Printable View
[QUOTE=Jackson;432153]Perhaps that's why the initiative was introduced in the first place. Think about it. Perhaps there are lots of people living in LA who do not like that it's the center of the porn industry and this is their way of shutting it down.[/QUOTE]LA is mostly mexican now a days. Do you really think that they care? Its just another example of a stupid law enacted by stupid people.
[QUOTE=Gandolf50;432164]LA is mostly mexican now a days. Do you really think that they care? Its just another example of a stupid law enacted by stupid people.[/QUOTE]Actually, Chatsworth, California, in the "San Pornando" Valley is the Porn Capital of the world and it's not in Los Angeles but it's nearby. I don't know if the new legislation applies.
The article below is very interesting. HUGE MONEY involved.
[URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-585049.html[/URL]
Jenna Jamison must have had to Fuck everybody to make a million bucks!
TL.
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;432167]Actually, Chatsworth, California, in the "San Pornando" Valley is the Porn Capital of the world and it's not in Los Angeles but it's nearby. I don't know if the new legislation applies.
[/QUOTE]No, Chatsworth is part of the the City of Los Angeles as is most of the San Fernando Valley. About ten years ago, the San Fernando Valley voted to succeed from The City but the vote lost 66% to 33%. Burbank and Glendale are the largest cities in the Valley that are not City of Los Angeles.
[QUOTE=BigBossMan;432168]No, Chatsworth is part of the the City of Los Angeles as is most of the San Fernando Valley. About ten years ago, the San Fernando Valley voted to succeed from The City but the vote lost 66% to 33%. Burbank and Glendale are the largest cities in the Valley that are not City of Los Angeles.[/QUOTE]So I guess that's how LA beat them?
Thanks,
TL.
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;432167]Actually, Chatsworth, California, in the "San Pornando" Valley is the Porn Capital of the world and it's not in Los Angeles but it's nearby. I don't know if the new legislation applies.
The article below is very interesting. HUGE MONEY involved.
[URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-585049.html[/URL]
Jenna Jamison must have had to Fuck everybody to make a million bucks!
TL.[/QUOTE]I remember Chatsworth and most of the "Valley" as being almost all residential. They must be filming in their back yards!
[QUOTE=Gandolf50;432170]I remember Chatsworth and most of the "Valley" as being almost all residential. They must be filming in their back yards![/QUOTE]Now that I think about it, that was a stupid post. It seems most porn is filmed in a living room, deck / patio, pool, or bedroom. I guess that would be what they call a "cottage" industry? .
The following editorial raises some very serious questions which the mainstream media propagandist seem to be ignoring. I apologize for the length of the quote.
[QUOTE=news.investors.com]Why Is Obama's Growing DHS Army Buying Armored Vehicles?
Security: In addition to stockpiling over a billion bullets and thousands of semiautomatic weapons the feds would deny U.S. citizens, the vehicle of choice for fighting the counterinsurgency war in Iraq is appearing on U.S. streets.
The sequestration question du jour is why the Department of Homeland Security, busy releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of deportable and detained illegal aliens due to budget constraints, is buying several thousand Mine Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles?
And just who are they intended to be used against?
This acquisition comes on top of the recent news of the stockpiling by DHS of more than 1.6 billion (with a 'b') bullets of various calibers, enough by one calculation to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War, and the ordering of some 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO "personal defense weapons" (PDW) — also known as "assault weapons" when owned by civilians.
[highlight]Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that "have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds."[/highlight]
The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the U.S. They were formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq.
These vehicles are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks. They use bulletproof windows and are designed to withstand small-arms fire, including smaller-caliber rifles such as a .223 Remington. Does DHS expect a counterinsurgency here?
After IEDs began to take a toll on U.S. military forces in Iraq, the Pentagon ordered a large supply of MRAPs.
"They've taken hits, many, many hits that would have killed soldiers and marines in uparmored Humvees," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a recent interview.
A DHS officer, Robert Whitaker, stationed in El Paso, Texas, recently proudly described the agency's new armored toy as "Mine-resistant ... we use to deliver our team to high-risk warrant services ... (with) gun ports so we can actually shoot from within the vehicle; you may think it's pretty loud but actually it's not too bad ... we have gun ports there in the back and two on the sides as well. They are designed for .50-caliber weapons."
This is needed to serve warrants? Perhaps it might have been useful at Waco.
[highlight]So the question is what does DHS need 1.6 billion bullets, 7,000 Ar-15s and 2,700 armored vehicles for?[/highlight]
What are they anticipating or planning for, and why are few in the media and Congress asking about it, particularly in the light of daily apocalyptic bleats from the administration about sequestration cuts?
We have asked if this has anything to do with then-candidate Obama's proposal for a national security force as powerful as the U.S. Army.
In a July 2, 2008, speech in Colorado Springs, Colo., candidate Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
As Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News contributor, recently opined in the Washington Times, "The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us."
No, we are not scanning the sky for black helicopters.
But we are concerned about an administration pushing for ever stricter gun control and de facto gun registration in the form of allegedly universal background checks to which criminals and gangbangers won't comply is arming itself to the teeth.
If weapons of war don't belong on the street, Mr. President, explain these purchases.
[url]http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030513-646857-dhs-buys-special-armored-fighting-vehicles.htm#ixzz2MjNvsvDr[/url]
[/QUOTE]Yes, please explain!
What is the hullabaloo going on about drones? Has there been a domestic assassination on domestic soil yet? Would there have been a cheer or boo if Osaman bin Laden been hit by a drone. Why don't we check with Cheney about drones? Maybe, the future armed domestic insurgents / guerillas / seccessonists on American soil are getting worried?
Use people to fly the planes, not unmanned.
This filibuster guy wants to be the one.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;432229]What is the hullabaloo going on about drones? Has there been a domestic assassination on domestic soil yet? Would there have been a cheer or boo if Osaman bin Laden been hit by a drone. Why don't we check with Cheney about drones? Maybe, the future armed domestic insurgents / guerillas / seccessonists on American soil are getting worried?[/QUOTE]
No profit.
[URL]http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/why-the-gop-is-killing-post-office/Content?oid=3480985[/URL]
Though Bloomberg is confident the judge's ruling will be overturned on appeal:
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/bloomberg-soda-ban-ruling_n_2855769.html[/URL]
I like Bloomberg, more or less, but can agree he may have overstepped on this one. However I do believe "social engineering" isn't all bad, and has a place. On the soda issue, social engineering could be accomplished by other means, for example educating kids in school, running ads on TV, etc. You can influence society without denying a freedom.
The distinction to make is: [b]Does a freedom negatively impact other people ?[/b]
If you drink an extra large soda, you take a risk of your own free will and only affect yourself. If you sign up to be in a condom-less porn movie, you take a risk of your own free will; you may affect someone else, which may warrant some level of protection (e.g., blood testing), but the impact is limited to a small number of other people who are taking the same risk of their own free will.
BUT, there are other issues where a freedom clearly has a negative impact on other people, who have not accepted the risk of their own free will. The gun debate is a clear example to me. There are many examples where certain freedoms are disallowed, or have strong regulation. For good reason.
[QUOTE=Esten;432287]Though Bloomberg is confident the judge's ruling will be overturned on appeal:
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/bloomberg-soda-ban-ruling_n_2855769.html[/URL]
I like Bloomberg, more or less, but can agree he may have overstepped on this one. However I do believe "social engineering" isn't all bad, and has a place. On the soda issue, social engineering could be accomplished by other means, for example educating kids in school, running ads on TV, etc. You can influence society without denying a freedom.
The distinction to make is: [b]Does a freedom negatively impact other people ?[/b]
If you drink an extra large soda, you take a risk of your own free will and only affect yourself. If you sign up to be in a condom-less porn movie, you take a risk of your own free will; you may affect someone else, which may warrant some level of protection (e.g., blood testing), but the impact is limited to a small number of other people who are taking the same risk of their own free will.
BUT, there are other issues where a freedom clearly has a negative impact on other people, who have not accepted the risk of their own free will. The gun debate is a clear example to me. There are many examples where certain freedoms are disallowed, or have strong regulation. For good reason.[/QUOTE]Even you have to admit this was the stupidest thing a wild-ass liberal ever came up with. Totally ridiculas! Hang you head in shame! LMAO. Like it was a surprise it was slapped down, even in wild-ass New York! IALOTFLMAO! [blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]
[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were [u]largely antagonistic[/u]. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. [i]Thank You![/i][/blue]
Delete by Toymann, duplicate post
[QUOTE=Toymann;432291][b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were [u]largely antagonistic[/u]. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. [i]Thank You![/i][/blue][/QUOTE]
My last post was redacted based not on what I said to the poster. I was informed by several member friends the moderator was changed from Jackson, to someone who has been bragging I was on his ignore list. I always figured this was inaccurate information, but I just couldn't help myself to test my theory. I am not the only one that feels some trepidation regarding the identity of the new moderator. In the past I have maintained a tongue and cheek relationship with the previous moderator. Obviously that won't be hapenning going forward. No need to assess any more infractions new dude (my first ever I might add). Never forget that ultimate power corrupts ultimately. I now have my answer. Enough said. Toymann out.
Ps. I certainly hope the new moderator does not find this post antagonistic. Lol
[quote][b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were [u]largely antagonistic[/u]. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. [i]Thank You![/i][/blue][/QUOTE]
If you take the time to read this thread you will find that one requires a sense of humor AND a thick skin to hang here. If you can't handle the heat I suggest you get out of the kitchen or just remain quite. Otherwise you will ruin the fun we all enjoy here. Jax historically has shown excellent temperment regarding the color that exudes this thread. I know you recently exposed YOUR feelings regarding talking politics on the Excedra thread. That may be your opinion, but again, ONLY YOURS. If you want to be a successful moderator I suggest you show a more open mind to both what is said here on this thread but also grow a thicker skin. If ya can't run with the big dogs get off of the porch. Monger on all. Toymann
Ps. Many have used colorful dialog with the moderator on this thread in the past. He could alwAys handle himself. Grow a pair or get off the thread. Lol
How do I get 2 separate infraction points for just 1 post? Is this like when Obamanation talks about doubling down? Just curious. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
P.S. Kind of fees like when I now end up paying my fair share. IALOTFLMAO. Oooooops, guessing the new moderator has never been forced to pay his fair share. Sucks to be me, must be awesome to be him!
[QUOTE=Toymann;432292] I always figured this was inaccurate information, but I just couldn't help myself to test my theory.
[/QUOTE]
So now you're claiming your flame to Esten, which apparently was bad enough Jax admin redacted it, was just to "test [your] theory"?
Lol.
[QUOTE=Mpexy;432295]So now you're claiming your flame to Esten, which apparently was bad enough Jax admin redacted it, was just to "test [your] theory"?
Lol.[/QUOTE]
Jackson it's even awake. You never post here shill. I know, just supporting your wingman. So obvious. Toymann
Ps. You obviosly didn't read the original post. No flaming of Esten in the slightest. Get back to your anti-price police threads. Your appearance here betrays your obvious agenda. Get off the porch.
Pps. Just in case you didn't know when Jackson is logged in it shows on the front page. Too funny
[QUOTE=Toymann;432296]
Ps. You obviosly didn't read the original post. No flaming of Esten in the slightest.[/QUOTE]Round hole, meet square. How does one read the original reply when redacted with Jax admin note saying that it was removed beyond the first paragraph?
You obviously don't understand what redacted means to rest of board ability to "read the original post".
You also obviously believe Jax is not the admin that redacted you. I am soooo happy 'monger-dude'. Can't wait for the train meet canyon crash.
Toyman, Mpexy told me what was happening here and I just can't help myself, I had to unblock you so I could see it for myself.
Seriously Dude, regardless of what anybody has told you I've had you blocked for months. This obsession you have with me is really fucking weird.
Not only do I not moderate this forum, I never, ever, even read this thread. I detest the endless arguments here.
Regardless of what you think you know, or the "proof" you think you have, I didn't redact your posts.
I'm just wondering how el Jeffe is going to react when he reads.
This;
[QUOTE]If you take the time to read this thread you will find that one requires a sense of humor AND a thick skin to hang here. If you can't handle the heat I suggest you get out of the kitchen or just remain quite. Otherwise you will ruin the fun we all enjoy here. Jax historically has shown excellent temperment regarding the color that exudes this thread. I know you recently exposed YOUR feelings regarding talking politics on the Excedra thread. That may be your opinion, but again, ONLY YOURS. If you want to be a successful moderator I suggest you show a more open mind to both what is said here on this thread but also grow a thicker skin. If ya can't run with the big dogs get off of the porch. Monger on all. Toymann
Ps. Many have used colorful dialog with the moderator on this thread in the past. He could alwAys handle himself. Grow a pair or get off the thread. Lol[/QUOTE]And this;.
[QUOTE]How do I get 2 separate infraction points for just 1 post? Is this like when Obamanation talks about doubling down? Just curious. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
P.S. Kind of fees like when I now end up paying my fair share. IALOTFLMAO. Oooooops, guessing the new moderator has never been forced to pay his fair share. Sucks to be me, must be awesome to be him! [/QUOTE]And realizes that while it may have been aimed at me because of your delusions it actually hit him. You actually told him to grow a pair of balls or stop moderating his own forum. It's right here in blue and white, I can't FUCKING wait until he reads this shit.
I am now, going to put you back on my ignore list. But rest assured I will be reading this thread tomorrow.
Jax I'm not asking that you take a side, I've been telling you for months this guy is a waste, you know my position. The only thing I'm asking is that you tell him who redacted the posts. If you do, I'm looking forward to him accusing me of hacking your account and then you will know how seriously unbalanced he is.
DR
[QUOTE=Toymann;432294]How do I get 2 separate infraction points for just 1 post? Is this like when Obamanation talks about doubling down? Just curious. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
P.S. Kind of fees like when I now end up paying my fair share. IALOTFLMAO. Oooooops, guessing the new moderator has never been forced to pay his fair share. Sucks to be me, must be awesome to be him![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Toymann;432293]If you take the time to read this thread you will find that one requires a sense of humor AND a thick skin to hang here. If you can't handle the heat I suggest you get out of the kitchen or just remain quite. Otherwise you will ruin the fun we all enjoy here. Jax historically has shown excellent temperment regarding the color that exudes this thread. I know you recently exposed YOUR feelings regarding talking politics on the Excedra thread. That may be your opinion, but again, ONLY YOURS. If you want to be a successful moderator I suggest you show a more open mind to both what is said here on this thread but also grow a thicker skin. If ya can't run with the big dogs get off of the porch. Monger on all. Toymann
Ps. Many have used colorful dialog with the moderator on this thread in the past. He could alwAys handle himself. Grow a pair or get off the thread. Lol[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Toymann;432292]My last post was redacted based not on what I said to the poster. I was informed by several member friends the moderator was changed from Jackson, to someone who has been bragging I was on his ignore list. I always figured this was inaccurate information, but I just couldn't help myself to test my theory. I am not the only one that feels some trepidation regarding the identity of the new moderator. In the past I have maintained a tongue and cheek relationship with the previous moderator. Obviously that won't be hapenning going forward. No need to assess any more infractions new dude (my first ever I might add). Never forget that ultimate power corrupts ultimately. I now have my answer. Enough said. Toymann out.
Ps. I certainly hope the new moderator does not find this post antagonistic. Lol[/QUOTE][BLUE]Toymann,
I am the only moderator of this forum, and it was I who redacted your initial comment that started all of this.
Now please stop embarassing yourself.
Thanks,
Jackson[/blue]
[BLUE]Greeting everyone,
This was the text I redacted from Toymann's initial post:
[quote]Ooops, hope the dumb-ass new AP moderator isn't reading this. Wouldn't want to offend his sensibilities. LMAO. Toymann. P.S. How can you be the moderator when bad Toymann is blocked. Woo-hoo, guess I am on a no control lease at this point. Viva the new moderator! Dumb shit! LOL.[/quote]I didn't know if these comments were directed towards me or Daddy Rulz, but either way I certainly found them to be "[i]antagonistic[/i]".
In addition, as the comments were not related to politics, I also found that they did not enjoy the latitude normally accorded to commentary in the political thread.
Please let me know if you agree or disagree with my findings.
- Did you find Toymann's comments "[i]antagonistic[/i]"?
- Should the comments have been spared because this is the politics thread?
- Would you have redacted them yourself?
Thanks,
Jackson[/BLUE]
[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;432298]
this guy is a waste
DR[/QUOTE]Someone finally came up with the correct word to describe Toymann!
WASTE.
Tres3.
Seriously boss, I appreciate it.
DR.
Toymann-not such a horrible guy at times, but at other times way, way beyond the pale. You done good Jackson.
It is fun to make jokes about the Republicans, because they are so true.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;432488]It is fun to make jokes about the Republicans, because they are so true.[/QUOTE]Yeah, The Republicans have been disappointing me since I first voted in 1952.
However the Democrats disgust me and I'd rather be disappointed.
Don B
[QUOTE=DonB;432489]Yeah, The Republicans have been disappointing me since I first voted in 1952.
However the Democrats disgust me and I'd rather be disappointed.
Don be.[/QUOTE]Time to vote and support Libertarians then!
[QUOTE=SilverStar;432501]Time to vote and support Libertarians then![/QUOTE]No way!
Don B.
"The debate over the federal budget and even the battle over the Federal Reserve are ultimately arguments over symptoms rather than the cause. The root of the fiscal crisis is the belief that the federal government is qualified to manage the economy, provide for the people's needs, and spread democracy throughout the world through either by foreign aid or by force of arms. Neither party in Washington questions the welfare-warfare state.
Until Congress begins debating questions such as whether or not we really need thousands of military facilities around the world, whether or not we should shut down the Education Department and return control to local communities and parents, and whether we should allow young people to completely op-out of the entitlement programs, the so-called debates in Washington, D.C. Will continue to amount to nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing."
[URL]http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39528.html[/URL]
As long as we continue to send trash to Washington we will continue to get trash back. Garbage in, garbage out!
Kudos to Bloomberg. Finally, we are going to see some real lobbying on the pro-gun control side of the debate.
Check out the ads called "Responsible" and "Family":
[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/03/24/nra_bloomberg_get_ready_for_gun_control_showdown.html[/URL]
Some guy with a beard and a rifle says he'll fight for his second amendment rights, but he'll support background checks to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns. Sounds like common sense, right? Background checks have huge support, even within the NRA. Bloomberg strategically pitches for what's possible. But NRA president Wayne LaPierre is vowing to fight back. He'll accuse Bloomberg of reckless comments, while making wild statements like Bloomberg is trying to buy America, and trying to take away people's guns.
Bloomberg comes across as a class act here. LaPierre, just a self-serving lobbyist. Can't wait to see the NRA ads, no doubt they will be dishonest and misleading, that's all you got when fighting against 90% public opinion.
Bloomberg is a man ahead of his time, he gives us a preview of the "Nanny State" the left wants to shove down our throats, but at the end of the day he's just another leftwing-nut totalitarian.
The NRA will do more for gun safety in one day than Bloomberg and propagandist like Esten will do in a lifetime.
Here's some excellent Pro Constitution testimony.
"The Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety. It Guaranteed Liberty".
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ledhyTAE2zo&feature=player_embedded[/URL]
Growing Up in Texas:
Growing up in Texas as a child I attended "Gun Shows" almost every weekend. My father would rent a table in a convention center for $30.00 dollars and we bought, sold and traded weapons as a HOBBY. Without a dealer's license or a background check. I can remember taking 4 Nazi Lugers to a gun show and the guy that sold tickets bought them from me before I even entered the gun show. Sure, I lost money but we were always able to buy, sell and trade to anyone without a check.
I bought every kind of weapon that you can imagine, I collected Nazi daggers as a Hobby and it paid off in Spades when I sold my collection. I wish I still had them!
Point is that the non registered dealers were and are able to buy and sell and trade weapons without a backround check.
You could buy a flame thrower, and machine gun receivers to convert my semi auto into a full-auto toy of dreams for a 12 year old kid.
Sure, I can remember that some dumb ass shot himself at the gun show because the seller did not check the gun.
So now what happens?
The bond between a father and his son going fishing or hunting or sharing a HOBBY is going to be contaminated by the Yanks! (Gloomberg!).
Bad Boys don't register guns, they just buy them on the street. Or at gun shows!
May they come to Texas where the Texas Prison System removes the life of 25 innocent criminals per year!
Nobody is innocent in prison.
No way that a background check will determine if a loon is a loon!
TL.
[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;432691]Growing Up in Texas:
Growing up in Texas as a child I attended "Gun Shows" almost every weekend. My father would rent a table in a convention center for $30.00 dollars and we bought, sold and traded weapons as a HOBBY. Without a dealer's license or a background check. I can remember taking 4 Nazi Lugers to a gun show and the guy that sold tickets bought them from me before I even entered the gun show. Sure, I lost money but we were always able to buy, sell and trade to anyone without a check.
I bought every kind of weapon that you can imagine, I collected Nazi daggers as a Hobby and it paid off in Spades when I sold my collection. I wish I still had them!
Point is that the non registered dealers were and are able to buy and sell and trade weapons without a backround check.
You could buy a flame thrower, and machine gun receivers to convert my semi auto into a full-auto toy of dreams for a 12 year old kid.
Sure, I can remember that some dumb ass shot himself at the gun show because the seller did not check the gun.
So now what happens?
The bond between a father and his son going fishing or hunting or sharing a HOBBY is going to be contaminated by the Yanks! (Gloomberg!).
Bad Boys don't register guns, they just buy them on the street. Or at gun shows!
May they come to Texas where the Texas Prison System removes the life of 25 innocent criminals per year!
Nobody is innocent in prison.
No way that a background check will determine if a loon is a loon!
TL.[/QUOTE]Bloomberg needs a background check himself for trying to tell us we can't order a 2 Liter Coke and large pizza for a family of 4. He's a looney for trying to ban 1/2 liter bottle of soda. Give me a break!
"We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I'm not taking any position, I just thought that some actual words from the Consititution might be helpful.
Bob.
[QUOTE=Punter127;432689]Bloomberg is a man ahead of his time, he gives us a preview of the "Nanny State" the left wants to shove down our throats, but at the end of the day he's just another leftwing-nut totalitarian.
The NRA will do more for gun safety in one day than Bloomberg and propagandist like Esten will do in a lifetime.
Here's some excellent Pro Constitution testimony.
"The Constitution Did Not Guarantee Public Safety. It Guaranteed Liberty".
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ledhyTAE2zo&feature=player_embedded[/URL][/QUOTE]
Maybe look at the homicides by gun:
Gun Murders per 100,000 (2010)
Texas 3.2%
Illinois 2.8%
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state[/URL]
[QUOTE=AllIWantIsLove;432705]insure domestic Tranquility[/QUOTE]Sounds like Constitutional support for responsible gun control.