Obama Asks Congress to Delay Digital TV Switch

[GMichael]

Here's another source.

Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
#26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
#27 Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
#28 Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
#29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
#30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
#31 Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
#32 Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
#33 Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
#34 Malaysia: 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
#35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0229829 per 1,000 people
#36 Mauritius: 0.021121 per 1,000 people
#37 Hungary: 0.0204857 per 1,000 people
#38 Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
#39 Slovenia: 0.0179015 per 1,000 people
#40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#41 Czech Republic: 0.0169905 per 1,000 people
#42 Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#45 Chile: 0.014705 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#47 Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
#48 Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
#49 Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
#50 Tunisia: 0.0112159 per 1,000 people
#51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
#52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
#53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
#54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
#55 Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
#56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
#57 Indonesia: 0.00910842 per 1,000 people
#58 Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people
#59 Hong Kong: 0.00550804 per 1,000 people
#60 Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people
#61 Saudi Arabia: 0.00397456 per 1,000 people
#62 Qatar: 0.00115868 per 1,000 people
Weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

[Rich-n-Texas]

I can't believe I'm saying this about one of Rich's posts but: That's actually a profound question...

Pssst... GM, what did he mean by that?

[Ajani]

Here's another source.

Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
#2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
#3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
#4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
#5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
#8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
#9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
#10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
#13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
#22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
#23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
#26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
#27 Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
#28 Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
#29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
#30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
#31 Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
#32 Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
#33 Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people
#34 Malaysia: 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
#35 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0229829 per 1,000 people
#36 Mauritius: 0.021121 per 1,000 people
#37 Hungary: 0.0204857 per 1,000 people
#38 Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
#39 Slovenia: 0.0179015 per 1,000 people
#40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#41 Czech Republic: 0.0169905 per 1,000 people
#42 Iceland: 0.0168499 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#45 Chile: 0.014705 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#47 Italy: 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
#48 Spain: 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
#49 Germany: 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
#50 Tunisia: 0.0112159 per 1,000 people
#51 Netherlands: 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
#52 New Zealand: 0.0111524 per 1,000 people
#53 Denmark: 0.0106775 per 1,000 people
#54 Norway: 0.0106684 per 1,000 people
#55 Ireland: 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
#56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
#57 Indonesia: 0.00910842 per 1,000 people
#58 Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people
#59 Hong Kong: 0.00550804 per 1,000 people
#60 Japan: 0.00499933 per 1,000 people
#61 Saudi Arabia: 0.00397456 per 1,000 people
#62 Qatar: 0.00115868 per 1,000 people
Weighted average: 0.1 per 1,000 people

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Yep.. that list looks more like it... notice that both the UK (44) and Canada (46) are well below the USA (24)... sadly Jamaica is number 3

I don't believe that the US can eliminate the right to bear arms now (it's been a part of the Country for so long)... Stricter gun control can be implemented... don't take away the right, just make it harder for crazies to access and stock up on weapons...

[GMichael]

Pssst... GM, what did he mean by that?

That he thinks you're a moron and is shocked that he would see an intelligent question from anyone even remotely as stupid as you.


Disclaimer: This is not what I really think. Just busting on both of you. Please, don't send letters.

[Ajani]

That he thinks you're a moron and is shocked that he would see an intelligent question from anyone even remotely as stupid as you.


Disclaimer: This is not what I really think. Just busting on both of you. Please, don't send letters.

Yeah, that sounds about right...



Just Kidding... but ripping on Rich is just so much fun

[GMichael]

Poor Rich.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Jerks!!!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Don't feel sorry for me GM, FA's blown me more kisses than she's blown you.

[GMichael]

Don't feel sorry for me GM, FA's blown me more kisses than she's blown you.

I'm not gonna touch that one.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Well THAT'S a surprise.

[GMichael]

Well THAT'S a surprise.

Too easy.

(the set-up, not FA)

[nightflier]

What's interesting about those lists is that the countries at the top are mostly lawless (i.e. high-freedom?) countries, and the ones near the bottom are the most controlled and repressive ones, generally speaking. If I had my choice I'd probably want to be somewhere in the middle too. Of course, ya'll are just talking about murder. What about suicide by guns? I bet the list would be very different. Or here's another list I'd like to see: just handguns.

It's always been my hunch that our forefathers wanted everyone to own a riffle to shoot a bear, Indian, or possibly to join a militia, should a general uprising against a King George-like tyrant be necessary. But I doubt they intended for the citizens to own weapons they could conceal like handguns. I think the crucial difference is that a rifle would typically be used by a group of people under the command of a sergeant or other leadership-type figure, whereas the handgun is more for use by an individual. This individual is much more likely to be someone who is singularly out of step with the rest of the people around him/her, ie, he is probably one of your crazies.

I have children, and the one thing that scares the be-jeezus out of me is the thought that one of their class-mates brings a handgun to school and starts fantasizing about breaking his high-score on Gears of War. From what I've read, these kids typically are a bit unstable to begin with, sometimes because of bad parenting. But whatever the reason, it would be a whole lot harder from them to smuggle an AK47 into the classroom without arousing suspicion and hopefully quick response by the authorities.

Now I know that some of you gun-toting folks love the fact that you can conceal your handgun of choice until you are close enough in range to do some real damage to the "perp." But aren't you then also inviting the guy/gal to get close in the first place? To me this sounds a lot more like macho-Rambo kind of talk from people who really have never used a weapon in actual combat. I can assure you that in a dark alley, a few years of Aikido or Brazillian Jujitsu training would go much further than the extensive amount of time it would take you to pull out, point, aim, and fire that gun without shooting yourself.

I've been in a few such situations, and I can tell you that a short pipe or knife is far more effective. I know I'll probably get blasted for saying this but maybe Pix knows this from his years on the force and realizes there are smarter ways to defend himself. Suffice it to say that even if you had been carrying a rifle on your shoulder, in clear view, I think that would be a much more visible deterrent and you would be less likely to be assaulted in the first place. And I say this also because an experienced attacker will know that you can use that rifle as a blunt tool much faster than you can fire it.

My vote: get rid of handguns, especially Uzis and similarly fast-firing small weapons. Leave the rifles alone. We would quickly drop down on those lists if that came to pass. If you have kids, you can't possibly think they are safer now.

[GMichael]

What's interesting about those lists is that the countries at the top are mostly lawless (i.e. high-freedom?) countries, and the ones near the bottom are the most controlled and repressive ones, generally speaking. If I had my choice I'd probably want to be somewhere in the middle too. Of course, ya'll are just talking about murder. What about suicide by guns? I bet the list would be very different. Or here's another list I'd like to see: just handguns.

It's always been my hunch that our forefathers wanted everyone to own a riffle to shoot a bear, Indian, or possibly to join a militia, should a general uprising against a King George-like tyrant be necessary. But I doubt they intended for the citizens to own weapons they could conceal like handguns. I think the crucial difference is that a rifle would typically be used by a group of people under the command of a sergeant or other leadership-type figure, whereas the handgun is more for use by an individual. This individual is much more likely to be someone who is singularly out of step with the rest of the people around him/her, ie, he is probably one of your crazies.

I have children, and the one thing that scares the be-jeezus out of me is the thought that one of their class-mates brings a handgun to school and starts fantasizing about breaking his high-score on Gears of War. From what I've read, these kids typically are a bit unstable to begin with, sometimes because of bad parenting. But whatever the reason, it would be a whole lot harder from them to smuggle an AK47 into the classroom.

Now I know that some of you gun-toting folks love the fact that you can conceal your handgun of choice until you are close enough in range to do some real damage to the "perp," but aren't you then also inviting the guy/gal to get close in the first place? To me this sounds a lot more like macho-Rambo kind of talk from people who really have never used a weapon in actual combat. I can assure you that in a dark alley, a few years of Aikido or Brazillian Jujitsu training would go much further than the extensive amount of time it would take you to point and aim that gun. I've been in a few such situations, and I can tell you that a short pipe or knife is far more effective. I know I'll probably get blasted for saying this but maybe Pix knows this from his years on the force and realizes there are smarter ways to defend himself. Suffice it to say that even if you had been carrying a rifle on your shoulder, in clear view, I think that would be a much more visible deterrent and you would be less likely to be assaulted in the first place. And I say this also because an experienced attacker will know that you can use that rifle as a blunt tool much faster than you can fire it.

I agree with this. Hand guns should be illegal for anyone who isn't in the police or armed forces. At least, that's how I feel about it.
You want to hunt? A rifle is perfect. You want to shoot people? That's what hand guns are for. Denied.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=Mr Peabody][QUOTE=pixelthis]I am not "anti gun".
Doesnt anybody on this board have any reading comprehension skills?
A libertarian once was asked how far the ownership of guns should go, and he replied
"well, if everybody was packin nukes there sure wouldnt be a 40% tax rate, now would there?".

* Huh? What's that mean?

That means that our govt no longer fears the people.
Fear a govt that doesnt fear the people


I carried a gun for fifteen years as a law officer.

* It would seem as a law officer you'd know first hand what scum lurks in the streets and wouldn't be without your gun until death.

I know better than you.
Study after study has shown that the average joe tends to think there is more crime than there actually is, and I HAVE FOUND THIS TO BE THE CASE.
Add to the fact that training and experience tend to lead me not to worry as much over a
"gun totin maniac".
When they start lootin grocery stores then I will get a gun.
Until then you have a bigger threat from the govt than street thugs.
Street thugs arent nearly as well armed and tend to rob you only once.
The govt does it every year

I like what Robert heinlein said about guns.
"You are a pink slug made up mostly of water, if you have a gun you are a pink slug
made mostly of water with a gun.

* You like that? Dr. Seuss wrote more profound words. What Heinlein wrote makes no sense at all. You need to read better philosophy. If he's a Libertarian no wonder they never gain traction as a party.

Robert Heinlein was a SCI-FI writer, some think one of the greatest, and also an ex
NAVY PILOT with seal training.
The fact that you dont understand this means that when (not if BUT WHEN) hungry
mobs start roaming the streets you should basically hope for a quick death.
Handguns (the favorite target of liberals) is for short range work only.
And training needs to be constant as does maintenence, as with long guns.
As for the statement it is NOT philosopical, nor is it intended to be.
Basically it is saying that a human being is on average not that good in a fight,
and without training a gun doesnt improve his odds.
It depends more on teh fight in the dog than the dog in the fight


Guns are a tool and can be quite handy.

* Whatcha going to do when you need your tool, tool?

Theres plenty around, trust me I can get to one reletively easy

Liberals think they are a totem of evil(most liberals are like savages with a complete
set of supersitous beleifs).

* Who's "they"? Are you saying Liberals think of themselves as totems of evil? Now you say Liberals worship the devil? Isn't Supersitous an old folks disease?

Read what I said,(or lay off of the sauce).
Liberals think GUNS are a totem of evil, and if you get rid of them you will have a "better" society, despite all evidence to the contrary.
They ignore what happened in England and Austrailia when guns were banned


Here's some philosophy for you.
" You took his land and you ate his corn.
And on his grave your land was born
You took his pride and fed him dirt
You wished him winter without a shirt
And you called this red man savage
After you crushed him, you helped him up
To let him drink from a empty cup
You gave him the navy without the fleet
You made him lick your hand and kiss your feet
You called this mad dog savage
Well I found a book one day
Looked up red and white to see what it say
One was a savage, the other unlearned
Like a look in the mirror, the tables were turned
Because history has named you savage.....
------J D Blackfoot

Has nothing to do with anything
I am 25% indian BTW.
AMERICA NO LONGER BELONGED to the indians anymore than anybody else,
in fact they killed the original inhabitants when they first came here.
America is a vast land full of untold wealth, to expect it to be left alone so that
a bunch of savages can roam free on it(despoiling the land as much as any white man did)
would be naive, even for you. Somebody was going to move here.
And considering that the Chinese were here first and their colonies failed , the indian should consider themselves lucky.
If the Chinese (or vikings) had taken this land there would be few if any indians left



I tell you one thing, without a means to defend yourself there is no political freedom
whatsoever.

* Ah! I get it, Libertarians are for no political freedom, hence, no gun.

I HAVE NO GUN BECAUSE I HAVE NO NEED FOR ONE AT THIS TIME.
I have no problem with anyone owning a gun or anything else as long as they dont use it to practice aggression.
I dont have a motorcycle either or sailboat for that matter, does that mean that I am against those too?
The world will have to get a lot worse (which it is currently doing ) before I GET A GUN.
I can tell you one day, the day the govt bans guns IS THE DAY I WILL GET ONE.
And liberals arent for "political" freedom in paticular, that are for FREEDOM
IN GENERAL.



The first thing tyrants do when they take over is confiscate the weapons.

* Well you'll be a short order when they do

???
The liberal eagerness to do so betrays their real agenda more than anything else.:

Confinscating guns would be like sweeping sand from the beach. My take on gun control, I don't think criminals go into the local sporting goods store to buy their weapons. On the other hand, if their weren't any out here to steal.... Man, I hate when I debate myself. Let me and myself hash this out a bit and I'll tell you more later.

Yeah, like, why dont you go off into a corner and figure things out, because you obviously
have NO CLUE as to what you are talking about.
I will give you a clue, banning guns has NOTHING to do with criminal behaivor,
that is just a pretext for taking guns from the people they fear the most...
A WELL ARMED POPULACE.
And no banning would be impossible, but they can make it very difficult on those who insist on their right to bear arms.

[pixelthis]

Pssst... GM, what did he mean by that?

BASICALLY HE IS SAYING what we all know, basically that you are the "blond"
on this site.
Sorry to have to break it to ya(not really).

[BradH]

...in fact they killed the original inhabitants when they first came here....
And considering that the Chinese were here first and their colonies failed , the indian should consider themselves lucky. If the Chinese (or vikings) had taken this land there would be few if any indians left

By original inhabitants do you mean the wooly mammoths and running bears? Or is it the Chinese who were here first? Oh wait, the Chinese colonies failed. But was that because they were killed by invading Indians? Is that why the Indians should consider themselves lucky? Because they killed the Chinese? Oh wait, if the Chinese or Vikings had taken the land there would be few Indians left. Hold on, are the Chinese supposed to be lucky or the Indians? Because if the Chinese are lucky then shouldn't the Vikings be lucky too? Oh wait, their colony failed. Was that because the Indians killed the Vikings? Is that why they were lucky? Because if the Chinese colonies failed and the Indians weren't here yet does that mean the Vikings killed the Chinese? But wait, the Vikings and Chinese would've killed the Indians so the Indians are lucky that didn't happen because there would've been too many Vikings left compared to the Chinese after the Chinese got killed by the Vikings. Maybe the Indians are the lucky ones because the Vikings and Chinese killed each other before the Indians invaded.

[Feanor]

I agree with this. Hand guns should be illegal for anyone who isn't in the police or armed forces. At least, that's how I feel about it.
You want to hunt? A rifle is perfect. You want to shoot people? That's what hand guns are for. Denied.

Some hardware of mine. (BTW, I've never shot anybody.)
...

[Rich-n-Texas]

BASICALLY HE IS SAYING what we all know, basically that you are the "blond"
on this site.
Sorry to have to break it to ya(not really).

Are you basically calling me a girl retart?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Watchya got there Bill Bailey? Sweet pieces!

[Ajani]

I agree with this. Hand guns should be illegal for anyone who isn't in the police or armed forces. At least, that's how I feel about it.
You want to hunt? A rifle is perfect. You want to shoot people? That's what hand guns are for. Denied.

I'm with you and Nightflier on this one: hunting rifles are fine... but personal murder tools are a definite no...

NF dealt with the right to bear arms really well: people always forget that those were very different times - England might come back at anytime to reclaim you, the Indians you stole the land from might get violent, and the slaves might rebel.... you needed a gun back then... in 2009 are you really worried that the Brits are gonna return?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Not in the slightest Ajani. I enjoy going to the range with my buddies and popping off a few rounds at that target 50' or so away. I enjoy competition. Is that so wrong?

[Luvin Da Blues]

I enjoy competition.

I hope that competitive spirit wanes when your using your other gun.

[Rich-n-Texas]

What other gun? The only other gun I have shoots blanks.

[bobsticks]

TMI alert!!

[Mr Peabody]

[QUOTE=pixelthis][QUOTE=Mr Peabody][QUOTE=pixelthis]I am not "anti gun".
Doesnt anybody on this board have any reading comprehension skills?

* Yeah, everybody but you.

A libertarian once was asked how far the ownership of guns should go, and he replied
"well, if everybody was packin nukes there sure wouldnt be a 40% tax rate, now would there?".
That means that our govt no longer fears the people.
Fear a govt that doesnt fear the people

* A reason the people should bare arms. Heard of the minutemen?

I carried a gun for fifteen years as a law officer.
I know better than you.
Study after study has shown that the average joe tends to think there is more crime than there actually is, and I HAVE FOUND THIS TO BE THE CASE.
Add to the fact that training and experience tend to lead me not to worry as much over a
"gun totin maniac".
When they start lootin grocery stores then I will get a gun.
Until then you have a bigger threat from the govt than street thugs.
Street thugs arent nearly as well armed and tend to rob you only once.
The govt does it every year

* You have clearly lost touch with reality.

I like what Robert heinlein said about guns.
"You are a pink slug made up mostly of water, if you have a gun you are a pink slug
made mostly of water with a gun.
Robert Heinlein was a SCI-FI writer, some think one of the greatest, and also an ex
NAVY PILOT with seal training.

* Robert Heinlein did tricks for fish?

The fact that you dont understand this means that when (not if BUT WHEN) hungry
mobs start roaming the streets you should basically hope for a quick death.

* Why? my neighbor is fatter than me.

Handguns (the favorite target of liberals) is for short range work only.
And training needs to be constant as does maintenence, as with long guns.
As for the statement it is NOT philosopical, nor is it intended to be.
Basically it is saying that a human being is on average not that good in a fight,
and without training a gun doesnt improve his odds.
It depends more on teh fight in the dog than the dog in the fight

* Humans aren't good in a fight? What are you talking about? Against what? Other humans that aren't any good either? And, if said humans are fighting and only one had a gun my money is on that one.

Guns are a tool and can be quite handy.

* I'd say, especially against roming hungry mobs wanting to eat me.

Liberals think they are a totem of evil(most liberals are like savages with a complete
set of supersitous beleifs).
Read what I said,(or lay off of the sauce).
Liberals think GUNS are a totem of evil, and if you get rid of them you will have a "better" society, despite all evidence to the contrary.
They ignore what happened in England and Austrailia when guns were banned

* What did men do before guns? All of you answer this. They still killed each other with whatever they could get their hands on, arrows, spears, clubs etc. Getting rid of guns isn't going to make this a garden of Eden, men have to change their nature. You think that will happen? How do prisoners in jail kill each other? If some one is intent on killing they will find a way.

Here's some philosophy for you.
" You took his land and you ate his corn.
And on his grave your land was born
You took his pride and fed him dirt
You wished him winter without a shirt
And you called this red man savage
After you crushed him, you helped him up
To let him drink from a empty cup
You gave him the navy without the fleet
You made him lick your hand and kiss your feet
You called this mad dog savage
Well I found a book one day
Looked up red and white to see what it say
One was a savage, the other unlearned
Like a look in the mirror, the tables were turned
Because history has named you savage.....
------J D Blackfoot

Has nothing to do with anything

* Has to do with everything. They nature of man.

I am 25% indian BTW.

* I doubt that as I doubt you were every in law enforcement.
AMERICA NO LONGER BELONGED to the indians anymore than anybody else,
in fact they killed the original inhabitants when they first came here.
America is a vast land full of untold wealth, to expect it to be left alone so that
a bunch of savages can roam free on it(despoiling the land as much as any white man did)
would be naive, even for you. Somebody was going to move here.
And considering that the Chinese were here first and their colonies failed , the indian should consider themselves lucky.
If the Chinese (or vikings) had taken this land there would be few if any indians left

* Pure lunacy. What are you going to do when I walk my butt up in your house and make my self to home? Somebody was going to live there might as well be me. Oh, some one already does you say..... POW!! So now they don't. Honey tell the kids to get this blob off the floor and let's fire up this Vizio. Remind me next time to take over a house with a better TV.

I tell you one thing, without a means to defend yourself there is no political freedom
whatsoever.

* I tell, you, one thing, as long as our government is bought, and paid to think and act a certain way, THERE'S NO POLITICAL FREEDOM!!

Yeah, like, why would you go off into a corner and figure things out, because you obviously know everything about what you are talking about.
I will give you a clue, banning guns has NOTHING to do with criminal behaivor,
that is just a pretext for taking guns from the people they fear the most...
A WELL ARMED POPULACE.

* See, you are talking one thing and living another. You want to wait to get the flu before you take the shot. Here's a clue, at that point, it's too late.