AcmeSigns

Yes, the climate is changing. My problem with the argument is the claim that we (mankind) are the cause of it. Based on what? The last 40 years? 40 years is nothing to the planet's timeline. It's like claiming that an additional drop of water in the ocean will raise the sea level. Yes it will...but to what degree? Just because the earth's temperature has gone up in the past 40 years (although, I do believe I recently read that it's been cooling for the past decade or so) does in no way prove that man is to blame. If, without changing our ways one iota, we go into another ice age is that also to be blamed on man? The planet's climate is cyclic and there's no real denying of that. Looking to place blame or forcing us all to change (think incandescent light bulbs or low-flow water spouts here in the U.S.) just to 'do something' is useless unless true, undeniable facts can be shown to prove, once and for all, that mankind is to blame. Otherwise it's all just speculation. Heck, I can speculate on stuff all day long. That does not mean that anything I speculate on will come to pass.

I just have to hand out a great, big 'Thank you'! Someone (other than myself at least) is pointing out the hypocrisy of computer 'simulations' in regards to what the earth 'will' do. Simulations are based on what is programmed into them. Tell it the earth is warming and ask it what will happen if the trend continues. I'm guessing that plugging in 'what will happen if the earth starts cooling?' never gets entered because that doesn't play to the narrative. What happened to all of those dire predictions that there was going to b another ice age in the 1970's? Oh yeah...nothing. The earth wiped out the dinosaurs and neither man nor SUVs were here then. Hmmm...who to blame for that? So Nonny, to you I say, 'Thank you!'

Five stabbed to death and...'Police are investigating the deaths as homicides.' Well, duh. I guess that's where all of that detective schoolin' pays off. Any death is a tragedy whether it's by knife, gun, car or...

And that is why I have 6 TB across 5 hard drives. Well,privacy, and the fact that I've had one too many HDs go belly up on me while I scrambled to try and recover as much as I could. I also have password-protected storage on my website as additional backup.

To paraphrase a Ted Nugent quote, 'If guns are the cause of all of the crime, then all of mine are defective'. And let's not forget that one of the 'features' that made a weapon be banned during the so-called 'Assault Weapons Ban' was a bayonet mount. I wonder when was the last time a bayonet mounted on the end of a rifle was used in a crime in the U.S.? My guess...probably never! And yet, there it was as some sort of horrific add-on that simply had to be stopped. The AWB was such a farce. It did nothing but temporarily drive up the price of a semi-auto carbine. As has been pointed out on other forums...Obama is the best salesman for firearms in the country. Gun ownership may be at 1/3 of the population (statistics vary as not everyone questioned cared to respond if they had and guns or not) but those that do have multiple weapons (I know I do) and gun sales have been on the rise since President Obama took office. You can call it paranoia if you want. I like to think along the lines of the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared. Or, as my wife likes to say, 'It's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it'.

Um...no. It is quite legal for U.S. citizens to own fully automatic weapons (except in the states that have banned them). One needs to simply pay $200 for a federal 'tax stamp', file paperwork with both the federal government & the local chief law enforcement officer (Police Chief or Sheriff), pass a background check, get photographed & fingerprinted and have the monetary ability to afford the weapon (the weapon must have been manufactured prior to 1986) which usually are in the range of $10,000 (and up). Lots of answers to the question, 'How can I get a machine gun' can be found here: https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=332506 But yes, if one is willing to jump through enough hoops, has enough money & lives in a state that doesn't think it can't trust it's citizenry, one can legally own a machine gun in the United States. And in case anyone is wondering if a legally-owned machine gun has ever been used in the commission of a crime? As far as I know, just once. And that was by a former police officer, not some 'joe blow' citizen. As an aside...California has restricted/banned the ownership of several different types of weapons, among them .50 caliber Barrett rifles. So when the Los Angeles Police Department went looking to purchase some of Barrett's fine weapons they were turned down. Why? Because Ronnie Barrett (guess where the weapons get their name?) turned them down because the state won't allow it's citizens to own them, so in turn he will not sell to the state of California (or New York either). That, in my mind, is a man of integrity.

Because I disagree with many of President Obama's policies I'm labeled a 'racist' yet I'd vote for Ben Carson in a heartbeat. Does that then make me anti-racist? Pro-anti-racist? I'm so confused.

I realize that this isn't really about social media, but just this evening I learned if a Senator slanders someone on the floor of the Senate he can't be sued for it. The 'slander' in this case was then Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stating, pretty much uncategorically, that then presidential candidate Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes for the past decade. Blatantly false and yet there is no repercussion for his actions. Yet another instance of politicians insulating themselves as though they are some sort of 'elite' and yet another reason why term limits' time has come. Throw the lot of them out and start fresh.

I would like to point out to all that are unaware or misled... Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri was not some unarmed, innocent youth. He, even according the federal Department of Justice (which, if they had even the smallest piece of evidence of misconduct, would have jumped down Officer Brown's throat in a heatbeat), was shot because he attacked an officer of the law. He brought that upon himself. No one forced Mr. Brown to attack Officer Wilson. Sometimes bad things happen. That does not mean that all cops are out on the streets just looking for someone to shoot. Don't blindly believe that everything you read on the internet is the truth. Seek out your own answers from different sources other than the ones that only say what you want to hear.

I refuse to have any devices in my house that are 'smarter' than I am. If I can't control it, then it doesn't exist in my world.

That doesn't mean its not propaganda. Propaganda doesn't necessarily mean the North Korean style of nonsensical blatant lying. It can be what Fox News does, by providing you with an extremely one sided view on the issues, and thus framing the discussion in a particular way. Its true, they bring in expert opinions, and they present facts. But each expert opinion is carefully selected so the opinions they will tell you are the opinions Fox News wants you to hear. And the 'facts' they tell you are either not facts or presented in such a way that they mirror the Fox News view. Take their example on ObamaCare. They hate it, but they still present facts on it. But all of those facts are put in a consistently negative context. Every fact that shows that ObamaCare might actually work and not be a bad thing is either ignored, or significantly downplayed, in order to keep the negative context intact. Take their take on the Ukraine crisis. Sure, they call in expert opinions, but all those opinions say that Obama sucks and that the US should escalate the conflict. They either ignore or downplay the expert opinions (of which there are a lot more by far more reliable experts) who say the US should focus on a diplomatic solution. In short, Fox News isn't giving you the news in a fair and balanced manner, its telling you a story and behind that story is a deeply conservative agenda. Or maybe, just maybe, there are so many more horror stories about the Affordable Care Act that they hugely outnumber the 'good' stories? I would think that if the ACA was the god send they make it out to be that we would hear the unending stories of it's greatness on the nightly, mainstream media, news shows. And yet? As for the comment a ways back, 'Given that its Fox News that reported on this, it wouldnt surprise if it turns out to be fake.' You are clearly set in your views of Fox news and I don't expect to change them, but perhaps you'll believe it's real by reading it at: http://www.educationnews.org/parenting/us-politics-quiz-rankles-wisconsin-parent/(this was the most unbiased site I could find that reported on it). Better yet, head over to gotoquiz.com and take the test for yourself.I did. Some very interesting questions in the quiz.

Source please? 1. How many of these are suicides? That's more of a mental health issue than a gun issue. No one called for banning/restricting belts after Robin Williams' suicide. 2. Gang related? Who, as it turns out, gun laws don't seem to matter to anyway. 3. Police initiated shootings? They already have proven they can't hit their target and many times have fired on innocent people (and I don't mean Michael Brown ~ I mean really innocent people). I realize that the anti-gun propaganda machine will go on-and-on about 'child' deaths, but if you think about it, everyone is someone's 'child'. Even I am. And I'm 65. Toss aside any rhetoric & so-called 'statistics' from either side of the gun debate and go to an unbiased source: [note: Because the Government is ponderously slow, the 'most current' statistics may sometimes be years old] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-9 [note that while there were 12,664 homicides in 2011, not all were by a firearm (8,583) and that only 565 were under the age of 18] http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx [The National Institute of Justice is the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice] http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ And finally: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Glad you cleared that up. That makes much more sense. Still stupid but at least possible.

The main reason I can see that we'll never get term limits for Congress is that they are always called for by the party in the minority. Once they are the majority...well...no incentive. Perhaps the new GOP-controlled Congress will prove me wrong. If it did pass President Obama would probably veto it though.

As a gun owner this statement brings up numerous questions about the validity of this story ('friend of a friend' is, what, 3rd hand knowledge at best?): What kind of 'Colt .357' has a safety? No Colt revolver that I've ever seen or owned.There is/was a Smith & Wesson with a grip safety but I think those are out of production. A hammer block safety just keeps the firearm from going off if it's dropped and the hammer is over a loaded chamber. Where the heck was this thing holstered? Your femoral artery is located inside your right leg. Was he carrying a .357 in an inside-the-thigh holster? Having the barrel pass over or aimed at any part of your anatomy is a major no-no! The only way that I know that a trigger can get 'caught' while holstering is to have your finger inside the trigger guard (essentially having your finger on the trigger). Again, this goes against one of the 1st tenants of responsible gun ownership - Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Heck, I keep my finger indexed on a hand-held drill until I'm ready to use it. Same with a circular saw or pretty much anything with a trigger. And lastly, if you know anything about firearms and their proper use and handling, none of these are mistakes that I, or anyone I know, would ever make. If your 'friend of a friend' did indeed do himself in as you say, then he pretty much had it coming. It would have just been a matter of time.