: Anyone who has received military or law enforcement training gets a lifetime unrestricted permit to bear firearms revokable only due to insanity or felony conviction. Civilians may obtain the same permit by completing a five week week course similar to the police academy. The second amendment probably prevents the federal government from enacting these requirements but they could be passed by all fifty states, people over a certain age could be grandfathered out so to speak.
I have never owned a gun, and as of now don't plan to. I dislike holding them, and don't enjoy shooting. So I can assure you, the heart of my arguments are not that I like to "play with guns." I consider this a fundamental issue that does go simply beyond gun control, but also includes the role of the government. But that's not what's being dissed here, I digress. If you want to know the *actual* argument gun owners make, then please, just read through this:
Before you say it's not even worth reading due to the url, just know that every single statement made is sourced. These are respectable sources, which are displayed so you can go to the original studies and whatnot.
Furthermore, I don't care what side any of you all are one, but there is far too much hate and argumentative fallacies all around the board. Please leave out the dogmatism; respectable people ARE allowed to disagree. Intelligent people can arrive at different conclusions from the same information, and that doesn't mean that one entire opinion, and everyone associated with it, must be discredited. The important thing is to legitimately look at how the opposing side reached their conclusions (instead of setting up "straw man" arguments like this article does), and see whats lying at the heart of the issue rather than throwing out shallow comparisons or numbers where you don't know where they came from.
Also, I really do understand the anti-gun sentiment. As I said, I'm very unfamiliar with them and have never liked being in the presence of one. I used to be anti-gun myself, but with more time and research, I found information I didn't have before and thought about it another way. That doesn't mean I was stupid before, or I'm suddenly stupid now. With any controversial issue ever, there are lot of layers at play, and the layer that offends someone's ideology isn't usually a superficial one. Accept the fact that concrete numbers will never prove one side valid and another invalid without a doubt. (And I'm not saying that to dodge the numbers game, I have a fair amount I could throw out myself, including studies of gun defense and commonly misplayed numbers, like over half of the 30,000 gun deaths a year are just suicide, football games kill twice as many students as guns, even conservative studies have reported 1.5 million annual incidents where guns were used in self defense, -these are all mentioned in the article I linked- etc etc...)
The point is, this issue isn't just a numbers game where "anyone with a reasonable brain" will have one opinion. It comes down to the fact that people have fundamentally different interests at heart which goes waaay beyond guns when debating this issue. Nobody wants innocent people killed, and that's the one thing I believe everyone here *does* agree on. And nobody is saying deaths are a "price worth paying" either. For some people, this comes down to the question of what is government's role, and what is appropriate restrictions on those lines. While it's clearly unreasonable to demand people by law to exercise or brush their teeth, or to not consume excess salt, protecting a peoples' right to the pursuit of happiness is never that clear. The boundaries are always fuzzy when it comes between doing what's best for the people, or what is simply harming them on the individual level. It's not even about the power of the government either, but the diversity of people under it's control. Different problems exist within different communities, and what may help one area may be a financial drain and endless paperwork in another, or even limit innocent activities. In some ways issues like this could be resolved by handling some issues on a state or even county level, instead of federally. As far as federal government goes, I personally want it's first priority to be protecting its people from foreign or domestic murder (The first step in our pursuit of happiness, but there's only so many things government can regulate before protecting that pursuit becomes limiting that pursuit). However, I also personally have a problem when in trying to "protect me" the government also eliminates my right to protect myself. People are not naturally born with equal capabilities on all regards, nor should they be. Some people are trained in throwing knives or martial arts, create homemade makeshift weapons, or are born strong or weak. Pepper spray could save a woman from sexual assault. You could also pepper spray someone in the face so you could easily beat them to death. Imagine if pepper spray was carried more by offenders than defenders. As far as guns shooting 60 bullets a second and killing larger crowds of people, well machine guns or automatics in general aren't allowed to the public already as it is, and they aren't what you usually see in today's mass murders either. What's technically listed as 'assault weapons' has also never been a weapon of choice for murders, and has only accounted for a small percentage of armed crimes. In Chicago your 67 times more likely to be killed with a knife than a gun. -Try looking up and comparing the change of crime rates in states that passed conceal carry laws- Here's a hint: They dropped by a lot where concealed carry was legal. Furthermore, police are not legally required to protect everyone on an individual level, but just the public in general. Polled felons show to be more worried about running into an armed victim than a police officer. "The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour." "As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.(23)" Also, contradictory to what this article state, armed citizens kill twice as many criminals per year than police, and at a MUCH SMALLER ERROR RATE.
"* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)(25). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."(26)"
Anyways, I'm done for now with number or individual points. But seriously, try reading that article to read what gun ownership advocates are *actually* arguing.
And furthermore, I apologize if any of my facts were incorrect or whatnot. It could happen to any of us, and I'm not personally an expert who is researching the issue. Just don't let irritation at the point I'm arguing get in the way of other potentially valid things I've said, especially those which aren't directly related to gun control. People these days are way to quick to discredit an entire side without looking carefully through a whole argument with a clean, legitimate approach to gain understanding about the fundamental differences between the two sides. Nothing is as black and white as people usually think...
Point 2. is WRONG. The UK has 5 times the violent crime that we do, mainly because there are no guns that the criminals feel free to attack virtually anyone any time. Citizens are not even allowed to carry any item with which they could defend themselves. They have been directed to retreat when attacked or their houses invaded. There report of low gun deaths is WAY OFF because they only list solved murders, which leaves out all other categories. The UK is a violent place and the people have to live in fear.
Very simply, guns are a necessary evil as we will never be devoid of the 4% of the population that are sociopaths and psychopaths and will always have mentally deranged and we will always have people who are just plain evil. It's simply stupid to think that one should not be able to defend oneself from these people.
For example, guns are the great equalizer. Is it reasonable to tell an elderly couple that their only choice in a home invasion is to retreat and/or die. Retreating is meaningless if the invaders are out to hurt or kill them. So, disarming the elderly says that they are all to be victims and the criminals know this. That's just wrong.
Now, allow these people to have a gun and the balance of power shifts drastically. Sure, they stand a chance of losing to the invaders but they now have a very real chance of prevailing. The liberal claim that if they lost, the result would be that the invaders get the gun, and so the elderly should not have guns in order to keep guns away from the criminals. This is a specious argument that simply throws the elderly under the bus for the sake of a possible result. In their minds, the elderly are dead already, I guess they think it's their fault for getting old?
This list of 10 points is pretty limp.
1. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. You are are first line of defense and unless you are a martial arts master, a gun is the great equalizer no matter how big your attacker, or how many.
2. It is undeniable that, the more legal guns there are, the lower crime is. In every state that has adopted Shall Issue Concealed Carry crime of all kinds has decreased 1-3% per year after adoption. Criminals admit that they are worried about their victims fighting back and now they might be armed.
3. It is also undeniable that the regions and cities with the most strict gun controls have the highest crime rates, out of control and illegal guns from illegal gun-trafficking abound.
Australia has had huge increases in gun crime since they banned rifles and shotguns, up 31%. Home invasions are up 68%! In the same time period US crime has decreased 34%. The crime rates in other countries are interesting. Our rate is not bad overall, but if we leave out the inner cities, where guns are banned, the US is among the safest on the planet. You will never hear that from the anti-gunnists.
4. Indeed we need weapons because without the 2nd Amendment we do not have a 1st Amendment. History has shown this to be true over and over. Anyone who thinks that one can revolt against a country when unarmed is totally deluded and living in a fantasy world. Governments ultimately find their power in the barrel of a gun. Recently, a Federal Court even stated that it is the citizens' duty and right to try to keep their weapons up with the military. he said, they will never be equal, but they have a right to upgrade as they can.
5. Assault-style weapons are NOT assault rifles that can be on full automatic. They are not even as powerful as our lower-end hunting rifles. When somebody says that 7 rounds is all you need in a magazine, the response should be that the number of rounds needed is "As Many As It Takes." A magazine limit is arbitrary. Small clips can be replaced quite rapidly, are less likely to jam, and easier to handle.
People should ask themselves this important question: Does limiting the capacity of a magazine change the lethality of the first bullet?
6. The claim that gins in the home are dangerous and result in many deaths, such that family members are more likely to be shot than a criminal, is ingenuous. The overwhelming majority of home gun deaths are suicides, with only a small number of accidental discharges. Suicides will simply find some other means.
3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.
If that were true, then how come it never happens?
It has happened. It just doesn't get the same amount of press.
@Sunstroked. Regarding your 12/18/2012 7:50 comment. Your pencil example is incorrect. If I ask the question, "What do you do with a pencil?" The answer is simple. Write with it. If I were to ask the same question, "What do you do with a gun?" The answer to that question would be, "SHOOT IT." Not, as you say, kill with it. Just as the person using the pencil has the power to choose what to write and where to write it, the person with the gun chooses what to shoot and where to shoot. What you fail to understand is, in the wrong hands, a pencil is just as deadly a weapon as a gun. You can ban guns all day long. But you can't ban evil.
Be a responsible gun owner and lead your friends and family members to gun ownership by example. Responsible gun owners know how to get many likes on instagram the obligations that come with the use and enjoyment of firearms. Hunting and recreational firearms use are a tradition in some parts of the country. We have no objections whatsoever to such legitimate activities, so long as they respect the standards and laws of the local community. Responsible, law-abiding owners know how to get likes on instagram better than anyone the inherent dangers posed by the simple presence of a gun. Once in possession of your first firearm, you can proudly say that you are doing your part to "keep guns out of the wrong hands."
Does anybody out there know What a assault weapon is?
The M16 is a assault weapon,the bushmaster,ar15,m400 are a lookalike,semi-auto. Shoots a bullet 223cal,yes the size of a 22 only at a velocity 3250 ft per second. You can't spray a room,you can't kill 10 people in 5sec. It doesn't have the kinetic energy to knock a man down. A mini- 14 fires the same bullet,wooden stock 10 shot clip,looks like a 22 rifle.(not scary).
The weapons that should be banned are the tech9,ingram mini mac 10&11.
These are the weapons that have no purpose except killing people.
A gun dealer told me how do you convert a mini mac11 to full auto-answer shoot it. It has cheap parts and the sear wears out by just shooting it.
I have an so called assault rifle, why?
I gave up hunting years ago-I only target shoot,a 22 rifle is the cheapest way to shoot,not very accurate,and not accurate at all over 100yds.
the assault weapons are very accurate (high speed) at long range
They are very well built,weather resistant, rail systems to add scopes,large amount of accesories and a lot of fun shooting. The so called assualt is way down the lineup of guns you would use to kill alot of people. Ask a vet, ask a marine. Shotguns are much more dangerous.10,20,30 balls of steel with each shot,semi-auto. The best thing about the 223cal,you can shoot a 100rds without a black and blue shoulder.
In WW2 they found out many soldiers never fired their weapons,to much recoil from the 1903 springfieild,heavy ammo.
They also came to the realization that a weapon that wounds is better than on that kills. It takes two men to carry the wounded man of the battlefied.
eliminate 3 men with 1 shot. Hello M16,light ammo,weather resistant,more likely to wound than kill,but can be switch to full auto when needed(so called assualt weapons can't)
1. Saying now is not the right time to talk about guns is taken out of context. What people said was along the lines, "Now is not the right time to trump a political stance in light of the terrible tragedy which occurred." And this was happening particularly with celebrities (who ironically star in action, horror and other highly violent movies filled with guns and gun violence).
2. The article admits, "maybe." Not maybe, but true! Guns don't kill people, people kill people and therefore, responsibility must be taken with those people willing to kill others.
The problem is that liberal theology is against capitol punishment - a deterrent to murderers - and cracking down hard on crime. A gun is a tool and just like any other tool, the user MUST take responsibility for the use of that tool. Also, stating mass shootings occur "every few weeks" in America unlike England without context and proof is rather weak.
Discussing Japan fails to discourse on the differences of culture, respect and capitol punishment, something we have lost in America but Japan still adhered to.
3. A CCW citizen stopping an armed attack "never happens?" Wow, if never means NEVER, then what about these:
Just two days after the CT shooting, the San Antonio theater shooting was STOPPED by a CCW (media totally quiet about that one!) http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-anton...
What about the Oregon mall shooter stopped by an armed civilian? http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-s...
NYdaily news here:
Another study for you to download - but you won't read it http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637
Civilians stopped shooting average 2.3 deaths, 911 response average, 14.3 deaths (84% reduction)
Again, the article does not even CITE SOURCES! Wow.
4. Two fallacy's are used here: appeal to emotion and burden of proof. The author states those who say, "We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have" are the "same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible." Really? What an appeal to emotion.
So all people who say we need to enforce current laws are hereby trying to make the law weaker. REALLY? HOW?
Where is your evidence? Oh, no where.
The truth is, the NRA and Republicans have pushed for background checks, smaller clips and laws we have CURRENTLY. The truth is, every crime is a crime against a law. If there were no law, no law would be broken, right?
By definition, we have a problem with laws being broken even though MORE laws are being made and more effort to have waiting periods and background checks are being made. Besides, I AM FOR background checks and yet I also argue that we should enforce our current laws better. Just using me as an example BREAKS the logic of point #4.
5. I have never heard the NRA or Conservatives us this DEFEATIST statement. We do not say "Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?" We say, "Why punish law abiding citizens for the laws criminals break?"
This is a simple question the article does not answer!
However, we AGREE to make getting guns HARDER, we AGREE to background checks, we AGREE to helping mentally unstable people.
No where has any Conservative said we should not try to reduce violence. I mean, we stand for punishment - even Capitol punishment, we stand to reduce violence against children - even those not yet born!
6. Yes, the Second Amendment should be honored and to say Conservatives think no limitations should be required is not true. Conservatives with liberals, AGAIN, have voted for background checks, limit rounds per clips and waiting periods. However, the Constitution should ALWAYS be protected and enforced, that is a good fight to fight. The current Administration is already changing the 14th amendment to bypass Congress for dealing with the debt ceiling; in that light, we also see the 2nd amendment in danger of being changed as well.
It is not just about background checks, there is coming a move to restrict and hinder LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from self protection. Again, the article does not discuss that!
7. Again, no facts or cites given. Remember what Jefferson said in his letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824)
"The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Randolph p. 395
Jefferson wrote this in relation to the People exercising POWER over the government. We have seen, not in conspiracy theories, but in real life, that under Marxism and Communism the first thing to go were the people's power and voice.
That happened through gun control.
Answer me this: when guns are limited for the people, are they also limited for the government?
Or perhaps you want to discuss Fast and Furious?
8. I have not heard this point argued, but I would take it further: Guns are a part of the American Constitution resulting in our freedoms from tyranny and influencing our culture. Yes indeed.
To equate guns with slavery is a typical fallacy but I would say: slavery is still taught in history and artifacts/historical documents are still sold in auctions. So should guns, but some new laws coming down would even prohibit collectors from owning HISTORICAL guns.
A shame!
9. This shows my point already given: We have allowed for gun restrictions already! YES! But gun restrictions and gun control (and the extent of that control) are different and need to be further discussed.
10. This is offensive to even suggest, the article then admits "OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make." Ok, then DROP it! But no, the article then states, "it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments."
This is a classical Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy which states, "a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest."
The article suggests that the 'self interest' of gun owners actually ALLOWS for such tragedies as a price "they are willing to pay."
What a despicable thing to say, especially given Conservatives vow to increase punishment of violent crimes and make schools safer by increasing security and even armed guards!
When you write an article full of fallacy and biased opinions without evidence and conclude by BLAMING Conservatives and gun owners for ALLOWING these tragedies, you make my point succinctly: instead of placing blame on criminals, you blame law abiding citizens!
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
- Text Size:
- ASmall Text
- AMedium Text
- ALarge Text
Wednesday night's presidential debate in Denver featured in-depth sparring on taxes, Medicare and jobs, but one issue absent from the discussion was guns.
The topic, which is almost never discussed on the campaign trail, could have made for a unique moment in Denver, a city whose suburbs have experienced two of the country's deadliest shootings over the last 15 years.
A survivor of one of those massacres said Thursday he was disappointed neither the candidates nor the moderator steered the debate toward the topic of gun violence.
"It seemed almost as if Obama, Romney and the moderator had moved on from the two horrible shooting tragedies, which took place not 10 or 15 miles from the auditorium where the debate took place," Stephen Barton said, referring to July's shooting at an Aurora movie theater and the 1999 rampage at Columbine High School, in Littleton.
"I don't think the American people have moved on," Barton continued. He was shot in the face and neck during the Aurora massacre, which left 12 dead, and was featured in a television spot pushing for a discussion on guns at the debate. The commercial, produced by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, aired nationally during Wednesday's event.
Barton identified both Jim Lehrer, the debate's moderator, and the candidates themselves as culpable for not raising the issue of gun control, which both Democrats and Republicans both regard as politically poisonous.
"I think part of it is the way to debate was moderated, but they had an opportunity to speak about it in closing statements and opening statements," Barton said of Obama and Romney. "It's not like they were completely restricted. It's easy to say the economy is the biggest issue and we don't have to talk about anything else, but in reality a lot of Americans want to hear about the things they would do as president."
There is a "myth," Barton said, that Americans are focused solely on the nation's ailing economy heading into November's general election.
"A lot of voters want to hear where the candidates stand. Call it a silent majority of Americans who want to hear about this," he said.
In the immediate aftermath of July's shooting in Aurora, both Romney and Obama offered condolences for the victims, as well as suspended campaign activities and stripped their ads from Colorado airwaves. Two days after the massacre, Obama flew to Aurora to meet with families of the victims.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
the national guard has been placed on alert for mass riots in urban areas
the national guard has been placed on alert for mass riots in urban areas
i fear no evil
Chgo pd has been preparing for weeks...
"I pull out. I never use condoms, I'm a married man." Howard Stern 1996
the revolution will not be televised...what did naz say
i fear no evil
He'll win.
"I wasn't born with enough middle fingers"
Hope I have to stay in my house 2 weeks.
"Can I depend on you if there are riots?"
The above is strictly my exaulted opinion. Allegedly.
All material is used without the expressed written consent of Major League Baseball.
Most likely they will just burn down their own neighborhoods and kill each other, a win win situation.
Howard is a Vomit.
BREAKING: Obama approval Rating DOWN!
Howard: "The show(AGT) will grow". - 6:50am 5/16/12
Howard: "NBC is Happy!" "100Million will watch". 7:35am 5/21/12


text:
Ryan Scott Ottney
PDT Staff Writer
South Shore, Ky., author G. Sam Piatt has published his first book, "Men of Valor," chronicling the stories of World War II veterans from southern Ohio and eastern Kentucky.
Piatt has enjoyed a career of more than 30 years in journalism, beginning with the Daily Times in 1970. He moved the Daily Independent in Ashland, Ky., in 1973 until he retired in 1998. In 2002 he came out of retirement to work at the Daily Times once again until 2004; then he returned again in 2007.
In 2008, the Daily Times began a weekly series called "Surviving Servicemen," telling the stories of WWII veterans in the community. Piatt eventually took over the series all by himself and continued finding veterans for more than a year. He continued the series until he left the Daily Times again in 2011, but still contributes a popular outdoors column each week and occasional news contributions.
"Jim Giffords (from the Jesse Stuart Foundation) saw a copy of the Daily Times that had one of these stories on Page 1," Piatt recalled. "He read it, and he said, 'You got any more of these?' and I said, 'Yeah, 65 or 70.' He said, 'Let's do a book.'"
More than 65 veterans are featured in his book, "Men of Valor," which was published by the Jesse Stuart Foundation and released in September 2012.
"I made a lot of friends. These veterans are all in their upper-80s. When the book came out, I had to go back and find their phone numbers and I delivered personally just about every one. I went as far as Pike County. I wanted to make sure veterans had them," Piatt said.
Nearly a dozen of the men featured in his book passed away before it was published, Piatt said, and he delivered the book instead to their families. Many bought multiple more copies to share with other members of their family.
"It makes me feel good that I took time to go and interview and get their stories down," Piatt said, pointing to a photo of a wounded soldier on the cover of his book. "This Marine, he's still living in Wheelersburg. He has 10 children. They all bought a book and they all wanted it signed. I have personally signed hundreds of books."
That Marine on the cover is Earl "Bud" Otworth.
"He was in on three major battles in the pacific. He waded ashore as a Marine, and he survived two. And in Okinawa … he lay on the beach all day, wounded. The fighting was going on all around him and they couldn't get a medic in there. But they did, and he lived. They got him off there. Now he's 90, maybe 91," Piatt said.
The book, he said, isn't just for families of these veterans, but for anyone who enjoys history and wants to remember the brave efforts of American soldiers during WWII.
"This war was 70 years ago. Like it says in the introduction; most Americans of this generation don't know anything about it, except they saw Saving Private Ryan and they watched the documentaries on the History Channel," Piatt said.
Reading a quote in his book from tank gunner Mark Flemming after liberating a Jewish camp, Piatt said, "Such crimes against humanity should never be forgotten, and it's good that America has a memorial (in Washington D.C.) to help people recall the terrible days of the war."
He said he hopes that the stories in his book will help achieve that goal.
Piatt is now writing another book — a fictional novel titled "The Adventures of J. Tom Sycamore." The story is about six boys pretending to fight wars on the Ohio River and having adventures in southern Ohio. He has already written 55 chapters, and hopes to finish the book this month. If accepted by the publisher, it could be available later this year.
"Every newspaper reporter wants to have a book. Let's face it, newspapers are used in the bottom of bird cages and to wrap fish in. They don't do that with books. This is a permanent thing that people hold on to and keep in their library. It gives you a sense of accomplishment that covering the daily news doesn't, because people don't even read a newspaper if it's a day old," Piatt said.
Since "Men of Valor" was released six months ago, Piatt has personally sold nearly 600 copies of his books, and many more have been sold by the Jesse Stuart Foundation, on their website and on Amazon.com. Piatt will be signing copies of "Men of Valor" on Memorial Day at the James Dickey American Legion Post 23 in Portsmouth. The book is also available now at the Portsmouth Daily Times office, located at 637 Sixth St., in Portsmouth.
Ryan Scott Ottney can be reached at 740-353-3101, ext. 287, or rottney@email@example.com.


text:
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Found a listing photo today to share with you. It seems that the sellers remodeled the master bath and, in the process, removed the wall separating it from the master bedroom. Here's a picture of it. Would this "open concept bathroom" be an issue for buyers in your area? | |||
For me it's a turnoff. What if someone was trying to sleep or go to sleep with the light and noise coming from the bath space. I believe in a bit of separation between sleeping area and bath. | ||||
Weird. Definite no for me. | ||||
wow! so much for privacy in that bathtub. that's as bad as an open house I went to once where there was a large window above the bathtub, which looked out over the street below. anyone in that bathtub would be seen by the people on the street or in the house across the street. makes no sense at all. cheryl hill | ||||
Thanks, Jewel, for posting this one - we needed something new to lighten up the mood and, quite frankly, make us laugh! Okay, trying to be serious for just a minute, MAYBE this is just the master bathroom - spread yoga mats on those beautiful hardwood floors - and the master bedroom is located elsewhere? Nah... Well, then maybe... I've run out of possibilities. Think the current owners should finish their project and put the wall back up! Who knows, maybe demolition of the wall led to putting the house up for sale? At least, they kept the toilet out of sight! I can understand sellers being irrational but would hope their agent brings them back to earth soon... be fun to follow the progress of this listing. Looks like a beautiful house actually with no boundaries - people like "no boundaries" these days, right? | ||||
Where is the sink? | ||||
Here's another photo that shows the sinks. There's definitely no sleeping for anyone else in this open concept room once those vanity lights flip on or the shower is started! | ||||
about 30 years ago my brother and his W designed their extremely spendy home with just such an open bathroom/mbr. the bidet is no more than 6 feet from the bed and were you to walk in your sleep you would fall into the sunken tub. Goes to show you can't buy taste. Life is GOOD!! | ||||
I could be wrong but that looks like bath area, sink/dressing area leading into the walkin closet which probably leads to the sleeping area. I'm basing my guess on the 2 photos shown and the homes I have shown in the past. | ||||
Way too much sharing!!!!! | ||||
After having worked nights for over 10 yrs....I can sleep thru pretty much anything...lights, shower, toilet flush. But I could never sleep on the morning of my night off cause the neighbor always ran his lawn mower under our bedroom window at 7am. that morning! I'm not bashful so it wouldn't bother me...I'd just have a show while DH was using it! "The soil is the source of life, creativity, culture and real independence." David Ben-Gurion | ||||
Sure that previous owners were not the authors of "Fifty Shades of Grey" LOL | ||||
It's a shame they decided against some sort of divider, screen or wall there. It's such a nice looking home and renovation. I agree with previous posters, a little too open for my taste. Whether You Think You Can Or You Think You Can't..... You're Right - Henry Ford | ||||
Just seems a bit austere to me...but a trio of large potted plants as one enter thru the door would be nice. | ||||
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |


text:
/ 5
(7 yorum)
(Bölge ortalaması
Hotels.com Misafir Puanı
Hotels.com Misafir Puanı
TripAdvisor ile Seyahat Edenlerin Değerlendirmesi
We really loved our break in this resort - mother daughter, her son and his friend both 15 years old. Having all inclusive was most convenient especially... as the boys could enjoy activities on their own at the hotel and then have a snack etc. We have stayed here 4 times at least from 2003 under the old ownership, usually for a week in October. It was good to recognise some staff from those times. Also good to see some other children who were in their 'teens, for the boys sake. Used to enjoy dancing and old jazz bands which did not seem to be offered as entertainment. We all hope to revisit for a holiday. Daphne Victor W / London, 16/07/2011


text:
Skip to content. | Skip to navigation
NOTICE (4/26/13): Currently the Devils River from Baker's Crossing to Lake Amistad is far below minimum recommended flow levels for paddling trips. TPWD recommends that paddling trips be rescheduled to coincide with the return of at least minimum recommended flow conditions.
More Info


text:
Combine this offer with 3asy Ride Financing and get no down payment, deferred payment(s) and an affordable monthly rate.
Qualifying units must be new, unused 2012 models sold, including officially recognized dealer demonstrators, delivered and reported at the dealership that makes the sale.
Former BMW Motorrad USA fleet units, public authority unit sales or motorcycles previously reported are specifically excluded.
* K 1300 S HP version units are specifically excluded (option package code 208).
Motorcycles found to be sold to brokers or not delivered by dealership employees are not eligible for sales support.
Eligible units must be RDR'd by 10pm EST on October 31, 2012 to qualify for this program.
BMW Motorrad USA reserves the right to cancel the program as it deems necessary.
©2012 BMW Motorrad USA, a division of BMW of North America, LLC. The BMW name and logo are registered trademarks.


text:
OTHER: *SOUS CHEF Buffet *SOUS CHEF Fine Dining/Banquet *FOOD BEVERAGE SUPERVISOR Prior restaurant supervi More info |
OTHER: CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATOR MS Gulf Coast Contractor is looking for a Construction Estimator. Duties incl More info |
OTHER: LIBRARY CLERK I PASCAGOULA PUBLIC LIBRARY LIBRARY CLERK I GAUTIER PUBLIC LIBRARY Two (2) Full-Time s More info |
OTHER: HOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., is seeking MILLWRIGHTS at their plywood plant located in Wiggins, MS. The suc More info |
OTHER: MULTI-MEDIA DESIGNER Hard Rock Hotel Casino Biloxi is looking for a highly motivated, self-starter More info |
OTHER: EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYVeterinary assistant/technician needed for busy, high tech animal emergency an More info |
OTHER: THE PALACE CASINO RESORT has an opening for a Mignons Manager The Gulf Coasts Best Fine Dining Resta More info |
OTHER: MCELROYS ON THE BAYOU and MCELROYS HARBOR HOUSE are now accepting applicatons for Day Night Servers More info |
HEALTH CARE: Tired of working in a high turnover, stressfull environment? At River Chase Village cultivating rel More info |
OTHER: CLASS A CDL DRIVERS NEEDED. 5 Yrs Minimum Driving History with Dump Trailer Flat Bed Experience. Mu More info |


text:
Families with a child eligible to participate in the National School Lunch Program, including private, parochial and homeschooled students, may be eligible!
While participating in Internet Essentials, customers receive:
Educators, community partners and civic leaders:
See how you can play an important role in bringing affordable Internet home to more people.
Sign up today:
Call 1-855-8-INTERNET


text:
Sabrblade wrote:Insecticon, methinks.Scorpions aren't insects.Sodan-1 wrote:Erm.... Scorponok???
No, I believe they fall in the arachnid category as they have 8 legs.
Kiyza wrote:Judging by the pincers, the visor-like optics and the color scheme, if it's not Shrapnel, then it's almost certainly based on him. I doubt he'll be named in the actual episode, but if we get a toy of him, I'd wager it'll be named Shrapnel.
I don't believe that Hasbro has that name trademarked...and in the world we live in, given that there are a lot of people who are overly sensitive about such things and that there are a lot of war vets out there, I don't believe that Hasro would even consider using the name anymore.
Mechastrike wrote:based on last week's episode i'm guessing just another Decepticon "rodent" Arcee mention to jack.
Agreed. Definitely getting an Insecticon vibe, especially as hordes of them will be in the new FoC game- ideal for a tie in.
Prime Evil wrote:I'd buy a figure if one was made.
Seconded. And thirded. AM I wrong or are those giant drillbits on/near his shoulders?


text:
Historic Lambertville landmark with a rich heritage
When railroads reigned, New Jersey's Lambertville Station was a hub of activity. The imposing two-and-a-half story stone station was designed by Thomas Ustick Walter, the renowned architect who designed the dome of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Completed in 1867; the station initially was the headquarters of the Belvidere Delaware Railroad which served passengers traveling on the local lines from Belvidere to Trenton.
In the late 1800's, the Pennsylvania Railroad took over the line and instituted service to New England. In 1982, the current owners purchased the building and for fourteen months renovated and refurbished it, painstakingly preserving what could be saved. The massive exterior was totally restored to its original beauty. The interior became an elegant blend of yesterday and today.


text:
Gerber Gator - 154CM, Drop Point, Fine Edge Knife KNGG6064
Click for larger image and other views
Price: $60.00 to $37.38
pricing based on quantity, price chart below
See more: Gerber Knives Ever notice how alligators are completely indifferent to the weather? Well these prized knives are kinda the same, because they perform to their fullest whether the conditions are wet or dry. If there's a job to be done, our Gator Folders are more than up to it. The Gator Folder employs advanced thermoplastics with an alligator skin texture to deliver a stunningly reliable, ultimately comfortable grip. Who could have guessed that the feel of reptile scales would be so satisfying?
Personalized Gator Knife Features:
Laser engraved Gerber Knives - imagine the impact of your brand, permanently laser etched onto a brand like Gerber! Your message and logo combined with the quality of Gerber knives will last for decades.


text:
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is the first of a planned trilogy of campaigns which are the collective sequel to the original StarCraft. Developed by Blizzard Entertainment, StarCraft II is a Real Time Strategy game in which players can assume leadership of one of three main armies: Protoss, Terrans or the Zerg.
Like the original, StarCraft II will feature both a single player campaign as well as a strong competitive multiplayer component. These multiplayer matches will be created in and played through Blizzard's Battle.Net service which automatically tracks and ranks the performance of each individual player. Unlike the original StarCraft where a top ranked player could assume an "alternate" persona in multiplayer and effectively dominate lower ranked players for their own amusement, the newly revamped Battle.Net ranks players on an account wide basis, so players ranked in higher brackets will generally only participate in matches against other players of a similar skill level.
The first single player campaign in the trilogy, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, will focus on the Terrans which are the human army of the StarCraft universe. Both a standard and collector's edition for Wings of Liberty have been announced, and are expected to ship in July 27th, 2010. The titles and release dates have not yet been announced for the second and third installments of the trilogy.
The next installment, StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm, will center around the character of Sarah Kerrigan, also known as the Queen of Blades.
What is Pulse? | More Charts (Members) |
Rank | Game | Previous | Traffic |
25 | Runes of Magic | 17 | |
26 | StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty | 27 | |
27 | Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning | 24 |


text:
Thinking of going? Let your friends know by clicking one of the buttons on your favourite date in the list below.
30 Going
6 Might Go
Why not share this with your friends?
Share this on Facebook
From soundtracking the sixties as the mod's band of choice, to their Rock Operas and current status as one of the UK's finest ever guitar bands, The Who continue to impress fans of all ages with their anthemic Rock. After impressing at Live 8 and last year's T In The Park, they have enjoyed something of a live renaissance of late, whilst the sight of Pete Townsend wielding his guitar alongside the glass-shattering vocals and on stage presence of Roger Daltrey never fails to impress.
The Who
Belfast, UK
Mon 10 Jun 2013
Odyssey Arena
Tickets from £60.00
Glasgow, UK
Wed 12 Jun 2013
Tickets from £90.00
London, UK
Sat 15 Jun 2013
The O2 Arena
Tickets from £69.95
Sun 16 Jun 2013
Tickets from £54.99
Sheffield, UK
Tue 18 Jun 2013
Sheffield Motorpoint Arena
Tickets from £76.96
Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Thu 20 Jun 2013
Metro Radio Arena
Tickets from £64.99
Manchester, UK
Sun 23 Jun 2013
Manchester Arena
Tickets from £74.99
Cardiff, UK
Tue 25 Jun 2013
Cardiff Motorpoint Arena
Tickets from £78.99
Birmingham, UK
Fri 28 Jun 2013
LG Arena
Tickets from £63.49
Liverpool, UK
Sun 30 Jun 2013
Liverpool Echo Arena
Tickets from £75.00
Mon 8 Jul 2013
Wembley Arena
Tickets from £69.55
Dublin, Ireland
Sat 8 Jun 2013
The O2 Dublin
Tickets from £72.68
Paris, France
Wed 3 Jul 2013
Tickets from £138.79
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Fri 5 Jul 2013
Ziggo Dome
Tickets from £50.45
We guarantee that you'll get the tickets you ordered in time for the event or we'll refund your money.
Read more
Follow your favourite artists with My Bands and build your personal gig diary today.


text:
Choose Your Country
Zoned Performance Tank
Price: $75.00
Style: 602
This physique–improving, game-changing, seamless undershirt is designed with cooling features and compression zones that transform the torso and chest. He'll look sharper, stand taller and feel stronger in his clothes.
- Zoned compression targets abs and torso
- Firms and tones chest
- Breatheasy ™ zones cool through underarms and back
- Lumbar support zone improves posture
- Wicks moisture
- Athletic design for maximum mobility
- Eliminates bulk under clothes
- Get Your Manx™ On!
- For product measurements see Fit Tip!
- Machine washable
- Power Level: Hard Core
- Imported
- 92% Nylon, 8% Spandex/Elastane
Let our team of SPANX specialists help you place an order or find the right product for you!
Call us anytime at 1.888.806.7311. We are open 7AM to 12 AM EST, 7 days a week (except Christmas Day).
Or you can email us at firstname.lastname@example.com
100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
We want you to be fully satisfied with every item that you purchase from www.spanx.com! If you are not satisfied with an item that you have purchased, you may return the item within 30 days of delivery for a full refund of the purchase price, minus the shipping handling, gift wrap and other charges.
Learn more about our Return Policy.
Rated 4.9 out of 5 by 10
Rated 5 out of 5 by Jack63 Purcased a medium zoned performance tank top. Fits well and easy to take care of.
Am not overweight but purchased this product because of back issues. It fit the bill. I stand straighter and don't feel back discomfort. I sometimes wear it to bed and feel fine in the morning.
May 17, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by andrew104 Great Slenderizer
Great fit and very nice fabric - smooth and very comfortable - does a great job
May 1, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by Wayne Fantastic...
Don't know what the best part is...how I look or how I feel!
April 15, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by CMdivepro Zoned Performance Tank
I use these shirts to help support a surgical abdominal hernia which is quite large. It supports my back as well, which I was not expecting. I have purchased two of these shirts and will buy another. For someone in my condition, they really do help. They are comfortable and easy to wear throughout the day.
February 28, 2013
Rated 4 out of 5 by hmsbenz Once On, its a Good Fit
I have found the Zoned Performance Tank a good fit, but rather tight to put on. Once on, it feels relatively comfortable all day as long as its not too humid.
April 10, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by Peanut Fells soooooo good. Good job Spanx.
M doctor recommended I wear the Spanx shirt after some surgery....
well... I think Spanx will be a part of my wardrobe from now on. After seeing my male Spanx, my wife ordered some female items.
April 9, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by Stelle18 Feels great.
My husband loves this tank. Makes him stand straighter and trims his upper body. We are ordering a second oee.
April 8, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by RobX Great product, high price
Great product but the price is a little high for the value
March 19, 2013


text:
Image: Lakeside_Wolves_260310_TGS003.jpg Next Image ⇒
Image 1 of 35 | ⇐ Return to gallery: Lakeside Hammers vs Wolverhampton Wolves 26-03-10
Heat 1: Stuart Robson (blue) and Fredrik Lindgren (white) - Lakeside Hammers vs Wolverhampton Wolves, Elite Shield Speedway at the Arena Essex Raceway, Purfleet - 26/03/10 - MANDATORY CREDIT: Rob Newell/TGSPHOTO - Self billing applies where appropriate - 0845 094 6026 - firstname.lastname@example.com - NO UNPAID USE.
Client Downloads
High-resolution downloads are ONLY available to authorised media clients. For personal use downloads (where available), select 'Buy personal use jpeg' above.
Image Details
Dimensions: 3000x2000
File Size: 813.3KB
Model Release: No
Image ID: I0000ESHiC_GvXjE
Other file dimensions may be available, please contact us if you require further details.
Other Options
Rob Newell c/o 27 Plaiters Way, Braintree, Essex, CM7 3LR - Editorial Use ONLY - FA Premier League and Football League images are subject to DataCo Licencing restrictions
Please note that due to Licensing restrictions, we are unable to sell prints or personal use downloads of Football League or Premier League images.
All the images seen on this site are copyright TGS Photo. No images may be reproduced without prior permission. All rights reserved. Football League and Conference Football images are subject to Licensing agreements with Football DataCo and Conference Football. TGS Photo makes no guarantees, representations or warranties regarding names, trademarks or logos appearing in the images.


text:
From 2XU, the leader in compression and triathlon technology, comes this unprecedented Tri Short.
Utilizing 2XUs powerful 105D/CK fabric for increased support and durability, this garment will arm the athlete with greater power output through less muscle oscillation plus increased blood flow to reduce lactic acid build-up.
Featuring 2XUs ICE X fabric to cool the body by up to 5°F, the Compression Tri Short is the ultimate Short for all race distances. ELITE LD CHAMOIS for comfort.
How should my 2XU Tri garments fit?
Your 2XU Triathlon garment should fit snugly and firmly without uncomfortably 'cutting in' to the body. If this is the case, you should review your size choice.
To achieve optimal hydrodynamics in the water and aerodynamics through the air, Suits, Tops and Shorts should be neat against the skin with no excess fabric.
For upper body garments, a free range of movement in the shoulders is essential, as is comfort in the underarms. For the lower body, silicone grip hems should ensure the garment stays in place, without causing discomfort.
Before training or racing, always ensure your zips are secure.
For specific sizing, please refer to our Size Chart. You will also find some helpful fit-related information in the FAQ section of the website.
Through the use of Xylitol and IR blocking, 2XU has engineered a fabric for endurance events like no other. Xylitol is embedded in the yarn of the fabric to draw heat from the body and IR blocking inhibits penetration of infrared rays to lower skin temperature by up to 5.4°F. The application of ICE X to polyester/elastane delivers heightened moisture management whilst high filament yarns and a higher gauge knit are utilized for a lighter, breathable fabric which also delivers compressive pressure.
Featuring 105 denier LYCRA® yarns for even greater power than 2XU's acclaimed 70D/CK, the 105D/CK is engineered to enhance performance like never before.
This multi-layered chamois features revolutionary perforation technology for ventilation plus impressive quick drying capability for greater comfort on the bike. High filament count delivers durability and softness against the skin while high density foam offers support.
15cm 5.9in |
16cm 6.2in |
17cm 6.6in |
18cm 7.0in |
19cm 7.4in |


text: Main Content Section 418.501 friendly link Printer Friendly WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969 (EXCERPT)Act 317 of 1969418.501 Self-insurers' security fund, second injury fund; silicosis, dust disease, and logging industry compensation fund; uninsured employer's security fund; creation; "employment in logging industry" defined. Sec. 501. (1) A self-insurers' security fund and a second injury fund are created. (2) A silicosis, dust disease, and logging industry compensation fund is created. (3) An uninsured employer's security fund is created. The fund shall succeed to all of the assets, if any, of the former uninsured employer's security account of the workplace health and safety fund created in former section 723. (4) As used in this chapter, "employment in the logging industry" means employment in the logging industry as described in the section in the workmen's compensation and employers liability insurance manual, entitled, "logging or lumbering and drivers code no. 2702," which is filed with and approved by the commissioner of insurance. History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969 ;-- Am. 1971, Act 149, Imd. Eff. Nov. 16, 1971 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 357, Eff. Jan. 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 32, Imd. Eff. Mar. 10, 1982 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 198, Eff. Dec. 28, 1994 Compiler's Notes: Section 3 of Act 198 of 1993 provides as follows:"Section 3. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), this amendatory act shall not take effect unless the state administrative board certifies in writing to the secretary of state by December 31, 1994 that an agreement for the transfer of all or substantially all of the assets and the assumption of all or substantially all of the liabilities of the state accident fund has been consummated with a permitted transferee pursuant to the requirements of section 701a of the worker's disability compensation act of 1969, Act No. 317 of the Public Acts of 1969, being section 418.701a of the Michigan Compiled Laws, as added by this amendatory act."(2) Sections 700 and 701a as added by this amendatory act shall take effect upon the date of enactment of this amendatory act."For transfer of powers and duties of the board of trustees of the funds established in MCL 418.501 relating to management activities from the department of labor to the director of the department of consumer and industry services, see E.R.O. No. 1996-2, compiled at MCL 445.2001 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.Popular Name: Act 317 © 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan


text:
Moran Law Firm
As a former municipal court judge, Michael W. Moran understands the criminal justice system inside and out. His experience as a judge means that he has built professional relationships with court officials in the Co. Springs area that can help.
220 East Costilla Street - Colorado Springs, CO 80903
(719) 447-1923


text:
Consumer Reviews of GIBSON central air conditioners
It's free, fast and safe
Read more about GIBSON central air conditioners
Read reviews of other Air Conditioner brands
Years owned: 5
Satisfaction Rating:
"hot in the house"
Was told by experienced ac man that this was the same as a well known name brand, but without the high cost of one. At first, worked fine, then @ 1 1/2 yrs later, compressor went out. Whole unit had to be rebuilt and charged a swap out type fee for compressor. @ 1 yr later, problems with condensor unit. Just replaced outside fan in condensor and now the compressor acting up. Had two hard start kits put on unit. Now I have more money in repairs then actual cost of unit.
Years owned: 5
Satisfaction Rating:
"Home Owner"
I purchased a 4 Ton Gibson Heat and Air unit 5 years ago. Its the worst a/c system ever. I tried to save a little by buying the Gibson. It breaks down every year at least once. I have had to replace the coil and blower already. It doesnt cool very well and runs constantly.
Years owned: 4
Satisfaction Rating:
Gibson is the brand of hvac that came with my brand new home. Every Spring I have to get repairs to my unit. This unit is a terrible waste of my money. Yes, it is still under warranty, but I do have to pay for labor and pay for the contractor to do the diagnostics. I could have purchased a new hvac system for the amount of money I have thrown into this Gibson.
Years owned: 2
Satisfaction Rating:
"Proud of my Gibson"
I had a Gibson installed in 2007 after eight years of using York. Not to bash York, but I had more than 30 documented calls to the installer. After three years of their incompetence and inability to fix the system, I gave up. They insisted that heat pumps can only do what they can do. Worst experience possible. I love my Gibson and the installer seemed to do a very thorough job. Go Gibson!
Location: FL
Satisfaction Rating:
"Gibson A/C Unit"
Bought 5 Ton 16 months ago, and the compressor died on us. The compressor replacement costs for labor is over $600 here in fl. The manufacturer for the compressor is Copeland, which I understand is a commonly installed compressor in other manufacturers. American Standard builds their own compressors. Stay away from Gibson, they suck!
Location: Charleston, SC
Years owned: 5
Satisfaction Rating:
"Really bad service"
Total crap! Cools good when compressor(S) are working. We have had to replace at least two. If we replace the freon (twice every summer) we have cool air. But! We have been paying $400-600 a year just to keep cool. Refuse this product. Any salesman that tries to sell you a Gibson is not your friend.
Location: Encinitas, CA
Years owned: 2
Satisfaction Rating:
Purchased a 4Ton 10seer Gibson unit two years ago. It died a week ago (bad compressor). The original installer is now out of business. The warranty on the compressor is 5 years... but... finding an installer to do the warranty swap is a nightmare. It will cost (est) $800+ labor to replace the compressor...plus I need to purchase the new compressor ($500) myself and file a claim to Nordyne to get reimbursed. Everyone I talk to now says to avoid this brand...I Agree!
Location: Windsor, PA
Years owned: 3
Satisfaction Rating:
"Indoor coil"
I'm not happy with my Gibson unit. I have only had this unit for 2 1/2 years and the indoor coil is already leaking. The best thing is that it has been 1 one month and the service contractor who installed the unit has not replaced it. As of Sep 1, 2008, he said it will most likely be 6 more days until they get the coil. They blame Gibson for not sending them the coil they say they are too busy making other coils for more up to date units. My unit is only 2 1/2 years old and it is considered out of date. The only good thing is the unit is still under warranty. Who knows it might not be by the time the coil is installed. How is that for the care of a warranty customer.
Location: Gulfport, Miss.
Satisfaction Rating:
Was installed last week and already have had the repairman out twice and he is due out again today. It does not cut off when it reaches the target temp. My power bills will be out the roof! It hums and takes forever to reach the target temp!
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Years owned: 1
Satisfaction Rating:
I have only owned this unit for four months. the first day I turned it on it was making a roaring sound. I called for service and they said the indoor fan motor was out of balance so it had to be replaced I have called service out again for the same problem and they put rubber mats underneath the A/C unit. Still having the same problem today. I was told that this unit was made by Frigidaire and it was just as good. I just don't think so because it has been nothing but a piece of junk.
The opinions expressed in these reviews are the opinions of consumers that submitted reviews to FurnaceCompare.com. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of FurnaceCompare.com.