DaVinci

That was the democrats.....

Yes, when you arrest a kid for a 2 inch toy gun... You have gone too far. This is simply mission creep. We didn't want kinds bringing guns to school (rational) so they went so far that the suspend a kid for a pop tart that was kinda shaped like a gun. In my day (I am not that old) if you were in a fight at school and you could prove you didn't start it, you didn't get into trouble. Today, everyone gets suspended.

Because the left lambasted Palin and said she was full of crap for saying they existed.

He has more data and facts than you about the Martin case. For starters, Zimmerman didn't claim SYG.

And you still blaming the family? "The husband and wife, who asked to remain anonymous, showed NBC 4 New York a receipt that appeared to be printed at the same minute, on the same date, for the same $93.55 total, except with an $18 tip. They also provided a document they said was a Visa bill, which appears to indicate their card was charged for the meal plus the tip, for a total of $111.55."

I spent a lot of time in the Bahamas. A while back they had no mandatory tips. Service was pretty good. Then a someone came up with the idea to make the tip mandatory and after a while service started to go down. This was a topic of conversation at a dinner party a few months ago. We were planning a trip and we all had pretty much the same experience and we all went somewhere else. This is just one personal data point... But I noticed the change.

A report said the family provided a credit card statement that showed the tip. So I'd have to guess the waitress is lying.

Strawman...... And they don't help your point. Holmes, Cho, Loughner, Kazmierczak and Lanza, were ALL already prohibited persons. And ALL took firearms where they were not legally allowed. You know what would have worked (and did)? Armed resistance. But I realize you prefer innocent dead people to armed citizens.

You have proof this would not have happened without SYG laws? As soon as you left wingers use the correct terms and quit blaming things on something you clearly do not really understand. Now.... Watch carefully: The guy should not have shot the old man. He should of stayed inside.

Condoms are less expensive. Your FAVORITE form of BC costs you 80/month. Why should I be forced to pay for your BC? Why can't you and your sexual partner pay that cost? What other things do you think it would be nice to get others to pay for? I'd like you to chip in each month so I can have a few beers.... Is that OK to you? How about so I can make a few jumps?

to be fair that was before it was tried. Even Romney supported it, then he actually ran a State that had it and didn't like it. You are allowed to change an opinion when new data becomes available.

"A society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty" - Friedman. And those of us that have had US govt provided HC know how bad it really is. A personal example: I am a service connected disabled vet. I have to go 2-3 times a year to chat with the VA, have some blood work done, check on my condition.... Basically a checkup. I got the letter in the mail that it is time to schedule my visit. So on 12/4 I called. When is the first available appointment? 1/24. But they can squeeze me in to see the Phlebotomist on 12/24!!!! I would not call that "good" by any stretch of the imagination. But why did the Dems oppose the ACA when the Heritage Foundation supported it? And how to fix the problem we have? A big first step would be tort reform. Why do the Dems not support that? How does expensive insurance benefit a citizen?

And it seems that list includes suicides as well - That is complete dishonesty.

No. Kallend said GUN violence. The crook who started the scenario given by lefty used a KNIFE. It would be correct to claim violence, but the addition of "gun" made it inaccurate. Like I said before, counting police and honest self defense is dishonest. As a side note, I wish more people would be concerned about violence than objects. If you removed the objects you still have the issue, just with a different tool.

Counting shootings by police or honest self defense cases is dishonest at best.

And how does this stop a criminal?

Yes, and this is covered in so called "Hate Crimes" as well. If a guy goes out with the intent of killing a (insert here). Then it is ALREADY held to a higher standard than an accidental murder or a impulse murder. There is no need to being 'race' into it. I saw you skipped this whole section... Do you know who Lane and Martin are? The problem is if one race is accused of "Hate crimes" for something and not the other way around. For example, the media tried to make Martin case a "Hate Crime" but they are doing nothing about Lane's case. (Bonus points if you can tell me who Martin and Lane are..... I'd bet that without using Google, you will only know one of the cases off the top of your head..... And that is kinda the point of my argument.) BUT, is we hold the crime as just a crime... Then BOTH cases are about a murder. Adding "race" just adds emotion. Nope, I am claiming that it ALREADY is covered under the law. Accidentally killing someone and planning to kill someone are vastly different ALREADY. For "Hate Crimes" to have any logical value, you would have to value one race over another.

Then my personal story proves Obama lied. Personal story != Data

I disagree. If a person spray paints "Kilroy was here" or "Kill Jews" they have done the SAME act. The only difference was the motivation. If a person is killed because a criminal wanted his wallet or a person is killed because the attacker didn't like (White/black.gay/Jews...Whatever). The same crime has happened. The problem is if one race is accused of "Hate crimes" for something and not the other way around. For example, the media tried to make Martin case a "Hate Crime" but they are doing nothing about Lane's case. (Bonus points if you can tell me who Martin and Lane are..... I'd bet that without using Google, you will only know one of the cases off the top of your head..... And that is kinda the point of my argument.) BUT, is we hold the crime as just a crime... Then BOTH cases are about a murder. Adding "race" just adds emotion.

Boo hoo..... Free speech. I don't feel 'harassed' when someone black wears a "black power" shirt. Then arrest them for assault. If they did it, I have no problem with them going to jail for it.

1. YET. Just because it has not happened, does not mean it will not happen. A perfect example was that at one point some people in England had the right to own weapons. 2. You are trying to compare socialized countries and the US. Totally different theories of government. 3. The US has a trend of going overboard on just about everything it does. The first thing you should know is that the ACA is nowhere NEAR socialized medicine. Socialized medicine provides all citizens with healthcare services regardless of their income bracket and *pays for it through taxes*. The ACA is designed to force every person in the United States to *acquire health insurance from private companies*. If your employer doesn't provide it then you must purchase it on your own - If you don't, you will be penalized and that penalty will be collected by IRS. So the ACA is NOWHERE near socialized medicine. It is the govt making you buy a product from an individual company. If you do not, then they fine you. Lets put this in a simple form: P: People can't afford health care. They are finding that they can't afford insurance and the costs for those that can afford it are still rising. Govt answer: Make everyone buy insurance! So the problem is people can't afford it, so the solution is to make it mandatory? AND add in the additional cost of the govt running the program. For example just the amount spent on the website. Given the proven history of US govt run programs with cost overruns and terrible service... I see no reason why anyone would think this program would be any different.

Name one thing that the Govt requires an individual to buy individually just because they exist.

Those damn kids and their BB guns!

I don't think it matters that much. The person who picked that path picked it. They made a decision. The sociopath is compelled, but still decided to do it. In some cases either can be minimized... The poor guy gets a good job, the sociopath gets medication and therapy. But really, do you think it is worth either being unleashed back to do harm again? I think anyone who commits violence on another is a 'special' breed that should never see the light of day again. Not saying I disagree with your position, I just do not see habitual violent criminals being changed.

I agree. I think that the standard should be based on history. Say violence (because it is honestly less emotional that child sex charges). I have no problem with a guy with a history of violent crime being locked up forever. I think some people should be thrown away. Child sex abusers, violent criminals.... ALL should be thrown away. Small time drug dealers less of a sentence. Prison should be to protect society as much as punishment for crimes. I'd be fine with work programs where small time drug dealers spent time painting city buildings as punishment.