DaVinci

but he's further away from Indiana than South Chicago. Seems quibbly- just say he lives in the suburbs of Chicago. And that would be fine... Except he is busting on people for saying the live in Orlando as opposed to living near Orlando. He is claiming he lives in Chicago, and that is not true. Pointing out his double standard while he calls other liars is I think fair.

Oh, playing the player? That is not your style... Till you just did it.

Ask and ye shall receive. Or you could just assume that my auto correct got me and I didn't notice.

Honesty? Journalistic fairness? We report, you decide? So, should the same descipor be added whenever a white person commits a crime? I see no harm in mentioning the race in either case as long as it would be mentioned in both.

It should not be, but I think it is better to be better armed than the attacker. Would you prefer you, or they have the better weapon? And what possible law will actually prevent them from getting the better weapon? I don't think it is actually possible for a law to prevent a criminal from doing something. I don't think a law actually prevents a criminal from getting something (If it did, we would not have a drug problem). So since I don't think any law will prevent a criminal, I would prefer that the law does not prohibit an honest citizen.

Irony score 10/10. At least I live where I claim to live. You CLAIM to live in Chicago.... But you live in Flossmoore, IL. You are actually closer to Indiana than down town Chicago.

Wendy already address the first bit. You fucked up, got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Eat that crow. As for the second...I'm sure that works in academic papers...'the citation was obvious, Prof. Already cited, motherfucker!' And funny enough, based on your writing, you seemed to shift from murders to violent crime, and we know that this is underreported in big cities where people often don't bother to call the cops after the event is over. Resorting to vulgar insults shows that you have nothing. How about you show us your evidence that the media reports from multiple sources are "a false anecdote" to quote your own words. He has more than you. Like always. Ummm NO - he even admitted later that what I posted was "fact" and not a "false anecdote". You are wrong, like always. You never win these discussions.... Unless you call insulting the other person "winning". Your data is most often times wrong and your conclusions are pretty much always wrong. If your dream worked, DC and Chicago would not be in the top 100 most dangerous places. And CA would not not have almost 60% of the gun deaths in the US. But you ignore all of that and continue to harp on worn out and PROVEN wrong policies. Your main problem is you have no honestly when it comes to the gun discussion. When proven wrong you misdirect, insult, or just walk away. You should maybe walk away more.

Yes. That's the whole point of the damned law. It's designed to make it more affordable for the obese heavy drinker by charging more to the fit and healthy person. This is how the government plans to lower the cost of healthcare - by making it cost more, spreading the costs to people who weren't paying for them, and subsidizing. Oh I get it... It just seems people took umbrage at the car insurance/DUI example. I feel it is a pretty good example using choices and insurance rates. But I guess I have to start using couch potato eating junk food vs healthy person so as not to upset people. Edited to fix auto correct caused incorrectness.

Way to ignore the fact that a guy that drinks is not a 3YO. Way to ignore the simple fact that all I did was point out how the insurance system has to work. So, would YOU be willing to pay more for car insurance to allow drunk drivers to get insurance? Simple question, please answer it. Of course not, but that's not the question. Should I pay the same insurance rates as a smoker? Under the ADA smokers pay more. Should normal folks pay the the same rates as Base Jumpers? A man of your age should realize the world is not always fair. Simple questions: Do you think you should pay the same car insurance rate as a guy with 4 DUI's? Should a guy riding a motorcycle get to pay the same car insurance as a guy driving a Volvo? Should a person who is fit and healthy have to pay the same insurance as a heavy drinker who is technically obese?

Wendy already address the first bit. You fucked up, got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Eat that crow. As for the second...I'm sure that works in academic papers...'the citation was obvious, Prof. Already cited, motherfucker!' And funny enough, based on your writing, you seemed to shift from murders to violent crime, and we know that this is underreported in big cities where people often don't bother to call the cops after the event is over. Resorting to vulgar insults shows that you have nothing. How about you show us your evidence that the media reports from multiple sources are "a false anecdote" to quote your own words. He has more than you. Like always.

Pony Express. Far too easy. Fail. The pony express was a private company. "William Russell, Alexander Majors and William Waddell were the three founders of the Pony Express and were already in the freighting business in the late 1850s with more than 4,000 men, 3,500 wagons and some 40,000 oxen." "By having a short route and using mounted riders rather than traditional stagecoaches, they proposed to establish a fast mail service between St. Joseph, Missouri, and Sacramento, California, with letters delivered in 10 days, a duration many said was impossible. The price was $5 per half-ounce. The founders of the Pony Express hoped to win an exclusive government mail contract, but that did not come about."

Or in a governor's office. The Heritage Foundation is a perfect example. That's the funny thing about the federal versus state government and the Constitution. There are limits placed by the Constitution as to what the federal government can do. Chief Justice Roberts writes for the court that ACA is constitutional. Where did you go to law school? You should demand your money back. Wrong. The ruling was only about the individual mandate, not the ACA as a whole. And it FAILED as a commerce clause issue and was only upheld as a TAX. You really need to read more than the headlines.

I have.... It seems you have not.

I see you are on all of them......

Pointing out the only way the ACA will work using another example is not "liberal". Ignoring the facts presented... Might be.

Way to ignore the fact that a guy that drinks is not a 3YO. Way to ignore the simple fact that all I did was point out how the insurance system has to work. So, would YOU be willing to pay more for car insurance to allow drunk drivers to get insurance? Simple question, please answer it.

And the NSA was listed because of the recent scandals... you know the ones where they spied on Americans? You didn't miss that did you? It was kinda a big deal. You ignored the reference while trying to tie it to Reagan. Typical. The WH knew it was not because of a video, yet they made the claim. Maybe time to pay attention to more than what you want to see.

Well, that's interesting info (not really, I could have called it). Do you know anything about the other person? I'd bet they didn't follow any gun laws either.

Only if they are mentally incompetent. Do you really include yourself in that group? Again, you do not care about stopping crime. You just do not want legal citizens from being able to own a gun. I'd say the guy with an irrational fear of an inanimate object is the one with the problem. I'd say the guy that thinks passing a law with the hope that a criminal will suddenly start following them is the one with a tentative grasp on reality.

Huh, a guy gets attacked in his car and he is a moron? "Police say they confronted Lindstrom who was inside his truck and a physical altercation occurred while he was sitting in his truck" FL standards are easy to find... But I'll do it for you since you are too lazy to look them up. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html Or if you want the simple version: 1. You must be 21 to get a conceled carry permit. 2. Have a passport-style, color photograph made. 3. Get verification of training that satisfies the training requirement. NRA, DD-14, state training course, etc. . Persons serving in the United States Armed Forces may submit a copy of their Military ID Card to satisfy the training requirement. 4. Get certified copies of court documents relating to any criminal charges against you. 5. Take the fingerprint card to a local law enforcement agency and ask to be fingerprinted. In addition to providing fingerprinting services for the traditional “hard-card” format, electronic fingerprint devices are available at almost all 67 county sheriff’s offices in the state. Visit the Electronic Fingerprints Information page to learn how Live Scan fingerprinting saves processing time.* http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/CWCS/elecfingerprintinfo.html 6. Complete the application. Either print clearly with ink or type the information. 7. In the presence of a notary, sign application.** 8. Submit a check or money order for the license fee of $117 * Electronic fingerprinting can dramatically reduce the permit approval time. ** Some concealed carry courses have a notary available at the time of the class Required Documents: 1. Application form 2. Passport photo 3. Training verification I am sure they used the same type of legal process that people who turn out to be drunk drivers got a drivers license.

Those of us that have dealt with the VA.... Knew that govt run HC was a bad idea.

Yep, please see this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4560652#4560652

And mine went up..... This is the only way this plan works. People who SHOULD be paying more don't. Those who should be paying less have to pay more to subsidize your lower rates. It would be like having to insure people with multiple DUI's and not being allowed to charge them more. So those without DUI's will have to pay more to cover the losses caused by covering the drunks at the same rate.

Of the five things you listed (okay, really only 3), only 1 was actually Obama's idea. The NSA was inherited from Reagan (yes, really), and while Benghzi wasn't a shining moment, it no more Obama's fault than 9/11 was GWBs. Reagan had the NSA recording the data from Americans phone calls to each other? Source? And it was not the terrorist act of Benghzi that Obama is getting blamed for, but the coverup that is the problem.

Seems like a stupid use of a firearm. Can you tell me if the guns were bought legally and please tell me more about the shooters criminal records if they have one.