bullets13

Best for pigs

My take: there are many factors involved in the question you posed: middle America is known as the Bible Belt for a reason. More religious areas tend to be more conservative. Country folks tend to be more conservative as well, and the center of the country has vast expanses of rural areas. Both coasts have many big cities. Young people gravitate towards big cities, and younger people tend to be more liberal. Minorities gravitate to big cities, as do homosexuals, both of which are generally liberal. Also, people who are not heavily involved in politics tend to let a small handful of political issues dictate their party affiliation, and their location will often dictate which issues they key on. Gun control issues will keep country folks going to the polls to vote GOP, as guns are often a part of their daily lives. Gay rights are a bigger deal to people in metropolitan areas, as they'll generally have more gay friends and acquaintances, which will motivate them to vote democrat. Big cities will also have larger low-income populations, meaning theyll vote democrat due to government assistance programs they benefit from.

I will say this... If someone pulls a gun and kills the shooter and an innocent person or two with friendly fire, isn't that a good deal better than the end result with nobody with a weapon trying to stop him?

I can't blame anyone for running, but it's a shame that with that many people there they didn't just swarm him. If they had we might be talking about 5 dead and 10 injured.

I love my AR-15, and it has many practical uses, but there's no way in hell i'm using one inside my house for self defense. I was present during an accidental discharge of one in a house (wasn't me), and that bullet went through three walls and didn't stop until it hit the back of the brick on the outside of the house. If it hadn't been a brick house, the bullet would've ended up crossing a street.

It is kind of strange that an area round can be decided by three games, but the kids only get one game once they get to the most important point of their high school careers.

I'm having a hard time with your comparison of people voting versus radical terrorists being able to purchase guns which they then use to kill large amounts of people, so forgive me for not answering your question.

I would like to believe that since he'd been investigated multiple times for possible radical beliefs, that he wouldn't be able to purchase guns, or at least if he did that it might have put him back on FBI radar. Had they had him under surveillance it would've been pretty clear he was on his way to do this sort of thing somewhere.

Absolutely deport them. But this last shooter was homegrown. You going to deport him back to New York?

Isn't part of radical Muslim control limiting their access to guns?

The last two mass shootings were perpetrated by people with known radical leanings, and both could've been stopped. I'd much rather the government take action against people with radical ties than continue to allow them act on their beliefs. The key is that the legislation needs specifically worded parameters to prevent it from being abused.

I'd be more than fine with this. The possible danger would be the government using the list to blacklist people who are merely vocal against them, but in today's age of social media I don't believe that this would be possible without scrutiny that they do not want.

From the article: Zeid deplored what he called the ease with which individuals can buy firearms in America – “in spite of prior criminal backgrounds, drug use, histories of domestic violence and mental illness, or direct contact with extremists – both domestic and foreign.” i don't have a problem keeping these people from buying guns. The problem is that there is more of a concern for their rights than those of the law-abiding gun owner, making it difficult to track these people, or publicly obtain information on their activities. On top of that, due to previous efforts of the left to attach sweeping gun legislation to bills that might prevent these people from accessing guns, the right has shown (understandably) little or no inclination to give a little on certain issues, based on the very real fear that if they give a little the left will try and take a lot.

Punishing the entire religion of Islam for some of its members using it as an excuse for killing is no better than punishing all gun owners because some use them as a tool for killing. The attitude that some of you take towards the entire religion mirrors the attitude that the far left takes towards all gun owners. That being said, our country and government MUST take action when they have reason to believe that any person, Muslim or not, has radical leanings that could potentially lead to terrorism. This shooting, as well as the recent shooting in California, were both perpetrated by terrorists already known to be radical. Bigotry is one thing, but ignoring clear warning signs for the purpose of being politically correct is another thing entirely.

You're so eaten up with this crap that you've lost the ability to comprehend what you read. I said it was a common practice 70 years ago, I did not say that it has not occurred since. You've named one occurrence (16 years ago). People hang themselves every day. So again, as I was saying, it's 99.9% he hung himself. Your mindset of white fault for everything is robbing you of your common sense.

Mike Brown absolutely deserved what he got, and he wasn't shot for walking down the street. That was as righteous a shoot as you'll see, and his DNA in the car and the trajectory of the wound channels completely verified the officer's story. There a handful of unlawful cop killings a year (like 4 or 5, maybe) but the fact that a felon fresh off of a strong armed robbery, who attacked a cop and was then shot, is a hero to some is a real shame.

The probability that a man hung himself, which happens every day in this country, versus his being lynched, which was a common practice 70 years ago? I'd say it's about 99.9% that he hung himself, and that's WITHOUT the interview with his wife

And that's why those problems are repeated. For SOME, it is easier to blame others than to take actions to fix the problem.

so a quote from his wife is unbelievable, but unnamed people who know nothing of the situation attributing it to a lynching are absolutely believable.

[Hidden Content] "Lennin Johan Torres-Sepulveda, 38, of Atlanta took a picture of himself with a noose around his neck and sent it to his wife right before he hanged himself, the widow Patricia Lane said in an interview with cleveland.com." the only distraction here is your trying to turn a completely unrelated topic into yet another racial debate.

Is it your belief that every owner in town who flew an American flag did?

Loving this ranger domination!

I have no doubt. But I imagine it has to do with his junky house, and nothing to do with the flag. In fact, the only thing a flag has to do with the article is that it's how he painted his house.

Probably not as many as haven't been cited for flying American flags.

Like I said, with sports, I'm not really a fan of transgenders competing as the gender they identify as because in some scenarios they'd gain an unfair advantage over their opponents. But if this is the direction we're going to go in these situations, perhaps estrogen treatment is the answer to even the playing field back out.