View Poll Results: Do gun control laws help reduce crime?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Less guns equals less crime

    0 0%
  • No, it only disarms the law-abiding citizens

    3 100.00%
  • doesn’t have an effect one way or another

    0 0%
Page 1 of 20 12345 ... Last
  1. #1
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts

    Summer gun wars: Jesse Jackson leads the way

    Deputy Mayor Robbed at Gunpoint
    By Allison Klein and David Nakamura - Washington Post Staff Writers
    Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page B03


    The man in charge of fixing the District's ailing schools might be more focused this week on another troubled aspect of the city -- public safety -- after he was robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight while walking home from the Metro.

    Victor Reinoso, the deputy mayor for education, was walking in the 6800 block of Fifth Street NW at 7:25 p.m. Monday when he was held up by two men, police said. One man, wearing a pink shirt, pointed a black and silver handgun at Reinoso and demanded that he drop his briefcase, police said.

    The second assailant picked up the briefcase and ordered, "Give me your cellphone," which Reinoso did, according to a police report. The men then told Reinoso to hand over his wallet, and he complied.

    Reinoso, 38, was not hurt.

    "He was pretty lucky," police Cmdr. Hilton Burton said, noting robberies can end in violence.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062600732.html



    D.C.'s Gun Ban Is a Joke
    7/9/2007

    http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=265

    Just how worthless is Washington, D.C.'s gun ban? It's so bad in our nation's capitol that a deputy mayor was recently robbed at gunpoint.

    Victor Reinoso is lucky to be alive today, but do you think he'll be speaking out about the pointlessness of D.C.'s gun ban? Not if he wants to keep his job, he won't.

    Criminals don't care about gun laws ... anymore than they care about D.C.'s complete gun ban

    Ultimately, Victor Reinoso's robbery probably won't mean much when it comes to public policy in Washington, D.C. After all, they've already stuck with the ban for 30 years- what's one more innocent victim?


    ----------


    You’ll recall that the city’s handgun ban was struck down by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit earlier this year. The Harvard Law Bulletin has a new overview of the looming Supreme Court showdown. http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bu.../feature_3.php


    Continuing his war on gun owners, the Rev. Jesse Jackson has announced a 25-city, anti-gun protest on August 25.


    The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is calling on Second Amendment supporters to counter-protest. Mark it on your calendars: http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press...er_protest.htm

    While Rev. Jesse Jackson is feverishly organizing a 25-city anti-gun protest on Tuesday, Aug. 28, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) wants gun owners to visit gun shops and shooting ranges, and contact their state and federal lawmakers on that date to demand that they support our Second Amendment rights.

    Jackson’s day of national protest is timed on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington, D.C.

    “The great hypocrisy here,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb, “is that Dr. King’s historic march was to promote and defend civil rights. What Jesse Jackson is planning is designed to crush America’s most important civil right. A right that Dr. King exercised by owning a handgun.”

    Jackson wants to limit the number of firearms a person may purchase in a calendar year, place new restrictions on who is allowed to legally own a handgun, and mandate longer waiting periods.

    “While Jackson and his gun-grabbing cronies want to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for average Americans to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said, “gun owners can exercise their Constitutional rights, and tell their lawmakers to defend the Second Amendment. They can visit a gun shop, buy a gun or ammunition, or visit a range and exercise their rights.

    “Being from Chicago,” Gottlieb said, “it is astonishing that Jackson has failed to see the correlation between that city’s Draconian handgun ban and Chicago’s violent crime rate, yet he wants to lead a nationwide protest against a constitutionally-protected civil right. Rev. Jackson evidently has forgotten the question raised in Luke, Chapter 6: ‘Can the blind lead the blind’?”

    “Holding law-abiding gun owners responsible for crimes they did not commit, which is what restrictive gun laws do, is like bearing false witness against thy neighbor,” Gottlieb said. “I might suggest that anybody joining in this protest remember the words of Matthew, who said ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Summer gun wars: Jesse Jackson leads the way
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #2
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Lawyers, Guns and Money
    This time, the Supreme Court may have to decide what the Second Amendment means. But how much will really change?

    By Elaine McArdle


    http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bu.../feature_3.php


    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
    U.S. Constitution, Amendment II


    Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District of Columbia’s stringent gun-control regulations, ruling squarely that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.

    In the cultural and legal battle over gun control, the decision was the proverbial shot heard ’round the world.

    The ruling—in Parker v. District of Columbia—marked the first time a gun law has been found unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment, and it set up a direct conflict among the circuits. Nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the view that the amendment guarantees only the collective right of organized state militias to bear arms, not an individual’s right. (A 5th Circuit panel found that individuals have gun rights but upheld the regulation in question, so both sides claim that ruling as a victory.)

    In May, when the full D.C. Circuit Court refused to grant a rehearing en banc, the stage seemed set for a showdown in the Supreme Court, which has thus far managed to dodge the question of whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms.

    According to HLS Professor Mark Tushnet, author of “Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle Over Guns” (Oxford University Press, 2007), earlier petitions were cluttered by issues that allowed the Court to decline review or avoid the Second Amendment question. But Parker “is more straightforward,” Tushnet says, and the Court will have a tougher time avoiding the issue.

    If Parker is the long-awaited “clean” case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual rights-view of the Second Amendment—including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case—have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review. For one thing, it is a civil case, not a criminal one, and the six plaintiffs, in the words of NRA President Sandra Froman ’74, are “ordinary people whose lives are impacted by not having the right to protect themselves.” They include a woman who lives in a high-crime area and has been threatened by drug dealers, a gay man assaulted because of his sexual orientation and a special police officer for the Federal Judicial Center.

    In addition, the laws challenged in Parker are among the most stringent in the nation: Handguns cannot be registered in the district; those registered before a 1976 ban cannot be carried from one room to another without a license; and any firearm in a home must be kept unloaded and either locked or disassembled.

    Also important, says Tushnet, is the fact that because Parker emanates from the District of Columbia, where only federal law applies, it doesn’t involve the overlaying question of whether the Second Amendment applies to a state by way of the 14th Amendment—a question that clouded an earlier case involving one city’s complete ban on handgun possession. He adds that a number of states urged the Court not to take that case, and the solicitor general did the same in another one.

    Pro-gun activists like Froman are confident that the Court will hear an appeal by the district in Parker, and they say that they couldn’t have gotten this far without help from an unlikely quarter: liberal law professors. In the past 20 years, several prominent legal scholars known for liberal views, including Professor Laurence Tribe ’66, have come to believe that the Second Amendment supports the individual-rights view. In the 2000 edition of his treatise “American Constitutional Law,” Tribe broke from the 1978 and 1988 editions by endorsing that view. Other liberal professors, including Akhil Reed Amar at Yale Law School and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas at Austin, agree.

    “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Tribe said in a recent New York Times interview. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

    Froman says the fact that Tribe and others reversed their interpretation in recent years has had enormous influence. Indeed, the majority opinion in Parker, written by Judge Laurence H. Silberman ’61, referred specifically to Tribe’s revised conclusion.

    The 27 words of the Second Amendment may be the most hotly contested in the Constitution. Gun-control advocates and opponents read its tortured syntax entirely differently. Each side resorts to what Tushnet calls “a simplified version of constitutional analysis” to support its viewpoint, looking solely at the wording of the amendment and what the language meant in 1791 rather than at whether society has changed in the meantime and what judicial precedents offer guidance. In “virtually no other area in constitutional law” is analysis done that way, he says, although he’s not sure why.

    “There’s very little guidance on what the actual meaning of the Second Amendment is,” says Froman, a Tucson lawyer who was interviewed by the Bulletin when she returned to HLS in early April to speak on a panel. “The courts have talked a lot about the Second Amendment but have always been nibbling around the periphery. There’s never really been ‘Let’s explain and elaborate on what it means.’”

    For Anthony A. Williams ’87, who served as mayor of the District of Columbia from 1999 until earlier this year and vigorously enforced the district’s gun laws during his tenure, the meaning of the amendment is unambiguous, no matter what interpretive theory is used. “Let’s take [Justice Antonin] Scalia’s approach,” he says. “I think the framers’ intent was to see to it that [through] militias, states as sovereign entities had a right to arm themselves. To me, it’s not about individuals—it’s about groups.”

    But Froman firmly reaches the opposite conclusion: “A lot of people say that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment—the words ‘A well regulated militia …’— limits the active clause pertaining to bearing arms. They want to say that means you can only exercise the right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia, meaning as part of the National Guard, forgetting that the National Guard didn’t exist then.”

    “Remember,” Froman adds, “the Second Amendment guarantees a right—it does not confer a right. It’s God-given. It’s natural. The right of self-survival is a basic instinct of any organism.” The Constitution “acknowledges that.”

    Tushnet believes that if the Court grants certiorari, it will ultimately overturn the decision of the D.C. panel. “My gut feeling is that there are not five votes to say the individual-rights position is correct,” he says. “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy comes from a segment of the Republican Party that is not rabidly pro-gun rights and indeed probably is sympathetic to hunters but not terribly sympathetic to handgun owners. Then the standard liberals will probably say ‘collective rights.’”

    But Tribe is less confident of that prediction. Should the case reach the Supreme Court, he told The New York Times, “there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed.”

    If that happens, Tushnet says, it is unlikely to end all gun regulation, because the Court would probably tailor its decision narrowly to reach consensus. The three-judge panel in Parker struck down only D.C.’s tight laws. “Once you recognize [gun ownership] as an individual right, then the work shifts to figuring out what type of regulation is permissible,” he says.

    Tushnet says the gun-control debate is an intractable one in which neither side will move, and a constitutional “answer” from the Supreme Court will be something of a nonstarter. Like the arguments over abortion and stem-cell research, he says, the argument over guns is in truth another battle in the culture wars and cannot be solved by constitutional analysis because neither side can be persuaded.

    No gun-control strategy with any chance of surviving the political process would have a significant effect on overall gun violence or crime, Tushnet believes. To say so publicly would be the boldest and most honest stand that a major politician or candidate could take, he adds.

    (( continues ))
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #3
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    The tragic shootings on the campus of Virginia Tech seem to have changed no one’s position: “People responded to it in exactly the way you would expect,” Tushnet says. Supporters of gun control sought stricter laws and better enforcement, and the NRA advocated that teachers and others be armed to protect themselves.

    Activists on both sides bear out that observation. Williams believes that the district’s gun laws were lowering the human and financial costs of gun-related violence. “When I started as mayor, we had well over 200 homicides a year,” he says. “We brought that down to below 160, so we made serious inroads in reducing violent crime; but still, in many neighborhoods, the situation is horrific.”

    Says Froman: “Statistically, the parts of the country with the greatest number of firearms have the lowest rates of violent crime with guns. It’s easy to understand why. Let’s say there were 30 people in this room, and this was a state that allowed people to carry concealed weapons for self-defense, and a criminal walked in. At least half the people in the room would draw down on the criminal. That would be the end of it.”

    Froman had nothing to do with guns until, some 25 years ago, someone tried to break into her Los Angeles home. “I was terrified,” she says. “It was a real epiphany for me, for someone who had never been a victim of crime, who never thought I needed to protect myself.” The next day, she walked into a gun shop to purchase a weapon. She has been a staunch gun advocate ever since.

    Does Froman ever worry about repercussions, given that she’s at the center of such a heated issue? “I live in a very rural area, at the end of a long driveway,” she says. “People ask me, ‘Don’t you get scared?’ I say, ‘Are you kidding? I have a clear shot all the way to the road.’”



    JMHO -- if you were to look into the hypocrisy of this even further you would find that its Rosie O’Donnell all over again…….. I guarantee you that the “Reverend” Jessie Jackson’s body guards are packing heat!
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #4
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Our view on firearms control:
    Sellers at gun shows can skirt background checks

    Mon Jul 9, 12:22 AM ET


    Worried that gangs in Richmond, Va., were becoming a major presence at local gun shows in 2005, officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) joined with local police to crack down hard. They flooded two Richmond events with officers, aggressively confronted would-be gun buyers and conducted mass follow-up checks to verify that buyers actually lived where they said they did.

    There was a quick backlash. Complaints from honest gun buyers and show operators reached Congress, and in early 2006, a House subcommittee held hearings. An ATF official told Congress it hadn't worked at a Richmond gun show since.

    Too bad. While the ATF conceded it was heavy-handed in Richmond and promised to do better, leaving gun shows unpoliced is a bad idea, questioned even among show promoters and gun dealers. Richmond gun dealer John White told the House subcommittee that the ATF had chased out the gangs that infested the Richmond shows. He said dealers generally "value the ATF being available to us at the gun shows" to clear up legal questions and enforce legal dealing. A new report on the Richmond incidents by the Justice Department's inspector general found that the Richmond complaints were an aberration, that most shows welcome ATF's presence, and that ATF's actions led to many prosecutions.


    A small change in the law would help. Under current law, licensed dealers at gun shows operate the same way they do at gun shops. Buyers have to undergo a background check to make sure they can purchase a gun legally. Felons, people with histories of mental illness and a few others cannot. But individual gun owners or collectors who sell their own firearms at shows don't have to check buyers' backgrounds, inviting illegal purchases, no matter the dealer's honesty.


    It's hard to get a grip on the size of the problem. Gun advocates cite a 2001 Justice Department report in which prison inmates said they had gotten just 0.7% of the guns they used to commit crimes from gun shows. But gun control advocates cite a 2000 ATF study that found gun shows were the second biggest source of illegal guns (after crooked gun dealers), accounting for some 26,000 illegal guns over 2 years.


    Regardless, rules for gun shows are a place the two sides should be able to agree. The shows are a perfectly legal way for enthusiasts and dealers to meet, talk, buy and sell. But unscrupulous buyers and sellers skirt the law and use them to channel guns to people the law says shouldn't have them.


    Several states have closed this loophole by requiring that all sales at gun shows involve background checks. Private sellers have to walk buyers over to a nearby licensed dealer for a background check that usually takes just a few minutes. This isn't excessively onerous, and it hasn't stopped gun shows where it's required. A new study by a doctor who observed 28 gun shows in California and nearby states found shows thriving but noted that many would-be buyers backed away when they realized they'd be subject to a background check.


    Closing the gun show loophole wouldn't end illegal sales, but it's a minimally invasive way to stop guns from getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. It's not on the congressional agenda now, but it should be. It's more useful than trying to intimidate federal agencies policing gun shows.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...JWNmciJaas0NUE



    Opposing view: There is no loophole
    Mon Jul 9, 12:21 AM ET
    By Philip Van Cleave


    Let's be clear about gun shows: There is nothing that can be done at a gun show that cannot be done legally outside of a gun show.

    The terms "gun show loophole" and "unlicensed gun dealer" are fabricated to mislead the public into thinking that gun shows permit gun sales that would be forbidden anywhere else. The intent of this scheme is to villainize gun shows, making the public more receptive to additional restrictions.

    This is just the first step in a "private gun-sale registration" scheme.

    Gun banners know they must take small steps, placing more and more hurdles to gun ownership so that fewer law abiding citizens will go to the trouble of purchasing a firearm.

    None of the hurdles would affect criminals. According to a 2001 U.S. Department of Justice report, only 0.7% of criminals got their guns from shows. A gun purchased from a dealer at a gun show requires the same background check as a gun purchased at the dealer's store. No loophole.

    In most states, a gun purchased from a person's private collection requires no background check, whether purchased at a gun show or at someone's home. Again, no loophole.

    A gun is like any other private property: It's yours to sell whenever you wish. Of course, gun banners would call you an "unlicensed gun dealer."

    Hogwash. Does selling your personal car make you an "unlicensed car dealer?"

    Gun banners want to force dealers to do background checks on private sales. That would put a heavy burden on dealers who must keep the paperwork for decades and delay their own sales while running those checks. That would drive up the cost of buying a gun, creating another hurdle for the prospective law abiding purchaser.

    Of course, closing the imaginary "gun show loophole" is only the first step. Gun banners will then say that since private sales are not allowed at gun shows, the "home gun-sale loophole" must be closed.

    Ultimately, complete gun registration is the goal. Where there is registration, there is confiscation, as gun owners in California, Illinois, New York and Washington, D.C., learned when authorities confiscated guns that were banned after the owner had bought and registered them.

    Philip Van Cleave is president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (www.vcdl.org), a gun rights group.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...XELAuuFx.s0NUE
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #5
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Thompson on Horseback
    By Richard Cohen
    Tuesday, July 31, 2007; Page A19


    It's a shame that Fred Thompson is too young to have played Matt Dillon, the no-nonsense marshal of Dodge City in the long-running radio and television series "Gunsmoke." That role on the radio went to William Conrad (later TV's "Cannon") and on television to James Arness. But whether on TV or radio, Marshal Dillon had the same policy for cowboys when they rode into Dodge: They had to surrender their guns.

    The Marshal Dillon Rule is based on common sense, not to mention the law of averages: The more guns you have, the greater the chance they will be used. But both common sense and the law of averages escape presidential candidates, especially Republicans looking to assert their conservative bona fides. When it comes to gun control, they not only have to be against it but they have to insist -- in raging opposition to common sense -- that the more guns around, the safer everyone is.

    This is how Thompson articulated his anti-gun-control position recently on National Review Online. According to Thompson, the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech ( 32 dead) proved not that the shooter should have been in some sort of tightly controlled mental-health program or that it was too easy in Virginia for a nut to buy semiautomatic weapons, but -- incredibly enough -- that there were too few guns on campus. If the university did not prohibit guns, students would have been able "to protect themselves" -- presumably by reaching into their backpacks and gunning down the shooter.

    Marshal Dillon begs to differ. He might point out that young people -- especially young men -- sometimes drink too much and have hormonal surges that compare, on a mild day, to Vesuvius on Aug. 24 of the year 79. (Goodbye, Pompeii.) To think that a university president in his or her right mind would permit students to carry guns on campus so stretches the term "right mind" that it loses all meaning.

    Mind you, while I subscribe to the Marshal Dillon Rule, I am on record as being sympathetic to those who like to keep a gun in the house. This is because I was burglarized one very dark night by a klutz of a thief who burst though my back door and ran around the first floor making so much noise that I was certain he was coming for me. (This was before the deranged had recourse to e-mail.) I very much wanted a gun -- not to whack the intruder but merely to protect my life.

    A little moderation is in order here. The rational desire to protect yourself and your family in your own home -- whether or not you approve of guns -- is understandable. Allowing college kids to party with guns -- and don't tell me they won't -- is another matter entirely. But Thompson, out to show he can non-think with the best of the right wing, has outlined a position that suggests he has either lost his mind or will out-pander the nimblest of them to become the GOP presidential nominee. I think it is the latter.

    As if to make my point, Thompson suggested in a separate piece that scientists who believe in global warming could be likened to those -- the papacy, actually -- who suppressed Galileo. The metaphor is a bit tortured, but Thompson managed to mock scientists by saying that other planetary bodies -- "Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto treaty" -- are also warming up. That may be the case, but it does not mean that little ol' Earth is not also warming up -- and since we live here it is best that something be done. The solemn obligation of all presidential candidates is not to offer moral support to those who would further pollute the atmosphere but to suggest, even to Republicans, that what goes up sooner or later is breathed in. Thompson can look that up.

    His is the grand march of the empty suit, a modern-day Georges Boulanger, the 19th-century French general who cut such a marvelous figure while mounted that he gave us the phrase "man on horseback."

    Now Thompson is the "man on horseback." It is his role to become the true conservative of the GOP nomination contest -- the one, that is, who has the best chance of winning. He is supposedly more reliably conservative than John McCain, more indigenously conservative than Mitt Romney and more consistently conservative than the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, and, of course, he is much better known than almost all of the others on account of his years on "Law and Order." He is the True Republican -- a credit to his party, a threat to us all.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

    Mind you, while I subscribe to the Marshal Dillon Rule, I am on record as being sympathetic to those who like to keep a gun in the house. This is because I was burglarized one very dark night by a klutz of a thief who burst though my back door and ran around the first floor making so much noise that I was certain he was coming for me. (This was before the deranged had recourse to e-mail.) I very much wanted a gun -- not to whack the intruder but merely to protect my life.
    OH, so do as I say ... not as I do ? It is okay for Cohen to own a gun to protect himself but not for anyone else ?



    Signs of Intelligence?
    April 20, 2007
    By Fred Thompson


    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...2U3YTU4YzNmNGE

    One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

    Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

    The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

    Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

    In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

    So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

    The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

    Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

    When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

    Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

    Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #6
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    May 10, 2007 8:04 PM
    Second Kates

    By Fred Thompson


    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...WIwYzkzNTFkOTk

    If you care about constitutional law, and everybody should, the big news is that it looks as if the Supreme Court is going to hear a Second Amendment case some time next year. The event that sparked this legal fuse was a case brought by six D.C. residents who simply wanted functional firearms in their homes for self-defense. In response, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s 31-year-old gun ban — one of the strictest in the nation.

    Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high Court; but this means that we’re going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices. The New York Times has already fired the first broadside.

    A few days ago, the Gray Lady published a fascinating account of the case — fascinating but fundamentally flawed. In it, the central argument about the Second Amendment is pretty accurately described. Specifically, it is between those who see it as an individual right versus those who see it as a collective states’ right having more to do with the National Guard than the people.

    Unfortunately, the article falsely portrays the individual-right argument as some new interpretation held only by a few fringe theorists. The truth is very different, as civil-rights attorney and gun-law expert Don Kates has pointed out recently.

    From the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 until the 20th century, no one seriously argued that the Second Amendment dealt with anything but an individual right — along with all other nine original amendments. Kates writes that not one court or commentator denied it was a right of individual gun owners until the last century. Judges and commentators in the 18th and 19th century routinely described the Second Amendment as a right of individuals. And they expressly compared it to the other rights such as speech, religion, and jury trial.

    The Times has simply replayed theories invented by the 20th-century gun-control movement. Their painting of the individual-right interpretation as a minority view is equally fanciful.

    Kates writes that, “Over 120 law review articles have addressed the Second Amendment since 1980. The overwhelming majority affirm that it guarantees a right of individual gun owners. That is why the individual right view is called the ‘standard model’ view by supporters and opponents alike. With virtually no exceptions, the few articles to the contrary have been written by gun control advocates, mostly by people in the pay of the anti-gun lobby.”

    Kates goes further, writing that “a very substantial proportion” of the articles supporting individual gun rights are by scholars who would have been happy to find evidence that guns could be banned. When guns were outlawed in D.C., crime and murder rates skyrocketed. Still, the sentiment exists and must be countered with facts. All of this highlights why it is so important to appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, as enacted by will of the people, rather than make it up as they go along.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #7
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    11-year-old Briton slain by bicyclist
    By ROB HARRIS and TARIQ PANJA, Associated Press Writer
    1 hour, 40 minutes ago


    LIVERPOOL, England - It is a tragedy becoming too familiar for a country where gun crime is still relatively uncommon and where limits on gun ownership are strict — an 11-year-old boy shot to death, allegedly by a hooded teenager on a BMX bicycle.

    Rhys Jones, a cherubic-faced boy who liked playing tag and video games, was in a pub's parking lot kicking a soccer ball around with friends Wednesday when two youths rode by and fired shots.

    Rhys died of a single bullet wound to the neck, the latest victim in a rising wave of youth violence that is sparking soul-searching about why some British children stray into lawlessness.

    Two youths — 14 and 18 — have been arrested in the boy's killing, which came a week after a man in a nearby area confronted a gang of youths, who allegedly attacked his car, and was beaten so badly that he bled to death on his doorstep from a brain hemorrhage.

    As classmates of Rhys gathered near the Fig Tree Bar and Restaurant on Thursday to lay bouquets of flowers and share tears with their mothers, Britain's leader promised to do more to quell youth crime.

    "Where there is a need for new laws, we will pass them. Where there is a need for tougher enforcement, we will make sure that happens," Prime Minister Gordon Brown said after a previously scheduled session to discuss ideas for tackling violence by young people.

    The shooting happened near Croxteth Park, a sprawling, working class neighborhood where rival gangs have been clashing for years.

    Violence among young Britons is most often centered in bleak, gang-ridden neighborhoods with high unemployment — feeding an anger brutally portrayed in "Clockwork Orange," a 1971 film based on a novel by Anthony Burgess about a gang of youths who go on a rampage through London.

    In the capital alone this year, 18 young people have been slain — 11 of them stabbed and seven shot. James Andre Smartt-Ford, 16, was at an ice rink when he was shot dead Feb. 3. Three days later, 15-year-old Michael Dosunmu was killed by gunmen who broke into his family home.

    Government figures released this month said the number of youths prosecuted for firearms offenses increased 20 percent over the past five years.

    That's a contrast to the trend in overall gun violence. Just 50 gun homicides occurred in England and Wales in the 12 months that ended last October, down from 75 for the previous year, according to the latest government statistics.

    British law severely limits gun ownership by making it hard to get licenses. But illicit guns are available on the street, most of them smuggled from the Balkans and others modified collectors' weapons obtained within the country.

    Gang members and rappers appeared on talk shows throughout the day Thursday, delving into reasons for Britain's gang violence. Some blamed an imported U.S. gun and street culture. Others pointed to unemployment, drugs and family breakdown.

    Violence has increasingly become a part of daily life for some youths in Britain's inner cities. Many now carry knives and, alarmingly, guns are becoming part of the urban uniform for some British teens.

    Anthony Stevens, a former adviser to the European Commission on Community Safety, said youths have become desensitized to violence and see guns and knives as a means of solving problems.

    "What we find is that younger kids are finding it a glamorous life to be involved with gangs and they are emotionally and intellectually too immature to understand what they are getting into," he said.

    Uanu Seshmi, a youth worker dealing with violent teens in south London, said violence has become so severe that it should be classed as a public health issue.

    "They are traumatized because of the violence they face every day and they don't have the skills to deal with it," Seshmi said. "It means young people are problem-solving using guns and knives."

    The government has tried countless ways to tackle youth violence.

    Under former Prime Minister Tony Blair, courts began issuing "anti-social behavior orders" in hopes of reining in out-of-control young people by barring them certain kinds of activities, such as playing music too loudly or hanging out on the street.

    But some youths consider being cited with an ASBO as a medal of honor.

    "It's up to all of us to take back our cities from the criminals and feral gangs that roam our streets," said Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust, a group that campaigns on behalf of crime victims.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/...Ig9wRSGfOs0NUE
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #8

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Innsmouth (look it up)
    Posts
    599
    Thanks
    662
    Thanked 428 Times in 174 Posts
    No one really takes thi sguy or Al Sharpton seriously any more. They are the WORST kind of race hustlers, ALWAYS eager to be seen as doing something by the media. After all they OBVIOUSLY cant do anything about the issues that REALLY affect and endanger the Black community, like the runaway unwed mothers situation, black on black crime, men not being fathers to their babies, rampant misogyny and violence in the rap game, etc etc ad infinitum.

    I guess when it comes to these 2 ministers the old saying should read "Those who cant do, PREACH!" These guys are always talking loud and saying NOTHING.

  10. #9
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Jesse Jackson’s anti-gun protest came and went this week.

    Jackson marches on Lake Barrington gun manufacturer
    Carolyn Starks | Tribune staff reporter
    8:59 PM CDT, August 28, 2007


    The plain gray building set back in a Lake Barrington industrial park never captured much public attention until Tuesday, when Rev. Jesse Jackson's entourage arrived aboard three buses.

    About 200 activists, who marched in front of D.S. Arms, called for the northwest suburban community to vote the assault-weapon manufacturer out of town. "Chicago is voted gun dry," Jackson said, his voice booming through a microphone. "We want [Lake] Barrington to vote gun dry."

    Jackson used the company as a backdrop to a nationwide gun protest that he said was held in more than 20 U.S. cities to mark the anniversary of Martin Luther King's historic 1963 march on Washington. Jackson and Rev. Michael Pfleger, who stood beside him in Lake Barrington, have held rallies in recent months, criticizing gun laws for being too lax and calling for a ban on assault weapons.

    Such weapons are banned in Chicago, but Jackson and Pfleger say the law is useless because people buy them at shops in the suburbs and bring them into the city.

    D.S. Arms does not sell firearms to the public, but has about 20 clients, including law-enforcement and military distributors, said Michael Danworth, a company spokesman. The business has operated for about 20 years, the last seven in Lake Barrington with about 25 employees, he said.

    Addressing Jackson's charge that the rifles end up on the streets illegally, Danworth said it is a culture of violence that's the problem, not guns. "The firearms used in most homicides in Chicago are pistols," he said. "You don't see too many gangbangers on the South Side carrying rifles in their pants."

    Village officials say the firm has operated in obscurity—but not illegally—for seven years in Lake Barrington. The large aluminum building has no signage.

    Village President Kevin Richardson attended the rally, but was not aware of the business, said a spokeswoman. "Everyone shares the goal of eliminating illegal drugs and illegal guns from our communities," Richardson said in a prepared statement. "Since these problems do not know any borders, it is up to all of us to work together to keep our communities safe."

    More than 50 police officers were on hand to ensure a peaceful demonstration. While three busloads of demonstrators marched near the building, more than a dozen gun advocates carried signs that said: "You have the absolute right to defend yourself" and "Father, forgive Jesse. He leadeth down the wrong path."

    "When is the last time you heard a crime committed" in the city with an assault rifle, said Rick Sherrell, 53, of Fox River Grove.

    Three large posters of the front cover of author Ken Timmerman's book, "Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson" hung on the outside of the building.

    Danworth said it was the company's statement about Jackson's "forever seeking another 15 minutes of fame."

    Jackson and his group of children and adults were unfazed. Five teenagers in matching red shirts served as symbolic pallbearers, carrying a small casket adorned with a cross and a sign that read: 31 children killed.

    Jackson said the number of children killed in Chicago over the last year is now closer to 40. "We want a future, not funerals," the children chanted.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...ck=1&cset=true


    But I bet you didn’t hear about this. One gun shop targeted by the race hustler didn’t sit by quietly:


    Gun protest moves to manufacturer
    by Karhy Chaney
    August 29, 2007


    A northwest suburban gun manufacturer was the focus yesterday as two high-profile Chicago clergy leaders led a demonstration outside the plant.

    Revs. Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger, along with about 150 anti-gun violence protesters, were met by dozens of Lake Barrington residents and pro-gun enthusiasts when they arrived outside of D.S. Arms gun manufacturer.

    This was the fifth anti-gun demonstration organized by Jackson and Pfleger. The previous protests were held outside of gun shop in Riverdale and Melrose Park. This time the duo wanted to up the ante. "We do not manufacture guns in American cities. They come from places like this. Chicago is voted gun dry. We want Barrington to vote gun dry," Jackson told supporters as pro-gun supporters countered that they had the right to exercise the Second Amendment -- the right to bear arms.

    D.S. Arms, a 20-year-old institution, manufactures semi-automatic assault rifles and does not sell to the public. They have about 20 clients, consisting of law enforcement and the military, said Michael Danworth, legal counsel for the company.

    Pfleger said not all gun shops and manufacturers abide by the law, resulting in many firearms ending up in the hands of criminals throughout the city.
    "Everybody says they are doing everything legally. Then why are there hundreds of thousands of guns in the streets of cities all over this nation?" Pfleger asked.

    Danworth disagreed and said guns aren't the issue, it's the culture of violence. "The real issue is the culture and the mentality of what's being promoted down in the city of Chicago," Danworth said, adding, "The firearms used in most homicides in Chicago are pistols. You don't see too many gangbangers on the South Side carrying rifles in their pants."

    Gun advocates sent a foul message to Jackson and his supporters.

    In addition to enlarged posters of the book cover Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson hanging outside the plant, cow manure was spread in the middle of the road reserved for the rally and march. The area had to be cleaned before the protest began. When asked if the D.S. had knowledge of why the manure was on the road, an attorney for the company said no, but speculated as to why it was there.

    "When you have got what we see in Rev. Jackson coming out here and promoting disinformation, to us that stinks to high heaven," Danworth told reporters.

    http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/...ArticleID=9761


    This company doesn’t even sell to the public, but to law enforcement and the military. And these morons want to disarm them? Stupid. (By the way, I’m for the public exercising their Second Amendment rights as well.)



    I was wondering where was the Rev-rund Jackson. Neither he or the Rev-rund Sharpton found any time or reason to lead any protesters regarding the slaughter of those three college students by illegal immigrants in NJ. I guess they need a cause that is more tuned to the democratic platform.

    So much for caring about the rights of blacks to live, it is so much more important for the Democrates to win.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #10
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    "Chicago is voted gun dry," Jackson said, his voice booming through a microphone.
    Gun Control in Chicago Works
    ...to Boost Homicide Rate, Says Second Amendment Foundation


    Below is a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation, a pro-gun lobby. Before you read it, here are some facts put out by the Chicago police department: According to the police, in 2003 Chicago had the fewest number of homicides since 1967, when 552 people were murdered in our city. The statistics for the year 2003 are the more impressive when one takes into account the "particularly violent spring" the city had. And it was not only the murder rate that declined. The overall "index crime" rate (which tracks nine major violent and property crimes), went down 4.4 percent from the previous year's numbers. Some specific figures: aggravated battery went down 18.3 percent; criminal sexual assault went down 10.5 percent; and violent crime went down 10.7 percent.

    Nonetheless, Chicago (with 599 murders total for the year) once again ended up as the nation's murder capital. New York, which has about three times the population of Chicago, had three fewer murders. And Los Angeles, the nation's second largest city, had less than 500 homicides. So, what is Chicago doing wrong?

    Strict gun control in Chicago has worked... to once again boost the homicide rate, making the Windy City the most murderous city in the nation for the past 12 months, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

    "Chicago finished off the year with more murders than New York or Los Angeles," said SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb. "During the past 12 months, 599 people were murdered in Chicago, three more than in New York, where 596 people were slain, and about 100 more than in Los Angeles.

    "Isn't it remarkable," he observed, "that Chicago, New York and Los Angeles have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet they still typically lead the nation in the number of homicides?"

    Gottlieb was particularly critical about Chicago's murders because Mayor Richard Daley has made his anti-gun philosophy a cornerstone of his administration. Gottlieb recalled that one of the city's highest profile crimes was the workplace massacre at Windy City Core Supply in August. In that case, recidivist felon Salvador Tapia used an unregistered handgun that had previously been owned by two now-deceased Chicago police officers.

    "How Tapia got a gun that had been owned by two cops in violation of the very gun laws they were sworn to uphold underscores the hypocrisy and complete failure of Chicago's Draconian anti-gun laws," Gottlieb stated. "Chicago's murder rate will stand as a monument the institutionalized brutality that gun control represents.

    "On the other hand, in Detroit, a city once plagued by runaway murder rates, the number of homicides has reportedly dropped to its lowest level since 1968," Gottlieb noted. "Two years ago, Michigan reformed its concealed carry law, and today, thousands of law-abiding citizens in Michigan are legally armed. Gosh, do you suppose there is any correlation?

    "Mayor Daley should publicly admit that gun control in his city has been an absolute failure," Gottlieb stated. "It is time for Daley and his anti-gun colleagues to take responsibility for every one of these killings, and to either change the law, or get out of public service."

    http://chicago.about.com/cs/governme...03_murders.htm
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #11
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Supreme Court will hear D.C. guns case
    By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
    34 minutes ago


    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

    The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

    The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

    The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

    Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

    Alan Gura, a lawyer for Washington residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.

    "We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme," Gura said. "It's time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It's time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents."

    Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, noted that 44 state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. "The American people know this is an individual right the way they know that water quenches their thirst," LaPierre said. "The Second Amendment allows no line to be drawn between individuals and their firearms."

    Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety."

    The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

    The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.

    The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

    The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.

    Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.

    Four states — Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York — urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

    Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home — about a mile from the court — for protection.

    The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."

    If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.

    Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.

    The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted, but said the ban went too far.

    The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.

    Arguments will be heard early next year.

    The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/...Ei_nv3R1Ss0NUE
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in