bobsal u1553115
 
  6  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 07:43 am
@Miller,
Bullshit. It means a lot. I actually lived in Chicago. Like I said, there were certain parts I stayed away from for obvious reasons, just like any good sized metro area. But the facts are even South Side is much safer today that it was thirty years ago. The downtown and old-town are hugely safer than it was when I was stationed at Great Lakes in '72. We were ordered to stay out of old-town. When I was living there in the last half of the nineties and first half of the aughts it was safe to walk downtown late into the night. I'd have never been there after dark in the seventies or sixties.
maporsche
 
  6  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 08:39 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

If you live in a crime-laden inner City like Detroit or Chicago, you'll have to arm yourself for protection. There's no other way, unless you want to live like a monk in a forrest.


I live in Chicago NOW; it's quite safe. I own a gun, but have never felt the need to carry it.
giujohn
 
  -4  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 08:43 am
@maporsche,
Tell that to the close to 3,500 people that have been murdered since Obama took office.
izzythepush
 
  7  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 08:56 am
@giujohn,
I can't commune with the dead. You have made my point, all those guns makes your country a lot less safer. That's why your murder rate is so high.
giujohn
 
  -2  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 09:06 am
@izzythepush,
The 3500 people that were murdered in Chicago since Obama took office is in an area that has the strictest gun laws in the country... where only the criminals have guns. It has been proven in this country in jurisdictions were guns were required to be in every home by law the crime rate went in the toilet. And the crime rate in this country would be a lot lower if we could control our Southern border and stop the flow of drugs. But trying to control our border automatically makes us racists.
maporsche
 
  6  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 09:28 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

The 3500 people that were murdered in Chicago since Obama took office is in an area that has the strictest gun laws in the country... where only the criminals have guns. It has been proven in this country in jurisdictions were guns were required to be in every home by law the crime rate went in the toilet. And the crime rate in this country would be a lot lower if we could control our Southern border and stop the flow of drugs. But trying to control our border automatically makes us racists.


You're so spouting off information that was false even 5 years ago, much less now. The only thing that makes the laws in Chicago "strict" are the need to have a FOID card which costs $5.

Why don't you talk about the crime rate in New York...the city with the actual strictest gun laws.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:06 am
@giujohn,
So what? If you can just drive down the road and buy enough guns to launch a coup in a small African country. You need gun control nationwide for it to work.
giujohn
 
  -3  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:11 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

giujohn wrote:

The 3500 people that were murdered in Chicago since Obama took office is in an area that has the strictest gun laws in the country... where only the criminals have guns. It has been proven in this country in jurisdictions were guns were required to be in every home by law the crime rate went in the toilet. And the crime rate in this country would be a lot lower if we could control our Southern border and stop the flow of drugs. But trying to control our border automatically makes us racists.



You're so spouting off information that was false even 5 years ago, much less now. The only thing that makes the laws in Chicago "strict" are the need to have a FOID card which costs $5.

Why don't you talk about the crime rate in New York...the city with the actual strictest gun laws.


The FOID card doesn't cost $5 its 10 and it takes forever to get one although it's only supposed to take 30 days... And it's not a concealed carry card is it?
giujohn
 
  -4  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:14 am
@izzythepush,
No, what we need is a national right to carry concealed for all law-abiding citizens... another words no restriction on your basic right to defend yourself as guaranteed in the Second Amendment... I want the criminals who are armed illegally know that the chances of running into a legally armed citizen have increased 100% these cowards will be less likely to try to take your life. Remember a good fences make good neighbors... An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.
maporsche
 
  3  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:16 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

No, what we need is a national right to carry concealed for all law-abiding citizens... another words no restriction on your basic right to defend yourself as guaranteed in the Second Amendment... I want the criminals who are armed illegally know that the chances of running into a legally armed citizen have increased 100% these cowards will be less likely to try to take your life. Remember a good fences make good neighbors... An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.


Would you trade that for closing the gun show loophole and not selling to people on the terrorist watch/no fly list?
giujohn
 
  -3  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:19 am
@maporsche,
There is no such thing as a Gun Show loophole that's a buzz phrase created by the gun grabbers. What they want is a background check for all sales including Private Sales. It has nothing to do with gun shows. But it has to do with it if I want to sell my gun to my neighbor I'm required to get a background check first. Along those lines of thinking if I want to sell my car I should have to get a background check to make sure that the person wasn't convicted of DWI?
As far as the no-fly list is concerned I'm all for it if there is due process to effectively remove somebody who is on the list in error... Something that doesn't take ten years to accomplish.
snood
 
  5  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:19 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

giujohn wrote:

No, what we need is a national right to carry concealed for all law-abiding citizens... another words no restriction on your basic right to defend yourself as guaranteed in the Second Amendment... I want the criminals who are armed illegally know that the chances of running into a legally armed citizen have increased 100% these cowards will be less likely to try to take your life. Remember a good fences make good neighbors... An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.


Would you trade that for closing the gun show loophole and not selling to people on the terrorist watch/no fly list?


Yeah, good work maporsche.... just keep reasoning with him slowly and pleasantly....Now if you can only just keep him talking while we sneak up behind and get this net on him...
revelette2
 
  2  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:21 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
Without adjusting for the convention bounce, however, the election is a dead heat. Our polls-only forecast, which doesn’t account for the convention bounce, gives Clinton just a 53 percent chance of winning, and our now-cast — which is more aggressive than the polls-only forecast and estimates what would happen in a hypothetical election held today — has Trump as a 55 percent favorite.


I am not sure of their methods on the "cast" I am sure it is explained somewhere. In fact embedded up above at the source when you click now cast (I guess that is a forecast of who would win if the election were held today) it takes you to another page with a lot of data. To say the least I am not the least bit wonky (I think that is the term) with data and statically information.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:21 am
@snood,
It's funny how liberals think that people who insist upon exercising their basic constitutional rights are crazy. I wonder what would happen if all of a sudden you couldn't exercise your first amendment rights to do exactly what you doing now and not have some jack-booted Thug kicking your door and take away your computer and throw you in the hoosegow?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:22 am
@bobsal u1553115,
I lived in both Chicago and Naperville,and visited the Art Institute and Museum of Science and Industry often, and never feared for my safety. Even walked blocks away from the Museum of science and Industry often. Even the south side of the Loop.
When I worked at Club Waikiki on Wilson on the north side, black workers used to invite me to the south side where they lived to go to some bars.
maporsche
 
  3  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:22 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

There is no such thing as a Gun Show loophole that's a buzz phrase created by the gun grabbers. What they want is a background check for all sales including Private Sales. It has nothing to do with gun shows. But it has to do with it if I want to sell my gun to my neighbor I'm required to get a background check first. Along those lines of thinking if I want to sell my car I should have to get a background check to make sure that the person wasn't convicted of DWI?
As far as the no-fly list is concerned I'm all for it if there is due process to effectively remove somebody who is on the list in error... Something that doesn't take ten years to accomplish.


I know what the gun show loophole actually means in reality. We have the private sales check in place in IL. You just have to go to a gun dealer and it takes all of 20 minutes to do the background check. I've done it twice now. It's not a big deal, and while I'm there I usually buy some things I'd wanted to buy anyway.

Is that something you'd be willing to trade for nationwide concealed carry?
giujohn
 
  -2  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 10:39 am
@maporsche,
I'm not for any slippery slope that restricts my unalienable rights... Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 11:45 am
@giujohn,
Not enough dead children already? You're insane.
Blickers
 
  3  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 12:48 pm
@izzythepush,
Izzy, get with it. NRA guys know that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax, put up by the government to rally support for gun control. Heck, these guys have been putting out proof on YouTube for years already. Like this:



My favorite "reason" was that the school was allegedly closed for months, but word of this never got out because all the parents and kids were government agents.
revelette2
 
  2  
Fri 29 Jul, 2016 01:36 pm
Trump: I wanted to 'hit' Dems' convention speakers

Quote:
Donald Trump understands why Democrats are railing on him during the convention, but he does take it “a little bit personally.”

During a campaign rally in Davenport, Iowa on Thursday, Trump addressed his supporters and admitted wanting to "hit" Democratic National Convention speakers so hard "their heads would spin” after being the center of attacks at the Democratic convention this week.

Though he didn't identify anyone by name, Trump mentioned one person – “a little guy” to be specific – that got under his skin
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:21:52