text:
- Morgan Barnes
- Sydney Nsw
- Australia
Law Enforcement Officer, government agency
This conversation is closed.
Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?
After yesterdays tragic shooting in Newtown CT and the worst year ever for firearm related deaths and mass killings , has the time for the US Government to tell the Gun Lobby it is over and repeal or amend "the right of the people to bear arms".
Should it be repealed on the grounds that when originally written it was for a smaller population to defend the "State" and meant for Muskets and flintlocks not semi automatics and military hardware, which makes it no longer viable on account of relevance to this day and age.
That Militia should be held to Law Enforcement agencies, Military and government controlled Para military agencies, with a show need, clause for people such as certain Primary producers etc.
Is it time to tell the NRA and the Gun Lobby there will be no more "collateral" damage no matter how much you donate to the "Party"
What would be the best way for the government to enforce such a law???
And please no Guns do not kill people, people kill people debates it was people who invented firearms in the first place.
The time has come to realise it is mainly our children who pay the ultimate price for lack of diligence in monitoring a problem that has been there for far too many years.
Closing Statement from Morgan Barnes
Firstly I would like to say I did not flag or delete anyone's comments I am perfectly capable of speaking for myelf however I did get frustrated and had some comments deleted myself.
As I write this President Obama has signed 23 executive orders inline with Colleen's post from yesterday from New York.
I have to admit I am a little disappointed that we could not of just discussed the issue in a more calm, critical and logical manner and be able to offer solutions as well as recognised the underling causes, as this is a forum for open ideas and thinking, Then again we are dealing with human nature.
To those of you from the International community thank you for your imput and allowing people to see the different views helds in different parts of the world on this subject.
I will not deny that the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights are the backbone of America, but remember it was written by man not given by god and man can take it away or amend it, if he really wants too.
I am a believer that in the 21st Century we should use it to advance humankind to address the problems of the world and improve it for all. It won't be easy but we have to start somewhere or we risk implementing our own destruction.
I hope that this be a positive start and and an even more positive step in which the US can show the way.
Once again I thank you all for your contributions
"In a progressive country change in constant : change is inevitable "Benjamen Disraeli
Don Levy
Jan 13 2013: The original premise of the 2nd Amendment is valid and was written to enable citizens to protect themselves from a hostile government. It was also based on the need or desire to have local militia, for which citizens would be able to provide their own weapon - which at the time was a single shot musket. What has gotten completely out of control is the way zealots, especially among those on the pro-gun side of the equation, have corrupted the meaning and intention of the 2nd amendment. I see less of a need to repeal than it is to legislatively update and clarify. It seems clear to me that setting some limitations on what one has the right to own, carry, and use is hardly the same as banning all guns. To hear the NRA, any limitation begins the slippery slope towards taking away the right entirely. If that is truly the case, then what is the legitimacy of any law or regulation? My right to own a car does not also grant me the right to drive it any way I want at any speed. My right to consume alcohol and my right to drive, does not grant me the right to drink and drive. My rights are not being infringed when the greater good of society is protected. Regulating the possession of high-powered weapons and lethal ammunition designed solely to kill other human beings, is not the same as banning all weapons or voiding the second amendment. Given the statistics on gun related deaths here in America, the argument that gun ownership makes us safer rings hollow.
- +6
Jan 13 2013: What are those statistics, Don?
Don Levy
Jan 14 2013: Here are a few links, including one from the University of Utah Medical Medical School. The datablog entry in the Guardian references the FBI and there is also a US Dept of Justice databank that outlines gun-related homicides versus that by other weapons, with gun use far higher than other weapons. The US also ranks 4th in the world for gun related deaths, behind South Africa, Colombia and Thailand (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms).
- +1
Jan 14 2013: Thank you Don,
These links provide raw data. What is missing if we use only raw data and jump to a conclusion ie: "people are killing people with guns, therefore we need to ban guns" is the context in which these incidents are taking place, Since 75% of gun murders are taking place in inner city gangs, does it make sense to say that guns are the causal agent or that banning guns is the cure? Chicago has stringent gun laws and one of the highest per capita incident of gun homicides in the nation. Why, if those policies fail so miserably on a small scale, is it imagined that they will work on a large scale?
The other statistic that is missing, since a ban effects all legal gun owners, is the one that demonstrates that legal gun owners are committing a disproportional number of murders.Jan 14 2013: Marianne, I didn't read where Don was mentioning a ban on all guns. Maybe I missed that part. I think all logic shows that banning all guns would not resolve the issue. However, placing restrictions on 'military style' weapons could reduce the mass shootings. Will people in gangs and other criminals still carry those weapons - of course. That is why they are criminals. However, the people who have legal access to weapons who feel the need to go out in a blaze, might not have such a tragic affect if they were not allowed high capacity cartridges or sub uzi's.
I do not begrudge anyone owning a gun. I support their right. However, I question the sanity of owning an assult weapon.Jan 13 2013: Just who are the zealots who have interpreted the constitution? Those who say the arms in the 2nd Amendment just meant muskets? What about the sabers?
Aren't all weapons high powered in the sense that they can kill human beings? All ammunition is lethal regardless of design.
So we limit the rights of the individual for the perceived safety of society? I have not speaking of the rights of an individual that has caused murder or mayhem on society. I am speaking of an individual who has a legal right to possess a firearm. of his choice, except now it can not fire automatically, or be of more then a certain caliber, under go investigations, get licenses, etc., etc. And now you are proposing more etcs.
Just how safe how safe does society need to feel.
I under go what used to be considered felonious sexual assault to board an airplane just so society can feel safe?
Hundreds of posts here have listed statistics of murder and mayhem on society. Gunfire is not on top of the list. Any act of harm is illegal. Lets address those illegal activities instead of addressing a legal activity.
PS. FYI. You can drink as much as you want and drive as fast as you want on your own property and you don't even need a license. Have a great time!Jan 14 2013: So Don,
Zealots? Is that all there is in that quiver? Name calling and demonization only plays to your choir.
Do you want a real answer to your question? "To hear the NRA, any limitation begins the slippery slope towards taking away the right entirely. If that is truly the case, then what is the legitimacy of any law or regulation? "
The 2nd Amendment was written to reserve the right of armed revolt against the government. The way it is written states that at no time shall that right be diminished. Like it or not, we live under a social contract called the US Constitution. According to any form of contract law, we all must abide by it unless you can overthrow it by either force or mutual agreement. The reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment is not really that unclear whenever it gets to the Supreme Court because they have such vast writings from the people who wrote it that their exegesis supports the premise, that the people have reserved the right to armed revolution. It only follows logically that if the government regulates it, that the government will have a conflict of interest. By the way, it never mentions guns at all.
Jan 14 2013: This was a reply to Don's previous tome. I tried to address his points.
I am aware of the 2nd and the Federalist Papers addressing the tenor of the times. I hold myself to be a strict constitutionalists. I am wary of those who interpret the constitution, like judges who believe they know better then Jefferson and Madison; the elected who know better then the electorate and academics who know better then anybody.
Jan 14 2013: Sorry. my reply was to Don, also.
Today we are looking at a very practical conundrum. It is questionable what portion of the population can recognize giants like Madison, Locke or Jefferson.
I think we need to find out exactly what per cent of the population consider the Lorax the pinnacle of morality.
Don Levy
Jan 14 2013: I entered the conversation to offer an opinion and participate in the discussion. I hoped to join a discussion that allows both sides to think and consider ideas. For example, I am now thinking about the point about the potential conflict of interest. So thank you for raising it. I am not of the opinion that there should be a repeal, which was the overarching conversation starter. In fact, I agree with the basic premise and stated that at the top.
- +2
The overall issue of armed violence is complicated and encompasses many factors beyond weapons and guns and controlling legislation. I joined this conversation because the topic is important and worthy of the wisdom and insight that can come from open dialog. I will leave it at that.
Mike Colera
Jan 14 2013: Don,
- +1
The issue is most important and well worth the discussion. The frustrating thing for me is that the illegal violence continues albeit, it is supposed to be improving. Yet, The issue of the 2nd repeatedly comes up, restrictions are placed against legal gun owners, and these effects made no appreciable reductions in violent crime. Reductions seemed to have come from more policing efforts and new law enforcement techniques. I am at a loss to understand why some raise this cry for action concerning the 2nd. Over zealous gun holders cry out that certain elements are out to disarm them and take over the country. Repeated attempts at doing something to the 2nd begins to lend credence to cry's of the conspiracy theorists.Jan 14 2013: That's a swell answer, actually, I take back the dinosaur comments.
Comment deleted
Jan 14 2013: James, History shows us that once power is ceded, those to whom it is ceded never give it back voluntarily. I have not been arguing here for my guns, but for my rights.
What is really been demonstrated, is that the prohibitionists display an almost complete unawareness that they are the provocateurs in this discussion, and that as such, they needed to answer the questions that they have provoked. They have failed miserably throughout this thread.
Instead, they seem to assume that since, in their own imagination, they occupy the moral high ground and that their postures always represent moral enlightenment, that those who do not concede are working out their primitive fears.
They have demonstrated this in that they don't ever have to give a reasoned explanation to the myriad of contradictions to their theory that have been presented to them, simple things like the failure of the exact policies that they are clamoring for, to get them the result they theorize about, such as Chicago gun laws.
They simply denounce Constitutionalism as backwards and go on to assure us that their conclusions as just so OBVIOUS, that we should all submit to their superior revelations.
Jan 14 2013: Rights, like constitutions are just human constructs. I actually agree with most of the values that sit behind most modern human rights. While I agree with self defense, I'm not sure having an ak47, or stingers, or land mines in private hands is the same as freedom of speech, or is necessary or a good thing for society.
If stingers were widely available I assume you would have fanatics shooting down planes.
You mentioned Nazi Germany. Part of the problem there was the armed private militias, like the sa. I wonder if us citizens may have more to worry about with freedom fanatics and anti government people than the government.Jan 14 2013: I don't disagree that there needs to be alternative things to try. I have no problems with background checks, and fingerprinting is done in my state for handguns. I would have no problems with mental health screens as well, especially if they put those into place for police officers as well. After that however, after putting a lawful citizen through all that, they should be able to purchase whatever they want. I understand the limit them mentality, I just don't believe it will change things. I would be much more open to menatl health issues, and intitatives to reslove the problems of this nature.
Jan 14 2013: There is quite an extensive psych screening for police and law enforcement .
Jan 14 2013: Really? In what country? Certainly not here? Are you sure you've got your facts straight? I have several family members in law enforcement, and the only one that had to take anything was federal. Are you really so sure?Jan 14 2013: I called my family members it seems some, and I repeat some police forces require pysch tests, but not all. They also told me if I google it [and i did] you will be amazed at the number of sites showing you how to beat the test. Yeah, REAL extensive.Jan 14 2013: In the US, the arrangement to have the trained psychiatric personnel administer the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Test to law enforcement candidates, rapidly deteriorated due to the problem that so many of the LE personnel test results showed they tested the same as criminals, also showed other severe personality disorders. LE Unions argued that they tested that way because they "had to learn to think like the criminals" that they were fighting.
It is now common to have LE personnel administer the tests to their brothers, and I have even know officers that couldn't pass it until they were "tutored" by other LE personnel.
Most of what I know about this, came directly from an elected Sheriff and a former Colorado State Trooper who had been involved in the hiring process, also the psychiatrist that did all the testing for one state, that I will not mention.Jan 14 2013: Timothy,
I was curious, so I googled "How to beat the law enforcement tests".
I got lots of sites with instructions... "tips on how to deal with testing", "strategies for police applicants", "police quiz preperation", "police prep info", etc. etc. The only thing I could find were sites which appeared to be educational sites to prepare an applicant for the tests.
Could you provide links to sites which show a person how to "beat" the tests?Jan 14 2013: When I went back there I found several sites that did everything from telling you what to expect to how to answer the questions, but I may have misspoken as the one site I didn't go to was titled "how to beat the police pysch test" and was a police site that once you started to read it said you couldn't beat it. So I just stole the title, my mistake. but the jist is, not all police, in this country especially, have to take pysch tests, and when they do, lots are thrown out on their ears, and are then upset because theyv'e been police officers for years.Jan 14 2013: Timothy,
I really respect and appreciate you for clarifying that information.Jan 15 2013: I have been following this conversation from the start and I have come to a couple of conclusions. The point is not about the caliber of a weapon or preventing people from owning weapons, but about the mortality rates in gun crime as opposed to other violent crimes. People get beaten to death too.
I am from New Zealand a country that has extremely strict regulations around owning weapons (not a country that bans weapons or prevents decent, sane, non-criminal people from having them), and given that I work within the police/Ministry of Justice field, I have a much better understanding of how many murders occur and how they were killed, so I feel that I am in a position to say that guns are more likely to kill than knives or bare hands because of their lethal nature. The damage to human tissue is extreme. The wounds from a gun shot are also a lot more serious and as someone else mentioned in this discussion, lets not forget the survivors who have been shot and left extremely disabled.
I am not telling people they should not own guns, I am saying that the reality is, that in countries where there are a lot more regulations, guns are less likely to be in the wrong hands. Hands of people who go on killing sprees. If you are law-abiding, have had pyschological testing that shows a respect for life, do not have a history of violence and you and your family have been interviewed to establish that nobody in your life is afraid of the idea of you owning a weapon, and you can prove that this weapon will be locked up securely when not in use and under no circumstances will any children in the household have access to the weapon/s or the codes/lock to get into the weapons, then by all means, get yourself a gun!!! The problem is that in all of your states, there are no set or strict regulations. Some states require criminal checks. some states require nothing. For me the argument is about "Regulation." Is that so unreasonable?? Does this infringe on your rights?
Jan 15 2013: While I agree with the general idea behind the regulation, I don't like the idea of asking the family if they're comfortable with you owning guns. That assumes that 1. your family is interested in your well-being, which may not be the case, 2. your family's idea of your well-being is the same as yours, which may not be the case.
Jan 15 2013: That's mild John, what if they asked for a psyche assessment by two independents at your own cost?
Jan 15 2013: That too. I don't know how effective brief psych evaluations would be. However, if the applicant already has had a psych evaluation, and has been diagnosed as paranoid-delusional, bipolar, etc., I'd consider that grounds for denying a permit.
Just in case someone brings it up... I don't think blind people should be allowed to own/use guns either.Jan 15 2013: John that's not funny, this could turn into a white paper monster and before you know it some group gets a lot of power and money and people get branded something that they are not. Government departments get created and the monster gets bigger.
Then something happens and the call goes out for all people by the people to be evaluated.
You were joking weren't you?
Jan 15 2013: Don't worry, nothing I ever say stands a chance of getting implemented. ;-)
I do see how kids in the US get branded as something they are not, just because the school can make claims for extra funding for each "challenged" kid they host.
However, a few of my friends are psychologists. Not in the US. I have been told detailed stories of all kinds of strange cases. I also have two friends with bipolar disorder. A relative of another friend thinks that all his neighbors are plotting (some bizarre plot) against him.
The question remains: how likely is a person to endanger other people out of sheer recklessness. Some mental disorders (or physical ones, like blindness) render a person with a gun a risk to bystanders. Adam Lanza was one such person -- though all the diagnoses that he was bestowed turned out to be incorrect.Jan 15 2013: Hi John,
What I mean by family being asked is essentially your close loved ones, people you share a home with. The may even be a room mate. My experience of the process of getting a gun licence was when my flatmate just wanted to renew his, as he grew up on a farm and enjoyed hunting. Because I lived with him and would essentially be living in the same house where there was a gun, a policeman came over to interview me and asked me a lot of questions around how I felt about knowing there was a gun in the house, how I felt about my flatmate having a gun, whether I had any concerns etc, whether I was every afraid of him or if he showed any violent tendencies, so they really made sure that everyone in the house was ok with him having a gun. We were, as he was a lovely guy with a very gently nature. I had no problem with him having a gun because I was completely comfortable and safe with him.
Comment deleted
Jan 13 2013: That's very liberal of you, to determine that whatever side you are on, is right and the ones who don't see it your way are blind? Very good.
You want rigid? Here: "Don't speak to me of good men, chain them to the Constitution." Thomas JeffersonJan 13 2013: Why did you change your post Kate?Jan 13 2013: Kate,
The fear saddens me as well. I cannot imagine how it must feel to live every day with so much fear of their own government!
I know LOTS of gun owners, and I have NEVER heard this kind of fear expressed. I am aware that there is a very tiny segment of our society living with this fear based belief, and apparently they are all here on this discussion thread?
Jan 13 2013: Colleen, Isn't it true that what you are really experiencing is that your opponents are immovable and not receptive to what you imagine are your own 'reasonable pleadings" for them to agree with you?
People are entitled to their own thoughts and opinions and evaluations of the status of the nation.
You have not actually refuted any of the facts regarding abuses of power on the government side, you have simply pooh poohed and pretended that there is no connection to the issue.
Then you have tried to diminish the arguments of anti-prohibitionists with "what are you afraid of".
We don't want people like you and Morgan Barnes, tinkering with any part of the Constitution.
Jan 13 2013: Marianne,
I am aware that you are immovable because you demonstrate that fact over and over again, and I am not "pleading" with you or anyone else. You have your perspective, and I have mine.
I support the removal of assault weapons from our communities, and based on the past ban on assault weapons, I believe that will happen without repeal or amendment of the constitution, because that document provides for "regulation" of guns.Jan 13 2013: You might get your way.Jan 16 2013: Perhaps there is justification for "a very tiny segment of our society" to be in fear when something so simple as the size of sugary drink, we can consume, is regulated. Some people rightfully fear losing liberty.
I remember a nation with less regulation where I could buy a happy meal in San Francisco. Show me a world where more regulation offers more freedom and I'll show you a contradiction.Jan 7 2013: YES!!!!! It should have been repealed years ago! I am a New Zealander. A country that sees very little gun related deaths, because we do not all have the right to bear arms and in fact if we want to purchase or have a gun, we have to be interviewed by the police, have our family and friends interviewed by the police, police checks done etc, and then only for hunting. Even our police force does not as a rule carry guns (we have an armed unit that may be called out if necessary) and because of this our police are incredibly skilled at talking offenders down and calming situations. We have had very few police offices killed in the line of duty and those usually not by guns.
When your constitution was written, as I understand it. America did not have its own armed forces. Your country was brand new, as a result of no armed forces, the government relied on local militia to fight against the English. This was a time when farmers and landowners and everyday men where required to take up arms. In other words, this amendment was required at the time and fit the circumstances. This is no longer the case. You have the biggest armed forces in the world, you do not require farmers and grocers to pick up arms and fight for your country, so you should do as the rest of the world have done and make it illegal to own or buy a firearm without a firearms licence, which would be very difficult to get. America is so far behind the times it is a joke. Your constitution needs to be updated bigtime. It is 2013 people, not 1787!!!!
Jan 7 2013: We also have a government guilty of war crimes and human rights violations. You watched as we slaughtered Iraq, just to show some muscle. We detain countless foreigners at Guantanamo for years without charge, many under 18. We assassinate foreign dissidents (and their families) with no judicial oversight or declaration of war, utilizing remotely controlled UAVs. We recently assassinated one of our own citizens, a 16 year old boy who was the subject of a recently dismissed court case. We drop these bombs in Pakistan and Somalia, and now Turkey as we slaughter Kurdish rebels for the Turkish government. We train our UAV pilots by locking onto domestic targets, cars cruising the highway in Texas, without their knowledge.
Us Americans watch our government commit these atrocities, under the rule of both major parties. We voted in a man who promised to end them, but who has only continued full throttle. Last year he signed a bill authorizing himself to detain Americans without charge, which is a blunt violation of our Constitution. Other bills currently sitting in Congress are the Expatriation Act, which allows the government to strip us of our citizenship, and HJ Res 15 which repeals the 22 amendment, abolishing term limits for the president. He would've sign SOPA too had Google not killed it.
We also watch in horror as European economies collapse and our national debt rises above 16 trillion. Our grandparents watched in horror as Hitler ravaged the continent during a similar depression. The United States is by far the most powerful government on the planet. If you'd really like to disarm our people, then I hope you enjoy the New American Century. I don't suspect your country would be able to do anything about it.
Jan 9 2013: Wow, it sounds like your country is even more messed up than I thought and it sounds like you feel a need for some kind of revolution that may require guns to fight against your own government, ah la Egypt, Syria, etc. Your first instinct is the need to fight with violence. When my countries government, (New Zealand), decided they wanted to introduce nuclear power and invite nuclear powered ships into New Zealands waters, the people of my country said "Hell No", We All stood up and shouted our wish to be nuclear free. We picketted, we protested, we papered the country with our views and forced the government to have a reforendum where we overwhelmingly voted against any nuclear power or nuclear weapons in our country. Even though our government did not agree, they were forced to do as we wanted because we made it clear that our government was For the people ,and we the people had some thoughts about how it should be run. Then again, very few New Zealanders do not vote, whereas many of your countrymen don't. We paid for our decision because American placed strong embargoes and sanctions against us and it threatened our treaties but We the people stuck to our guns. All without any violence. The only violence came from France, when us New Zealanders protested the nuclear testing that France was carrying out in OUR territorial waters, so they sent their spies to NZ and bombed the Rainbow Warrior. You could call this an act of war. Instead of fighting back with violence, we just caught their spies within hours of the bombing and threw them in prison, thereby humiliating the French who thought our small country, Hick police force would have no hope of catching their top spies. If our government was to do things that our people are unhappy with, we get rowdy. Violence is not the only way to make change happen.
Jan 10 2013: I suppose picketing would've stopped Hitler and Stalin too. :/ The second amendment isn't just for the past or the here and now. It's for every century in the future, to insure that citizens are as well armed as their government. The fact that the government's weapons well overpower our own is due to a distortion of the amendment. To trust that the government will always respect the will of the masses is foolish, and ignorant of the past.
The rights you take away from people today, you take away from people in the future. If you think the rest of time is going to be all well and dandy if the citizens of the world are unarmed and dependent on their rulers, well... I guess I have to respect your opinion.Jan 3 2013: I think the underlying issue here is that many americans are living in a fantasy construct and seem to believe two things.
1. That the guns are protecting their freedoms, despite all evidence now demonstrating that (because of policies such as the Patriot act, drone surveillance and the TSA) they have considerably less freedoms than pretty much all of the rest of the developed world.
2. That somehow when 'the time comes' , that they're all suddenly going to become Rambo and the locked up single guage rusty rifle in the garage is suddenly going to appear in their hands with unlimited ammo and they're going to take on a fleet of trained military and special forces personnel.
People in general do not have such an ability, despite many believing they do.
More guns = more freedom isn't an accurate representation of reality either.
More guns for everyone equals more guns for the untrained, paranoid, trigger happy and mentally questionable people who are also carrying them like you..
It creates an environment where you don't just have to be on guard for the rare nut-case who's shooting up the cinema, but also the 50 terrified people who are shooting wildly in retalliation with their eyes closed and any conflict that takes place anywhere, where everyone now has the capacity to immediately escalate the incident where dozens of people can get killed, a situation made clear by American gun crime statistics.
That isn't freedom, thats wild-west anarchy and xenophobic paranoia.
Americans, you're not in a diehard movie. Time to accept that.
Jan 3 2013: What is diehard?Jan 3 2013: Xavier, you know how all Americans will react during a shooting !?! .... What can you tell me about me? Are you psychic? That would be to cool!. ... ... Dude. ...Smart and psychic.
Jimmy Strobl
Jan 3 2013: Wow, great insightful response to Xaviers comment here... I love the way the pro-gunners respond sometimes...
- +2
I'll try to answer it for you, excuse me if I'm out of line.
@Ivory: I think he's referring to a film (or rather four films) with Bruce Willis, but he misspelled it. The correct title is "Die Hard", good movies!
@Gary: I don't think that Xavier knows how every American would react, I think he's basing his assumption on classical psychology. That does not mean that he's a psychic.
Comment deleted
Jan 4 2013: Gary,
What is the "proper" use for an assault weapon to the average person?Jan 4 2013: classical psychology, Jimmy, no ... he is basing his assumptions on imagination. ...
specs 2
Jan 3 2013: I'm curious about the self defence argument and why a gun is necessary.
- +2
If somebody breaks into your house - Is that burglar also going to kill you? Is that SOP for burglary?
Because if it is SOP, then I understand the need for the gun at home. But if it isn't, do you really need to shoot the thief over a TV or a PC or the misc whatnots?
But what if you're not at home when the thief breaks in? Did you bring the gun with you or leave it at home?
If you left your gun at home, then doesn't the thief now have it? Now you need to go out and get another one because somebody might break into your house because you don't have a gun.
if you brought it with you then doesn't make you a threat to the non gun carrying person out there who offended you for some unknown reason and who you're now going to put in his place, because .., well..., you have a gun? And heaven help you if you step on somebody's property. He's obviously just as well armed as you and he'll think you;re a thief and you're gonna kill him. You had a gun after all - what was he supposed think when he confronted you and you pulled it out to defend yourself.
Jan 6 2013: Please see this article: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/my-wife-is-a-hero-georgia-mother-shoots-home-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/
By the way most gun owners are responsible law-abiding citizens. Many are trained and store their guns properly.
I guess I have to clarify this post for "specs 2." First, he was armed with a crowbar. Second, she saw him, according to the article, and she had to gather her children, a phone, and yes her gun before she retreated into a crawl space. No I applaud her for doing exactly what she did. He broke into her house and tracked her down. I don't fault her for firing all the round either! I would hope you are never put in this volatile situation, adrenaline pumping, fearing for yours, and your children's lives! This could've been much worse. Give me a break!
Again, he shouldn't have broken in. She didn't have to fire a warning shot. It's too bad he was only wounded, you're right he probably will sue. But she is fully within her rights per castle doctrine.
specs 2
Jan 7 2013: I'm not excusing the robber but don't you think that she could have handled it better instead of shooting an unarmed man.
- 0
He rang the doorbell? Why didn't she answer the door? The whole freaking thing could possibly have been avoided right there.
Why didn't she call the cops before hiding? She had time.
Why didn't she answer the door with the gun? Again the whole thing could have ended right there.
And why shoot him five times? Wouldn't one shot have stopped the guy?
Why did she unload the gun on him? Her only solution was to try to kill the guy. That's not defense. That's an over reaction. She used more than enough force to defend herself and had he died she could conceivably be charged with manslaughter.
After all is said and done she shot an unarmed person because she was afraid of her own shadow and relied on her gun instead of common sense?
And oh yeah - just because many gun owners are trained to store their guns properly, that doesn't mean they do or do more than the required to meet the local requirements.
.Jan 3 2013: Things are very real here brother. ...
2 days ago in Louisiana .. an elderly man in his 80s had to shoot a man, a known drug addict and thief, who was breaking into his home. The old man made his presence known by yelling at his would be assailant through the door. He still broke in and was shot as soon as he walked in. What do you think about this?
Let me add that a few years ago, my bosses dad, who was at least 80, was robbed by 2 men, one kneeled on his chest and held him down while he was looted. ... Any thoughts?Jan 4 2013: Xavier, I'm aware of the loss of freedoms. That is why I champion pro choice freedom.
As it matters to this discussion, pro choice of each citizen to buy guns, semi-autos too, or not.Jan 4 2013: Tell the people in ghettos across the U.S. about xenophobic paranoia. Tell any of the dead victims of home invasions that were killed or raped first then killed. Explain to the father holding his dying child on this weeks New Orleans newspaper about paranoia. This is not Fantasy Island, these things happen. We may seem safe from everyone but nut-jobs in this country, but you never know what can happen and people want to feel prepared.
As far as a fantasy construct, people in America have many different realities.
If you take away guns can you assure me of no black market for criminals, a la drugs. Do you think the police will be one step ahead of the criminals, especially murderers? When have they got there before the crime?Dec 31 2012: I see many sides to this discussion. Some want assault weapons banned and for others all weapons. Some of us say that our mental health institutions need to be changed and perhaps given more funding. Others point to video games and violent movies as the culprit. Some even have gone as far as wanting armed guards in all of our schools.
We need to stop kidding ourselves that just one of these ideas will fix the problem as a whole. If we really want to see change, to see less of these shootings, then we will need to apply each one of these measures. Assault weapons should be banned or limited to some extent, there is absolutely no reason to have such a weapon unless your getting ready to fight a war. In the US in 2009 for every 100,000 of us, 10 people died from gun related crimes. In the UK, which does not allow private gun ownership, .25 people died for every 100,000 citizens in 2011 and for Japan, that number is down to .07 deaths for every 100,000 people in 2008. And lets face it, our movies and video games glorify violence, our children are growing up in a world where there told killing people is bad, but then proceed to pay a game where killing people is the goal. As for the armed guard in every school, while this is an extreme measure, having at least one armed guard in some of our more major schools may not be such a bad idea.
Most of us can agree that our Mental Health Institutions need more funding and support, and some new programs should probably be instituted. However the demonizing of the mentally Ill should not be allowed to continue, and while not everyone is doing this certain groups are. It reminds me of the Nazis, using a scapegoat to blame all their problems on. Finally we need to take a good look at our society as a whole, what should be acceptable and what shouldn't be tolerated. We will only see change if we want change, and we will only see progress if more than just one approach is followed.
Dec 31 2012: There is no need to amend the Constitution in order to address these problems.
All the hard stuff has been largely ignored, I know, I am a street fighter advocate for the mentally ill.
Each time these events happen, there is an outburst of public furor over guns and the rest of it is largely ignored, people go back to their old habits, their gross ingestion of violent slop.Dec 31 2012: Well said Jarred, and I wholeheartedly agree, that there are many underlying issues that need attention. I believe one of the first things we need to do, and the topic of this discussion, as you insightfully recognize, is to get assault weapons out of circulation.
Dec 31 2012: And if you can get the assault weapons ban in place FIRST, then you won't really have to take care of any of the other underlying problems that your generation have allowed to fester in plain sight.
Dec 31 2012: Marianne,
I have been working for over 60 years with abused women and children, with offenders who are incarcerated, facilitating empowering workshops for ALL people, mediating with convicted felons, volunteering in shelters, family centers, guest lecturing at the university on the topic of violence and abuse in relationships....bla.....bla....bla.
STOP being sarcastic....STOP blaming and START becoming part of the solution!Jan 1 2013: Colleen,
The reason that many posters here are bringing up the same issues is not as obscure as you pretend.
It's as if the prohibitionists have taken the 2nd Amendment and equated with the root cause of the shootings in Conneticut. In their minds, they are judge and jury and the posters here are being brought in to help with the sentence. Then like a lynch mob, pose the question to the group "Should we shoot him or just whip him?'
Well, the non-probitionist side is making their case, that "you have the wrong man", and you are letting the real guy get away.
So to continue:
I don't think any of us can remember a time where there hasn't been a bureacracy and a social worker assigned to everyone of our social ills. I hope you did good in your career. It is probably easier to do so in a smaller communtity where there might be more resources.
However, it has also been long known, since as far back as the Peter Grace audit of the Federal Budget to the GAO reports, that a mere smattering of dollars that are appropriated for these problems, end up as measureable services or in the hands of the people or i who need it, with 80-90% being absorbed by the bureacracies themselves.
Some rogue thinkers don't ascribe to the idea that Big Daddy government has all the solutions to all the social problems. The Torah model for taking care of people & famliies who fall out of the economy, is to get them back on their feet in one fell swoop while the policies of the government programs have done little but faciitate the poor languishing in the lower social economic conditions for generations, where they become a breeding ground for violence & crime.
There really was no reason for me to call you a control freak. But how many posters are you currently telling that their input is outside the scope of the subjet?
Jan 1 2013: I'm not "pretending" anything Marianne.
There is no lynch mob or pose here Marianne.....it is a discussion on TED.
The topic is:
"Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"Jan 1 2013: That is the question asked by Morgan Barnes, but it is not honest to ignore that the question is posed as a reaction to the shootings in Newtown.
After yesterdays tragic shooting in Newtown CT and the worst year ever for firearm related deaths and mass killings , has the time for the US Government to tell the Gun Lobby it is over and repeal or amend "the right of the people to bear arms".
Without actually making the case, Morgan Barnes has found the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership culpable of the shooting event. That is the same as a lynch mob mentality,because Barnes hasn't made the case, he jumps to a conclusion that he has not established.
The prohibitionists are demanding a shallow solution to a complex problem, which seems to be "Do Something that Violates the 2nd Amendment"...
That is a disservice to the people who will be killed in these horrific mass killings of the future.
Jan 1 2013: There is no "lynch mob mentality" here Marianne.
Many folks are respectfully addressing the question:
"Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"
Most responders seem to know that there are other issues to be addressed, and getting the assault weapons out of our communities is only one part of the solution.
No one suggests "violating the 2nd amendment"
"A disservice to the people who will be killed in these horrific mass killings of the future"???
Oh my goodness......think about that statement Marianne!!!Dec 31 2012: Well since no one appears to be even close to it, I'll just offer one that I know to be true, and shouldn't offend your delicate sensibilities. It's fun. Handgun's, rifles, submachineguns, heavymachineguns, assault rifles, explosives, all offer a different experience. Don't know why, not prepared to say, but explosions are REALLY fun. Considering fun and excitement on it's own isn't a big problem with this country, or people in general for that matter, it seems unlikely to me that this isn't a legitimate reason.
For me, mental health is the only issue here. All answers with people are derived from... you guessed it! People.
Dec 31 2012: I suggest Matt, that if you ask the loved ones of those who have been killed, they would not agree that it is "fun"..
Jan 2 2013: Of course not, however, not every assault gun carries with it a tag indicating the # of confirmed kills. I can't get behind this kind of thinking, we as a society give these same weapons to 17 year old kids of all backgrounds without worry. Other countries do it as well, without issue. Training is important but there are SEVERAL cases in your local papers across this country that has veterans losing it and killing people with assault rifles while other ones, like me, don't have a problem. Clearly the answer is not so simple, we have a purely reactionary society and it's quite good at overreacting, if this wasn't children it probably wouldn't have had as much attention.
Mental health is the only issue at stake here.Jan 1 2013: Some may consider anything to be fun, including stealing, raping and killing. The fun argument is invalid.
Jan 2 2013: The majority of people would agree that those three are not fun. That's how society works of course, the majority decides whether or not a minority pushes them to.
I completely understand the people that want them removed on principal alone, they don't go to the range, they've never had to use one, they don't want to, they have no interest in them. All those personal choices doesn't change the fact that it is somewhat fun to fire more and more powerful weapons, particularly for young males.
I've heard it echoed over and over here that there is no reason to "need" the weapons in question (I hate that wording by the way, to need weapons, you could say the same thing in varying factors about just about anything else. Instead ask, why do people want them), but people want them for reasons we've discussed or at least introduced here and this one which is wholly ignored, probably because people aren't interested in shooting. Now, is that an invalid reason to own weapons?Jan 2 2013: Matt,
I don't see people arguing for "removal" of guns "on principal alone". You don't really know what the reasons are, unless you genuinely read and try to understand the comments, which it appears you are not doing.
Your argument... "somewhat fun to fire more and more powerful weapons", feels kind of frightening and not a very good argument.Jan 2 2013: I agree Matt..."not every assault gun carries with it a tag indicating the # of confirmed kills."
How is that related to the topic question?
You say..."we as a society give these same weapons to 17 year old kids of all backgrounds without worry."
What 17 year old kids are you refering to?
I agree that some people "overreact".
Is that what you are doing because you think guns are "fun", as you stated in a previous comment?
Kris Rosvold
Jan 16 2013: You say: "The time has come to realise it is mainly our children who pay the ultimate price for lack of diligence in monitoring a problem that has been there for far too many years."
- +4
As a former gun owner, US Navy Marksman, and student of the US Constitution, I agree with the words quoted above...just not the direction that you are trying to take that sentiment.
The consideration from the Constitutional point of view is that the FIRST act of every single dictator in history has been to attempt to dis arm the citizens of the nation they are trying to take over.
I've done a lot of research over the years and two very interesting facts stand out:
1) Our gun laws (about purchasing weapons) as they exist today, WORK. The have prevented felons and psychos from being able to buy a weapon. They worked in this case and they have worked with VERY few exceptions in the cases of other school shootings.
2) Virtually every single case of a psycho (yes, I KNOW it's not politically correct but if you shoot up a school or a mall, you are by definition a psycho!) shooting up a school was made possible by some legal gun owner NOT securing their weapons and said weapons were STOLEN by the psycho because they were prevented from buying them.
Here's my suggestion: 1) REQUIRE legal gun owners to SECURE their weapons whenever the weapons are not on their person with a shrouded trigger lock and or gun SAFE (NOT a display cabinet)
2) REQUIRE gun owners to take a use and safety class every 2 (two) years that is at least 40 hours.
3)Require gun owners to have liability insurance.
Every one of these school shootings, IMHO, has been a direct result of legal gun owners displaying gross negligence...
Jan 16 2013: Its a start agreeded but even crims have legally obtained firearms would you agree that by regulating the kind of firearm available would also be an option does anyone really need a 50cal desert Eagle in an urban situation????
just as an example??Jan 16 2013: I stopped at....(....WORK!) Tell that to the families of those killed at Sandy Hook, who were killed by, not a Criminal, but by one of their own citizens.Jan 13 2013: Excellent topic!
The issue is the USA has a disproportionate number of killings using firearms than other any developed country. There must be correlation between the ease of access of high powered weapons and the killing statistics. Surely it can't be "cultural" can it??
Violent movies and so on are available everywhere!
Many countries have gun laws that restrict and control the types of guns people can own and how those guns are stored and the users trained. Surely it would do no harm for the US to take a look at what happens elsewhere. If this means that the precious 2nd amendment needs to be amended or abolished and or replaced by some sort of stricter control over firearm ownership then good! The outcome that any civilised country should seek is the safety of its people and it's laws should be aligned accordingly.
The days when cowboys roamed the range shooting at everyone else have passed, time to move on America!
Everett Hill
Jan 13 2013: There is no correlation between the use of assault style weapons (aka "high powered weapons") and killing statistics. Few gun crimes are committed with high powered weapons. Most are committed with handguns. So that is an incorrect correlation.
- +1
However, the increase in requirement for firearm training is a valuable one and should be pursued.
Jan 13 2013: Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't just thinking of assault style weapons.... there are some pretty powerful hand guns out there too.
Jan 13 2013: David, it is true that there are some high power handguns out there. I would hazard a guess that most of the crimes committed with handguns are lower caliber, easily accessible guns.
Most of the high caliber, high powered handguns are expensive or not interesting to those who would commit a crime. Mainly due to cost and difficulty accessing them.
That being said, it is important to truly look at what weapons are being used, where they are coming from, and who is using them. The issue runs much deeper than just the weapons themselves. There are significant cultural issues tied into this that are not being addressed and probably should be.Jan 13 2013: David, you are right....there are some powerful hand guns out there too, and they are available at gun shows and on line with very little, if any, regulation.
I agree with you Everett, that there are other issues that need to be addressed, and we need to address ALL the issues.
This topic question is:
"Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?"
This is one issue we can start addressing, to hopefully contribute to the overall challenge.
I do not believe the second amendment needs to be repealed or amended, because the document allows for regulation. The last time we had a ban on assault weapons, nothing was repealed or amended to the best of my knowledge.Jan 10 2013: Was the meaning of the second amendment meant to change with time? If not, issue a musket, ramrod, powder horn and balls to every American, and ban modern weapons. If so, put a patriot missile in every front yard.
Jan 10 2013: I don't know, this is a popular theory, that the Constitution should 'change with time. But we all know that "time' can not change the Constitution so let us lay the question out in real terms..isn't the question more rightly put as "Shouldn't we allow men to change the Constitution as they choose?"
Of course, that creates a dilemma when elected officials who have sworn to uphold the Constitution see fit to diminish the provisions of that same document.
What do you think Thomas Jefferson meant when he said "Don't talk to me of GOOD MEN, chain them to the Constitution."?
We give Morgan Barnes the benefit of taking him as a "GOOD MAN" and yet he has openly defended the slaughter of innocent people at WACO by law enforcement, who just "made some mistakes" (sic) while the horse he rode in on is the Sandy Hook massacre and the attending public angst.
The most ardent 2nd Amendment advocate has not suggested that Adam Lanza's mother
just made an unfortunate mistake that we should overlook. If that were the case , we would offer an asinine suggestion that all we should do in reaction to Sandy Hook is to insist that all guns be labeled "DO NOT ALLOW MENTALLY UNSTABLE PERSONS TO COME INTO POSSESSION OF THIS GUN. AND BY NO MEANS, USE THIS GUN TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE"...this would be equal to Morgan Barnes assertion that we overlook recent law enforcement atrocities in the US and chalk it up to a learning curve.
I think that if we ever entertained the idea of revising the Constitution, we would have to be able to produce statesmen of the same caliber as the original authors.Jan 11 2013: Was the meaning of speech meant to change with the passing of time? Should 'speech' in the Constitution legally be limited to a set of things one might have said 300 years ago?
John Crusan
Jan 8 2013: I saw a movie once where only the police and military had guns....
- +4
It was called Schindler's List.
James Murray
Jan 1 2013: Not the moral high ground necessarily, Britain has flaws and has caused many problems in the past but we can teach young countries, Britain also has much to learn from older countries like Japan and Norway but we will not due to ignorance. The only way we will all learn is from experience, we all have failings but we tend to point the finger towards the Usa when it comes to guns. We have a duty to educate and assist people in learning about peace and understanding.
- +4
James Murray
Dec 25 2012: I find it is easy to criticise the American government for what Lanza did but the fact is lots of scapegoats are being targeted, namely computer games and parents as well as the gun laws, the fact is Lanza was a fan of the military more than anything. Violence exists in the world whether you like it or not and we can search for all the excuses we wish to, banning firearms worked in Britain because we are an ancient country who has learned over centuries to evolve, the United States of America is still young and requires support to handle their gun situation not finger pointing, half the country want to own guns, the government cannot win without upsetting half of the country, namely the half of the country which already has the say. People will not be safe with or without guns, individuals who wish to kill will kill. Instead of blaming from your pedestal put money into mental health research and community youth and homeless programs. Offer guidance to a young country.
- +4
Dec 27 2012: While I agree with the young country argument-in most cases-I'm confused how that relates to gun control. Is Switzerland a young nation? Have you evaluated that? In my experience, this much snobbishness was always limited to the Swedes' so I'm surprised to see so many Brits staking their claim upon the moral high ground and talking about how much moral clarity they've obtained (how's your ethnic track record recently?) through just 300 years of unity (1700s). Clearly the very tip of the spear on social issues.
Young nation, yes, in need of guidance, yes. How that relates to gun control? Not seeing it.Jan 15 2013: I will leave this conversation, with some thoughts about our future. And I guess I must ask the question: Where are we going as a Society, as a Nation, as a Species? Where are we going if, as a collective people we believe that something we created, not our Creator (something that has the power to take away life so fast, and with great numbers) be the Answer to us growing as a responsible Species living on a planet that none of knows how much time we have? While I can say that I have no Fears that the US Government is on the path of taking away all of our rights as many in this Country do, I do have the fear that having so many arms in circulation will be the Crux of an upcomming Civil War. There are many other assault weapons being sold on the black market in this country including Bombs, Chemicals and other mass destructive devices. At what point do we protect ourselves, from...OURSELVES? While I can disagree with so many of you out there on this issue, I still believe that our Government is the answer. We the people have got to become more involved and hold Politicians more accountable! But we the People have to be dedicated to not perpetuate a Violent Society. Many fight for the rights of the unborn, but still believe taking a gun away from a potential threat is not as good an answer as putting a gun in the other persons hands. With those odds, you can bet that death is almost certain. But the real growth in our society will be when MONEY is not the determining factor in our lives, as it is now. Again, something we created that has become (much more than a cliche') "the root of all evil!" When will human beings be worth more than Money itself. It is the Crux of this thread when all is said and done. A homeless family can be arrested for trespassing for squatting in a vacant house, just because they are trying to stay warm. But where is the common sense? Where are we going? Do we have the strength of Faith to lay down our guns, open our hands and help each other?
Jan 15 2013: I like your ideas for a better future, but people can not be forced through legislation to follow a certain path to achieve your idea of a better future. People have their own ideas for reaching their goal of a better tomorrow.
I appreciate the potrait you have painted of decadence and salvation, but I can not help but wonder with a statement like "arms in circulation are the crux of a civil war", who is really paranoid?Jan 16 2013: Unfortunately, Craig, I do not share your optimistic view of mankind. I try to walk in the New Testament, but much of the world operates as if they are still in the pre-Old Testament. There are a lot of people who want to kill us and our wives and our children, and are doing so to thier greatest abilities, for what we believe in-freedom of speech, religion, etc., people who stone women and kill gay men and beat women for exposing an ankle. So the byword is to be prepared and stand ready, and then go about our lives to the extent that we can treating our fellow man with decency. If we lay down our guns and open our hands as you say, we'll just get our throats slit like so many sheep. That doesn't mean we don't help each other. As for money, it is a medium of exchange and a convenient store of value, not evil. We are free to choose how to live, at least in the US so far. Civil war comes from oppression, not from too many weapons. However, Amen to getting involved and holding politicians accountable. Although you and I disagree in a fundatmental way, we still could break bread together without fear, and probably find some common ground.Jan 13 2013: Heres the major issue that everyone seems to be overlooking whilst being infavor of mass gun-ownership (and an increase, according to some comments).
Any Professional firearms trainer will immediately say something to the tune of:
'A gun is never more dangerous when its in the hands of someone who is untrained/emotional. Not necessarily to the criminal, but to themselves, thier family and anyone else around them'..
Here are some facts:
-More people are starting to carry loaded guns
-More people are aware that other people are carrying loaded guns
-More people are untrained to use them, have never used one, are going to freak out in danger
-More people are not Rambo
-More people who shouldn't have guns have them aswell
-More people are carrying them in the possible case of an incident
-More people carrying guns are going to find themselves in relatively crowded locations
To me that sounds like a horrifying outcome because it creates a situation where all it takes is for 1 crazed basketcase to fire a shot before an untold number of frantic, horrified individuals are firing a gun they can't control and/or not have sniper-precision to shoot the right person in a crowd of people running for their lives.
There will come a point where someone will go on a 50 man killing spree and it will turn out that 30 of the deaths didn't come from the maniac.
Jan 13 2013: People who would act as you say with a gun probably would not own one and almost definitely would not conceal carry them. We can have concealed carry where I am from and I do not know anybody that constantly is armed. The people that do carry are usually working in a bad section of the city. No one I know goes to the mall, or movies , ... anything like that, carrying.Jan 13 2013: Uh, Xavier, From your list of "facts"...can you also produce numbers showing that those "facts" are resulting in crimes or any justification for proposing that the nation amends it's Constitution? You have to understand that what is being proposed here is an amendment to the US Constitution. It's absurd to think that an amendment to the Constitution is the solution to your "Scary things' list.Jan 13 2013: Xavier, your scenario is a nightmare. The fact is that in order to obtain a concealed cary permit, you must first go through a training class. The guns are not the problem, people are the problem, a well practiced individual can cause as much or more havoc with any weapon and size magazine. If we start eliminating our "Constitutional Rights" where will it end? Will you want to also eliminate our right to "VOTE"!!!! I say that there is a greater need for 'GUN EDUCATION" than "GUN CONTROL". The "2nd. Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, I wont let them take that right away from me. More people (including children) die every year from "Medical Malpractice" than from "gun violence", but I don't hear anyone saying that we should change the "medical malpractice laws".
Everett Hill
Jan 12 2013: I will apologize if I repeat previous comments, as I have not read the entire thread.
- +3
First, discussing the repeal of the 2nd amendment following a tragic shooting is always a poor choice. Feelings run high and the tragedy is fresh in our minds. We do not think clearly.
Second, there are many laws in place that monitor, regulate, and state what is legal and not with firearms. The recent shooting simply shows us that even those laws fail. For example, the shooter stole the guns, could not have owned them legally, had a mental disability which might have kept him from owning firearms at all. None of those laws did anything to stop him.
Third, the issue that is most frustrating, is that we often find that people suspected the person who did the shooting was going to do it, and did nothing. That is a failure of humans, not the firearms. Often, there are mental issues that are left without help and the person reaches a tipping point where violence seems appropriate.
Finally, for the 2nd amendment to be repealed is a significant process. If the country is going to do it, they need to stand up as a large portion and state that. For the president to use executive power to alter the 2nd amendment would be a poor choice on their part. It would turn very ugly very quickly and polarize the nation against him or her. And probably is not constitutional to boot.
Instead, I would like to see a focus on improving the mental health care of our nation and address the issues that would lead someone to consider this action. Also, enforce the laws on the books. And recognize that a large number of crimes are prevented by the possession of a firearm. Then consider the facts, not the fallacies of the arguments in a clear, non-emotional light.
Don Anderson
Jan 10 2013: WOW Morgan!
- +3
Have you read a single reason against your viewpoint, it sure seems like you did not.
You know all the reasons given here for amending and calming no interest in taking all guns, may sound better if we had not heard them all before.
We are just going to ban tanks,
We are just going to ban cannons,
We are just going to ban grenade launchers,
We are just going to ban grenades,
We are just going to ban automatic weapons,
We are just going to ban high-capacity semi-automatic weapons,
And if we give in, how soon will we hear?
We are just going to ban semi-automatic weapons,
We are just going to ban guns,
We are just going to ban sharp long knives,
We are just going to ban long knives,
We are just going to ban sharp knives,
We are just going to ban freedom of speech on TV,
We are just going to ban freedom of speech online,
We are just going to ban freedom of speech in public places,
Jan 10 2013: Sounds like a good startJan 9 2013: This whole ban the guns thing is pure scare tactic and smoke screen. More children die of hunger, drowning, vehicle accidents, not getting access to doctors, and other things than die of gun vilolence. There are things that can be done about those things, but they are not being done, ,why? Are our guns scaring you? Are our guns going to jump up and kill you? No, you are being driven by lobbyists that want to see our citizens disarmed,. That is the real question, why do they want to see us disarmed? It is definately not about the lives of children, or we would see them pass legislature to make sure every kid is fed, and has access to health care, and we saw how they cared about that. This has to do with making us into good serfs that can no longer bargain for our rights, or defend ourselves from those in power. Wake up!
Jan 10 2013: Can anyone tell me the last time that citizens of the US, legally armed under the amendment, used these said arms to "defend (y)ourselves from those in power. " ? The whole point, whilst containing some worthwhile distractions, is worthy of a Monty Python sketch. The right to bear arms..against a despotic government:; do you honestly think that if you ever suffered under a totalitarian regime, that they would respect those rights ? On the other hand, even without the right, all over the world ( think Libya and Egypt recently ) citizens who had had enough of a regime were still able to obtain arms and overthrow the despot. Do you think that Oliver Cromwell and his parliamentarian army that overthrew King Charles the 1st needed to go to Charlie boy and ask for permission to raise arms against him ? It's a nonsensical argument.
On the other hand, if you are claiming that it is the "right to defend oneself and one's property", that is another issue. I can see some logic there, but surely then, you don't need a bazooka or a tank to defend yourself on the way home from the pub or your 2 acre smallholding ?
So let's sort out what you need the arms for and then limit them to a sensible calibre, fire rate or whatever and please make sure that applicants have a stable background and an IQ. above their age !
By the way, it was stated that the US has the highest gun ownership in the world. I believe both Canada and Swizterland have higher per capita levels without anything like the level of crime/fatalities. So there may be some credence to the population densities..or is it just that they make sure that you have to show a sane personality and some proficiency/self control with a firearm before owning one rather than the fact that you've just opened a new bank account !
Jan 11 2013: You sound an awful lot like a brit, and I don't appreciate your implying that IQ has anything to do with the crazies that use firearms to kill innocents. Just because it's been a while since anyone defended themselves from overeaching governments, doesn't mean it won't happen. As far as being able to resist an out of control government without arms, tell that to the Chinese man that stared down the tank.As for per capita gun ownership, the chart I am looking at per 100 people The U.S. has 88.8 canada 30.8 Switzerland 45.7 So I guess you are mistaken.
Jan 11 2013: To suggest I'm British is a typical US stereotyping. I'm Irish and we know something about raising and arming a militia to overthrow a despotic government ! And guess what, we did it without an amendment, hell, we did it without a constitution ( well, an in force one anyway ).
Mistaken - no. The figures that you read putting the US top of the gun ownersdepends on how you read the figures. That figure is based on the total number of private guns sold divided by the population. So when you start removing the people with more than one gun, and figures suggest that 50 of the people who legally hold a gun licence have more than one ( many more than one ! ), the figure drops dramatically.Jan 11 2013: Lets see your figures because it sounds goofy to me. You are saying an awful lot that I should take on what your say so? Everybody I know, and grew up with, owns at least one gun, and usualy many. And lets face it, the argument was number of guns per population no matter how you split them up in your mind. By the way, should we all use bombs as the IRA did? Isn't that how you armed against a despotic governmment?


text:
SAVE Walnut Cat Bathroom Bench Litter Box
Elegantly Styled Litter Box Confinement.
Walnut Cat Washroom Bench
This Walnut Cat Washroom Bench serves as an attractive cover to hide away the litter box and confine all litter messes inside, while providing useful space for many organizing options. It is designed to fit any size litter box, including the extra-large automatic boxes! The removable partition wall creates a space to store extra litter, scoop, and other supplies. The entrance to the Walnut Cat Washroom Bench can be placed on either side of the unit to suit the room it is used in. Hardware and easy to follow assembly instructions included.
Dimensions: 21.25" L x 37.5" W x 22.5" H. Door measurement: 7.00" W x 8.00" H
Weight: 67.00 lbs.
Walnut Cat Bathroom Bench Litter Box
Walnut Cat Bathroom Bench Litter Box
Walnut Cat Bathroom Bench Litter Box
Shopping Cart

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Community of Disc Golfers and About All Things Disc Golf
Views: 570
This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for. I'd be interested if you've got some early KC plastic you want to get rid of. Pretty much anything pre-9x especially tie-dyed KC's.
Still for sale?
© 2015 Created by Terry "the Pirate" Calhoun.


text:
Anzo Nguyen of Calgary Wins Canadian Geographic (CG) Challenge!
Read more ...
We have a winner! On May 4th, 2015 at the majestic Canadian Museum of Nature, Anzo Nguyen from Henry Wise Wood High School in Calgary, Alberta was named the 2015 Canadian Geographic (CG) Challenge National Champion. Second and third place finishers were Aaron Abraham of Calgary Connect School and Malhaar Moharir of University of Toronto Schools, Toronto, respectively.
The CG Challenge Committee congratulates all students and teachers who participated in the twentieth anniversary of the CG Challenge this year. Without your hard work and dedication, the Challenge would not be what it is today.
Free registration for the 2015-2016 Challenge will begin in September. Make sure you sign up (free) for Canadian Geographic Education to receive more details.
A special thank you to the sponsors of the CG Challenge, Google and the National Geographic Education Foundation. The in-person final was the result of a generous gift from Alex Trebek and contributions from the Canadian Museum of Nature, First Air, Vistek and the Canadian Wildlife Federation.


text:
The Rooftop offers panoramic views of Los Angeles and the mountains beyond. There's a heated swimming pool, red AstroTurf deck, dance floor, large film projector, DJ booth, poolside bar, outdoor fireplace, waterbed pods, sculptured topiary and a Biergarten. There's a total of 4,750 sq ft and 240 capacity, but the space can also be reserved by section. For more information and floor plans, please download our events kit below or contact the events department. Please note: The Rooftop pool will be closed January through March while we make improvements for the summer season.
"Un hôtel qui n'a de standard que son nom"
"The perfect guest: a captain of industry with a kinky streak"
"Far cry from the name"
"Cheeky pop culture references and irreverent riffs on corporate culture"
"You can get just about anything you want"
"The hippest hotel that Los Angeles has to offer"
"A fun urban hangout with all laid-back, warm-weather attitude of California"
"Setting the Standard"
"Confident, worldly, and a little mysterious"
"Chic and cheeky"
"Los Angeles like you've never seen it before"
"From the haiku poems that decorate the hotel directory, to the retro staff uniforms, it's the little things the Standard succeeds at"
"Impeccable service sans attitude"
"André Balazs has given the Los Angeles business district a jolt "
"A visual treat from the moment you step inside"
"Unrivaled views"
"Proves that design need not inflate room rates"
"A higher standard"
"Just perfect "
"Chic, spare and super-cool "
"Affordable sophistication "
"World's coolest new places to stay"
To get in touch, simply call our Meetings and Events Department anytime between 8am to 8pm, seven days a week:
|(213) 892-8080


text:
Hang tight!
Recipe by Nancy
"This is the kind of recipe that you just throw together. No need to truss or fuss. Pop it into a very hot oven and it is ready in a hurry."
Hmm. None of these ingredients are on sale today.
Show ingredients on sale
Sort stores by
Save money at local stores when ingredients are on sale!
Watch video tips and tricks
1 (3 pound)
whole chicken
1 tablespoon
olive oil
1/4 teaspoon
1/4 teaspoon
ground black pepper
1/4 teaspoon
dried oregano
1/4 teaspoon
dried basil
1/4 teaspoon
1/8 teaspoon
cayenne pepper
First: I had no smoking ANY time I've made this, and I usually cook the chicken 20 min on 500, 20 min on 475, and 20 min on 425. Second: GREAT spice. Double it and rub it UNDER the skin (then get rid of the skin - no one needs it anyway). Third: You only need to cook chicken to an internal thigh temp of 165, then remove, cover, and let sit for 15 min. If you cook to 180 you have a higher chance of drying it out (this is not bogus, it's from the USDA's wesite) Forth, and MOST important: COOK THE CHICKEN BREAST DOWN! You will not BELIEVE how amazing the breast meat is. I mean, better than dark meat usually is moistness wise. The skin on the breast won't brown or look pretty...but we're not eating that anyway, right? If you have to have a crispy breast flip it over for the last 15 min of cooking.
It was OK. The spices were good, but since I don't eat the skin, I didn't taste them very much. The chicken wasn't finished by the end of cooking time (still pinkish inside), although the skin was beginning to darken too much for comfort. I had to pop it in the microwave for an additional 5 minutes to finish cooking the inside. Also, there is a goodly amount of smoke involved; I had to turn on the kitchen fan and open a couple of windows.
743 Ratings
I was surprised this was as good as it was because of the combination of spices, but it was truly yummy. Like others suggested, I doubled the olive oil and the spices for a 4.5 lb. bird. I also greased the baking dish a bit, but realized after the fact it wasn't really necessary. Instead of sprinkling the spices on top of the chicken, I brushed the entire bird with olive oil and rubbed the spices all over it. I cooked it an additional 30 minutes because of the larger bird, and it came out perfect. I brushed the bird with a bit more olive oil toward the end as well. I threw chunky potatoes (all I had were idaho bakers, but they still came out great) in the pan during the last 40 minutes with chunks of onion, and brushed them well with more olive oil and sprinkled them with granulated garlic and salt. They were so good, it was amazing, I'd never roasted potatoes that way before. I never covered the bird or the potatoes - it was delish. I highly recommend this recipe - it was easy and very tasty.
Great spices. I cooked this in an oven bag and added a bit of water to the bag to make a great gravy with the juices and the flour you have to add to the bag (so it won't burst) and it turned out really tender. The meat just fell off the bone the longer I cooked it. I've found that OVEN BAGS are the key to roasting meat.
For those who said it was not flavorful bc you don't eat the skin, I highly recommend marinating it for 24 hours in your refrigerator. You can even do as you would a turkey, raise the skin and apply some of the rub underneath the skin. I have never once had smoking, but it is because it absorbs so much of the oil when it marinates in the refrigerator overnight. We are from LA and like spicy, so I also double the amount of spices!
yummmy moist chicken!!! a little hint to get two dinners out of one, boil the leftover carcass(and gizzards) for a couple hours with veggies to make a stock, add noodles and you have yourself a wonderful chicken noodle soup!
Good flavor, but nothing to write home about. Due to previous comments about the high cooking temperature causing smoke in their kitchens, I reduced the temp. to 350 and baked it until the chicken's pop-up timer popped (I used a 6 lb. roaster chicken, and it took about 1 hr. 45 min.) Chicken was moist.
This recipe was outstanding!! The chicken was so flavorful. My whole family enjoyed the tasty meal. I used a six pound chicken, so I doubled the spices. I put an onion and celery leaves in the cavity before roasting. I cooked it at 350 degrees for about 2 hours. It was wonderful!! Quick to prepare and very delicious!!
* Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.
Spicy Rapid Roast Chicken
Serving Size: 1/8 of a recipe
Servings Per Recipe: 8
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 229
Calories from Fat: 131
We have so many top-rated chicken recipes, you'll never run out of dinner ideas again.
Imagine dinner making itself in the slow cooker while you relax or do other things.
Delicious recipes, party ideas, and cooking tips! Get a year of Allrecipes magazine for $7.99!
See how to make a quick, no-fuss roast chicken.
Learn a great trick for getting incredibly delicious roast chicken.
Learn how to make deviled roasted chicken with vegetables.


text:
Marion County Floodplain Program
Along with the Willamette River, Marion County has many streams and rivers that are subject to flooding. Under certain conditions, such as the storm events that occurred from December 1996 through February 1997, rain and melting snow cause these streams and rivers to overflow their banks. As you can see from these pictures, homes and property suffered significant damage:
Recent Changes to the County Floodplain Overlay ZonesTo conform with recent changes in federal law, the Marion County Board of Commissioners amended the Marion County Code floodplain overlay zones. The definitions of substantial damage and substantial improvement were changed, exemptions to regulations (particularly those pertaining to certain types of fences and small structures) were included, and the urban code was amended regarding structures exempt from elevation certificate requirements.
Substantial Improvement/Substantial DamageThe county's definitions of "substantial improvement" and "substantial damage" determine when a property that is being remodeled or rebuilt after being damaged is required to be brought up to current floodplain standards. When the threshold of substantial improvement or substantial damage is met, the existing structure must be brought up to current flood resistant standards. Generally, this could include elevating the first floor, installing openings in the foundation, and using flood resistant materials.
"Substantial improvement" means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either:
(1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions or
(2) Any alteration of a "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure."
"Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
The Board of Commissioners found that adopting the federal definition of 50% provides the correct balance between requiring homeowners to make existing structures safer from flooding and acknowledging the expense to homeowners of making a dwelling compliant with current floodplain development standards.
ExemptionsAccording to FEMA, certain lateral additions are not considered substantial improvements to an original structure if no structural modifications are made to the common wall or roof of the original building. Marion County has chosen to continue to apply this policy and certain lateral additions do not require the existing building be considered substantially improved and modified to meet current floodplain development standards.
Development Not Requiring an Elevation CertificatePreviously, the County had amended the Rural Floodplain Overlay Zone to exempt certain types of structures from the requirement to obtain an elevation certificate. This is based on guidance from FEMA of structures for which federal law does not require an elevation permit. The Board adopted the same change into the Urban Floodplain Overlay Zone to be consistent and to ensure requirements are the same for property owners whether they are developing in the urban or the rural area of the county.
Unless requested by FEMA, elevation certificates would not be required for the following uses:
1. Water dependent uses, such as boat ramps, docks, wells and well covers.2. Improvements resulting from cut or fill operations, such as berms, bank improvements, ponds and dams. 3. Small scale facilities necessary to serve other uses, such as kiosks and open picnic shelters. 4. Grading, such as for roadways, even where alteration of topography occurs. Floodplain Elevation Certificates - a list of FEMA elevation certificates (by address) submitted since 1979 for construction in the Marion County Special Flood Hazard Areas. Please note this does not include property inside any city within Marion County."Important Information for People Living In or Near Floodplains" - Useful information on recent flood events, causes of flooding in Marion County, flood insurance, flood safety tips, and a list of contacts."Purchasing Flood Insurance" - a handy reference guide on flood insurance requirements and procedures including obtaining insurance if your property is not in a designated flood area and a list of information the Planning Division provides."Information About Flood Insurance" - brochure produced by the Planning Division with general information on flood insurance and how it works, mandatory purchase requirements, and purchasing flood insurance when your property is not in a floodplain.


text:
Key Registration Dates & Deadlines
Spring, Fall 2015
Spring and Fall 2014
When You Give to CSULB, You Will Receive... Twice!
Yes, that's the way it works. And with a CSULB charitable gift annuity, you not only receive the satisfaction of helping to further the mission of the University, you will receive annuity payments for the rest of your life.
From 49er Athletics to the University Art Museum, we welcome your generous support.
There are several ways in which alumni and friends may contribute to CSULB: online, mail, phone, stocks and securities, planned gifts, matching gifts and payroll deduction.
Although Cal State Long Beach is a publicly supported institution, generous contributions to the Annual Fund are critical to keeping the University thriving.
Private support is increasingly important as the state contributions to the overall budget of CSULB have fallen below 50%.
NEW: Barbara and Ray Alpert - Endowed Chair in Jewish Studies


text:
... just like a poem...
Thanks for the article jjane!
Quite off-topic but: does anyone know from which soundtrack Yuzuru got his FS music? I know it's Notre Dame de Paris, but the original one had lyrics and the music that he used seemed to be an instrumental cover...Thanks in advance!
You guys are welcome. Would be awesome if our Japanese experts could take a look at the questionable parts (notes with question marks) in post #1108 :D
The foundation joke was funny. Personally Orser will forever be the "horse trader" in my mind, LOL!
4CC - Q&A session with Japanese fans after the FS small medal ceremony
(Aaron was present earlier but switched places with Han Yan for the medalists' photo and Q&A sessions)
nico nico douga (registration required to view the video; longer version as it was taped from the beginning of the Q&A session)
YT (taped right as Yuzu began to answer the first question; marked with * below)
Some words are hard to decipher though, due to the background noises. Hope that the translation does justice and still retains the gist of the questions and answers
MC: Let's give a huge applause to the skaters.
(Yuzu, Kevin and Yan starts leaving the venue by mistake, only to be summoned back for the Q&A Must have been embarrassed)
MC: Please raise your hand if you'd like to pose a question.
Q1: I'm directing my question to Mr. Hanyu. You've had some problems with your Lutzes this time and I'd like to know why you always looked over your shoulder the minute before initiating the jump take-off.
*Yuzu: Well, Brian suggested looking behind right before initiating the jump take-off. He said by doing so, I'll be able to confirm my body's axis and the flight path. So, that's why I did that. But more importantly, I've let myself stumble while on a stroll down Parisienne Walkways (Crowd: Laughs). I'll keep this in mind and do it properly next time. (Crowd: (Cheers) Do your best!)
[Parisienne Walkways = Pari no Sanpomichi (パリの散歩道) in Japanese. So, he was making a pun with the word Walkways (散歩道) and walk/stroll (散歩) to indirectly refer to his singled Lutz in the SP ]
MC: Has anyone got any questions for Mr. Kevin?
Q2: Is there any skater you aspire to be like?
Kevin: (In English)
MC: Is there anyone who has questions for Mr. Han Yan?
Q3: Um, why do you always take close-up pictures of your face and upload it on the net (on his personal weibo blog)?
Crowd: (Roars in laughters and cheers)
Yan: (Smiles sheepishly) Because I've got nothing else to do.
MC: Lastly, please pose a general question to all three skaters. C'mon guys, liven things up! Let's ask this little girl over here, who's probably the youngest among those who put up their hands just now.
Little girl: Please give me your autographs. (Crowd: Laughs)
MC: Let's ask another person, the one who wished to direct her question to Kevin just now.
Q4: Looking back, what do you think of your performance?
Kevin: (In English)
Yuzu: (Repeats what Kevin's said) Me too, right from the get-go of the short program up until the last pose in the free.... (Crowd: Laughs) Am I not allowed to say the same thing? Oh well, since I speak Japanese, I should give a proper answer. Firstly, I'm really disappointed for having missed the Lutz in the short and botched the quad sal in the free. Well, I did nothing but botched (a lot of things) this time. The result's turned out pretty disappointing, but I won't let it end like this, so I'd like to work hard to be able to stand in the same place as the person next to me is standing (1st place finish) at the Worlds Champs. And of course, we, Japanese men won't let this end on such a low note. Me and my seniors will band together, acknowledge this outcome and go the extra mile (for the next competition).
Crowd: (Cheers) Do your best! Admirable! Boss! Boy, you're really cool!
Yuzu: (Completely embarrassed, but there's no corner to hide in, so his knee-jerk reaction is to hide his face behind that scanty pint-sized box he's been holding )
Yan: I think things have turned out quite well. But it's a little bit risky to have this kind of result.
Last edited by zydeco88; 02-26-2013 at 03:27 PM.
Literal translation from the original text:
Considering that (such a statement) came from Coach Abe, she could've probably suggested something along the lines of overseas training camps to him.
(So the writer of the article was just making an assumption about what Coach Abe's suggestion could've probably meant. So, in reality, we're not really sure whether Abe Nanami proposed that Yuzu be trained full-time by an overseas coach or that he live temporarily overseas and develop his skills through overseas training camps)
Up until now, he has been relying on his unremitting passion and energy to push himself forward (throughout the program).
ガツガツ = a Japanese phonomime which can be used to describe voracious/incessant/burning desire for sth
パワー = power, but I suppose it means something like youthful energy/passion here.
Thanks for your hard work jjane45.
Thank YOU zydeco88!! That was a cute Q&A session, Yuzu was funny :D (cross-posting it to YAN Han thread)
And thank you so much for reviewing & correcting the most questionable parts of my translation, the last quote was especially hard and you framed it so beautifully!
Les Temps des Cathedrales:
Les Sans-papiers:
Tu Vas Me Detruire:
Danse mon Esmeralda:
Johnny Weir:
I am currently working with David Wilson, a master choreographer, on designing a new costume for Japanese national champion Yuzuru Hanyu, and I hope to help more skaters in this way.
For me its very important to support the young skaters because I remember when I was coming up, a lot of the older skaters were nervous about me, and weren't so nice all the time. So if young skaters ask for my help I'm always happy to do it. And Yuzuru's so talented and so interesting to look at on the ice, so I wanted to help even its just with his fashion. And it was his first year when he was competing at the senior level, so I wanted to help and give him an edge, so he didn't look like a baby.
Of course I will accept other people's ideas or wanting to work with me in some way, but I think it's just Yuzuru for me as my man skater. if lady or pair team ask me I would like to help but I'm very loyal to my friends. Yuzuru was the first and until he's done skating he would be the last.
Last edited by jjane45; 02-28-2013 at 10:08 PM.
And let's say this year's LP costume received a lot of... um mixed reviews? ;D
I agree! I think the new costume will be in London.
Last edited by ser22; 03-01-2013 at 02:36 AM.
I have mixed feelings about waiting for the new costume.: Biggrin:


text:
Will you devote one week to pray for a nation? Sign up and read the introduction.More »
Want to be involved in reaching France? Here's an opportunity for your church to get involved.More »
When we look at France, we see a land steeped in Christian history and traditions and a nation that has become very secular.More »
Vienna Virtual Prayer Guide
Stay connected with the work. Get weekly or monthly email updates with stories and prayer requests from workers serving among European Peoples.
Pregnancy can create many emotions: joy, sadness, surprise, anger, fear and love. Birthing a church has similarities.


text:
Pool Cue Accessories
Find all the accessories for your pool cues here at PoolDawg.com. Whether its pool cue chalk, cue tips, tip tools or shaft cleaners, PoolDawg has the billiards accessories you're looking for. We have gloves, joint protectors, bridges, training books and much more are all in stock and ready to ship.
PoolDawg Pool and Billiard Gloves
Our Price: $5.00
Save 28%
Eliminate the need for messy chalk and improve your game with the one size fits all Action glove. Perfect for left or right-handed players, this billiards glove can help your pool cue shaft slide easier through your bridge hand, thus reducing friction and making your stroke more consistent and accurate. Learn More


text:
Wedding Band "I Love College" Episode 2 airs Saturday, Nov. 17, at 10 p.m. (ET/PT) on TBS. Episode Synopsis: When Mother of the Bride plays a wedding at ComiCon, Tommy's performance draws the atte More »
Latest Episodes
Aired: November 17, 2012
A sightly sci-fi star (Megan Fox) is drawn to Tommy when his band plays at a Comic-Con event. Elsewhere, two geeky high-school boys try to hire the band to perform at a party.


text:
Griffin's latest album is the critically hailed Downtown Church, recorded just blocks from the Ryman at the Downtown Presbyterian Church. (Read more about the making of that album HERE.)
Produced by Buddy Miller, that album features Emmylou Harris, Raul Malo, Jim Lauderdale, Regina and Ann McCrary, Buddy and Julie Miller and other Nashville-based performers.
Griffin's band on the album includes Buddy Miller, John Deaderick and Bryan Owings.
Ticket prices are $45.50, $39.50 and $29.50.


text:
Important Notice
The Advanced Manufacturing Technician (AMT) Program was presented the 2013 National Career Pathways Partnership Excellence Award at the National Career Pathway Network Conference in San Antonio, Texas. The award was presented at the Awards Luncheon held on October 15, 2013. Read more
Would you like to earn a competitive wage while completing an Associate in Applied Science Industrial Maintenance Technology degree?
If so, apply to the award winning AMT Program Students who are sponsored by a manufacturer work three days a week and attend school full time two days a week. For more information check out our AMT webpage. The Bluegrass Advanced Manufacturing Center in Georgetown-Scott County offers:
North American Production Support Center (NAPSC)
1001 Cherry Blossom Way
Toyota Gate 3
Georgetown, KY 40324
Driving Directions to Georgetown Campus
The AMC offers manufacturers classes for their incumbent workers. We are also in collaboration with manufacturers who have joined together to develop a strong globally competitive and competent workforce. By participating in Kentucky Federation for Advanced Manufacturing Education (KY FAME) manufacturers can acquire the highly skilled workers they need. More information contact us:


text:
Join Now
Get rewarded every time you stay. Join iPrefer now to earn points redeemable for free nights, and enjoy VIP rewards including complimentary Internet, priority early check-in and late check-out, and upgrades.
Already a member? Login now. Are you a travel agent? Enroll your client now.
Your information is secure. We will never sell or trade any information you provide.


text:
Archive for the 'Ewing Irrigation' tag
Weekly round-up
Here's the latest cool stuff we found online this week. Enjoy, and have a great weekend!
- A good national round-up of water headlines from @EwingIrrigation
- The difference between PR and advertising.
- The secret formula for great customer service.
- Jeff Korhan on personal vs. business social media accounts.
- Design inspiration from Burle Marx.
- Richard Restuccia will speak on how to green your grounds program next week.
- Stewcare has a pretty robust YouTube channel.
- Above: How Bill Murray, tuxedos and a network of chubby rodents made Groundhog Day a national holiday.


text:
Ideally, when I want to talk to my daughter, I'd … well, talk to my daughter, using the time-honored interaction of human voices and ears. For better or worse, we now live in an age when calling someone on the phone and actually hearing a live voice answer the call is increasingly unlikely.
Sure, you can always leave a voicemail, but sometimes those linger unanswered for ages. The best way to cut through the clutter: texting.
According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 73 percent of adult cellphone owners now text. Young adults lead the pack with an astonishing average of 109.5 messages sent or received on a normal day, while older users text about a dozen times a day.
It's easy to see why texting has become more popular: Your messages are waiting whenever you have a chance to take a glance, they're easy to answer and it's faster to skim texts than listen to voicemail. And while smartphones make it easier to send and receive texts, even basic (read: inexpensive) handsets can be used to text.
Let's start with the fundamentals of text messaging, then consider ways to keep spending on it to a minimum, including my all-time favorite: free.
Exchanging Text Messages
Every cellphone can send and receive text messages. The cost depends on your cellphone plan.
Some monthly cellular plans don't include any text messages — which means you pay (usually around 20 cents a pop) for each text sent or received. Other plans include a fixed number of texts per month and charge per text when you go over the limit. Some plans include unlimited texting, although those are usually the most expensive.
How you compose your message depends on the kind of phone you're using. Smartphones with full QWERTY keyboards (push button or touch screen) are the easiest to use for texting.
Basic handsets with only a numeric keypad will do the trick, too. For those, you'll see several letters on each number button, just like you do on a landline phone. You're required to press the key multiple times to enter your intended letter, which can be tedious. To save keystrokes, many of these phones include the "T9" feature, which guesses what word you're typing and finishes it for you. This can be handy, though it takes some getting used to — check your manual.
Text messages are sent directly to the recipient's cellphone number, so keep your contacts list updated frequently and you'll speed up the process.
Two things to keep in mind:
First, you can send more than just written text. Many phones allow you to attach photos, videos and audio files to messages — although larger files might be blocked by your carrier.
Second, if you plan to send text messages internationally, check with your wireless carrier before hitting send. Global texts are far more expensive.
Next page: How to slash your cellphone bill and text for FREE. »