MightyMouse

I think it becomes more evident as we age, the process of which, has gotten us to this point in time. I would guess that it was actually easier to abuse a privileged position in the past, leading an abuser to think " you can't get away with the things we used to be able to get away with". There is, of course, the occasional outlier.

I think you are describing luck. Someone can certainly get lucky and make a lot of money and then people can mistakenly confuse his luck with success because, when measured in dollars, it makes no difference how you end up with it. A billion in my pocket and a billion in your pocket makes us both billionaires no matter how we got it. If we did this for 40 years, that is a whole different story. It begins to necessitate, other personality traits. Ruthless may be too strong a word to use in the 21st century. But, manipulative comes to mind. The last thing that comes to mind is benevolence. There was nothing benevolent about the way he gave GS 5 billion after they became a bank holding company, and, therefore, backed by the US Govt and received 10% on preferred stock convertible into common. Something like that. This was not a deal that you or I could take part in.

Broke and dead in a flophouse? maybe not. Miserable? I suspect he is miserable. No one matter-of-factly becomes one of the wealthiest men in the world. There is certainly a competitive and ruthless side to him that we don't see If you ask me, broke and dead in a flophouse sounds like perfect timing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbYNa_OzrKM]Sandy Hook Students & Jennifer Hudson sing at the Super Bowl 2013 - America The Beautiful - YouTube[/ame] Some of the kids that did not get killed by weak American Gun Control Laws. Its not that hard to imagine what the unintended consequences of additional firearms would be. What are the unintended consequences of less firearms? Less, not none.

35 Guns Stolen From Siloam Springs Pawn Shop | 5NEWSOnline.com ? Ft. Smith, Fayetteville, Bentonville News & Weather from KFSM and KXNW Television shouldn't be allowed to sell guns Erie police are searching for a burglar who stole guns from a westside residence this morning. The burglary happened shortly after 11:30 a.m. in the 2900 block of Liberty Street. Three handguns and an assault rifle were reported stolen from the residence. The rifle was later found in a backyard, police said. The burglar was described as a white male with light brown hair who was about 5 feet 10 inches tall and was wearing a dark-colored hood, according to police. In both cases law abiding citizens had their guns stolen. We can guess that the guns would be sold to bad guys. The stream of stolen guns is endless.

The fed has done a great job at creating equity and, hence, wealth. Expansion hasn't really occurred yet. I am expecting at least another 4-5 years before this run peters out. Yes, corrections, dips, and trips. But 2500-3000 in the S&P is very possible given the unprecedented amount of money that has been put out there. At this point the fed is projecting current policy to remain the same until 2015. No reason to doubt it. a 25% to 50% rise in that time is totally possible.

First off, I would choose to be in cabin 2 as a kid. Sounds more exciting. Secondly, I am 51 and have been married for 20 years and have met, worked with, and been tempted by a lot of good looking girls and have never cheated. Me having sex with someone gives someone complete control over the future direction of my life. No one gets that control and I am certainly not going to trade it for a 3 minute impulse. 3 minutes is being boastful. Vince most murders are committed by friends, family, and acquaintances. Stats have been about 80% ( of all murders are from F,F,and A) for a long time. Changing gun laws would only marginally decrease the number of deaths in the friends family and acquaintances group. I read somewhere a long time before this debate that crimes of passion are impossible to control and it made sense. The other 20% that get murdered, would likely be the most impacted by a change in gun laws simply because it is harder to kill someone without a gun. It is more difficult to mistakenly kill an unintended target without a gun. In my mind any improvement is a move in the right direction. A gun will be used when there is a reason for it to be used. The reason can be rational or irrational. Adam Lanza, Son of Sam, the columbine kids, ,someone defending themselves, a target shooter, a hunter, a thief, and a drug addict needing money right away all have reasons to use a gun. I suspect the rational and irrational reasons in the above list are evident and agreeable to both pro and con gun control people on this thread. What is not agreeable is the solutions to keep guns out of the hands of the irrational persons who have access to guns either legally or illegally obtained. Adding guns is a crazy solution authored by individuals who have a stake in the supply of guns. Banning all guns is impossible and not anything I have ever suggested either. I also don't ever think our govt will overthrow us by force so needing guns for that reason seems somewhat surreal, but persons a long time ago who were a lot more experienced in such matters and smarter than I made it a law and I have no desire to chop up a law simply because the threat does not appear to exist today. Living near Newtown and driving through it everyday is a constant reminder that something has to give. These people, as a community, are in agony. Decent people do not need to lose their rights and should not be threatened by an attempt to improve safety of innocent people.

If you are going to equate gun ownership to freedom, then I suppose it boils down to this: Would you let one innocent person be killed in order to let millions of others be free?

I never stated that guns cause criminals. No post of mine implies that by any means. Only a very deliberate misread could come up with such nonsense. The more guns that are manufactured, the more guns are sold and the more guns end up in the hands of the wrong people. The criminals were criminals before they had the guns. They can now shoot instead of swat at or spray someone with pesticide.They are more lethal with guns. Would you say they are more lethal? Would it make some sense to decrease the "lethalness" of criminals so that they don't miss and kill innocent people during their crimes? Are you going to argue that guns are not lethal? By your brilliance, a gun, hammer, and can of pesticide can all kill and, ala NRA, should all be grouped together. Then, why don't you protect yourself from the boogie man with pesticide?

Blue, this is complete foolishness. Everyone knows that you shouldn't trade with wifi reception; besides, it is bad from a dumpster. What you are stating is not possible.

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS Zdo, patuca, and shoot first and ask questions latter samatrix conclusion would be that since criminals are going to get guns anyway, we shouldn't change the laws. We should arm everyone to protect against the criminals. Removing the reasons to commit crimes with guns should be a priority, reducing the sources of supply of illegal guns should also be a priority. The fact is that the more guns owners we have and the more gun dealers we have, then more guns will fall into criminals hands if we have the same laws.. Ever think of that connection? Which means that if there are more criminals, then you are going to get robbed and raped, not once but twice, so you need more ammunition and guns. Yes there are going to be more boogie men. Shit, with all these guns, you might even get a boogie woman showing up too. Make sure you have clean drawers on that night; it would be embarrassing if a boogie woman came to shoot you and you are wearing soiled underpants.

I have held all along that if you are a law abiding gun owner you should have nothing to worry about if new laws are created. I suppose I could be called a lunatic for wanting people to be responsible with their guns, but only a madman would call me a lunatic, rendering it meaningless If the new laws prevent you from acting irresponsibly with your guns, it will be a positive impact on you and the well being of your family. The bigger risk of your family hurting itself with your guns would diminish. You are more likely to die from a handgun if you own a handgun, but that's a stat you won't believe since it is not on the NRA website, but you will spout the choking stats of people who eat peanut-butter without milk and offer it as a valid comparison in a conversation about guns. If the new laws do not prevent anyone from acting irresponsibly with their firearms, then I agree that they would be pointless. Unfortunately, the NRA has its nose everywhere and protects the profits of its supporters so there is a very good chance that safety will lose to the thirst for profits. It is awesome how the NRA has recruited so many to help it protect the profits of its constituents and awesome at how many citizens are willing to gulp from its toxic stream of bullshit. I do live with a constant reminder of the tragic event that occurred in Newtown. You can bet on that and repeat the fact as much as you like. Texas is a gun loving state. You should know this. Everyone knows this. Is it bad to state something that is true? People do draw guns and and fight over parking spaces. is that not true too? Am I a lunatic for stating something that is true? In a state where there are more guns than normal, wouldn't you expect that there would be guns drawn more often when there is a parking space in dispute? Sure the boogie man is a concern, but fuck me if I have to walk an extra 15 feet when I saw the parking space first. Sorry, ZDO, I do not live in fear. Maybe if I was more fearful, I would see the need to protect gun owners rights to leave guns all over the place to be easily stolen or to be improperly sold, falling into the wrong hands. Smart boy, though, avoid the tough questions and go for the low hanging fruit.

As with most laws, if you are a law abiding citizen, of sound mind and body, and in the case of guns, if you can tell the difference between a can of pesticide and a gun, then the laws will have no impact on you. In other words, you lose nothing. You will still be able to shoot your guns for fun, and they most certainly are fun, and you will be able to protect your castle. Personally I don't want to have a gun drawn on me because I am arguing over a parking spot. Not sure how an argument over a parking spot can be considered a valid reason to draw a gun, but such is the case in many gun loving communities. Hearing, over lunch, that someone is "packing a 380 and I always have it" with a tap on his pocket is a sign pride gone awry, but that is just me. Especially when you consider the community.

yes! Can medicine, golf clubs, and guns all be grouped together? We learn how to properly group items in kindergarten. Maybe NRA members should go back to kindergarten to learn to properly group items so that they can then have intelligent conversations.

30 guns stolen in Greensboro burglaries | Piedmont - WXII Home The article states that the guns were properly stored. Obviously the news source is afraid of ruffling the feathers of NRA members. How were they properly stored if they were stolen? Another case of an irresponsible law abiding gun owner making his guns available to criminals. Criminals will always have guns as long as there are dumb ass gun owning law abiding citizens.

It really makes it not worth having a conversation.

It was given that some yahoo would give this response. Nonsense, utter nonsense. I suppose on the internet, we can say anything we want; Intelligent conversations be damned. Ask a Navy sniper if they would drop the gun or not and compare the answer to yours.

You made comments eariler in the thread that no one would have cared as much if they were minorities that were shot. Recall? Now you are stating that you were wondering how long it would take to ouse the poor inner city black kids. It seems to me that you are trying to bring race up in the thread and no one else. It is the violence part and it is also the gun part. Something has blinded you if you can't see that. If a gang banger was shot and killed no one ( the media) would have cared as much, unless the paper has a gang banger section that they update. It is an unfortunate outcome of the life that a gang banger chooses when he dies. Most end up in prison. If it was a male honor student, then yes the media would have picked up on it. Whether the media would have picked up on it or not, the fact is that the girl was not the intended target of the perp. Such an outcome is incredibly impossible if the perp was using a bat as you propose in the 3 sec beating. She wasn't a gang banger and the perp would have gone after the intended target. She was yet another innocent victim of a society where gun nuts want to be allowed to be irresponsible with the weapons they own or manufacture.

Ha ha, you creative bastard. Maybe she shot JR Ewing too.

I actually remember the episode when it aired. We were all fans of Happy Days and I do remember subconsciously thinking the same sentiment.

Tragic! Illegal hand guns. It brings your mind to that area of having to figure out how to deal with losing a child to a senseless act.

Is anyone familiar with the term " Jump the Shark"?

You need to contact your public relations director. Your posts have given the impression to others that you are insane too. You need to portray the kinder, gentler, Patuca. Patuca for President!

Even with a weapon, your home is not safe. If someone came in and you grabbed your gun and he grabbed your child and put a knife to your child's neck and told you to drop the gun, Should I ask what you would do?