(04-03-2013 09:45 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  When you have people like Obama in charge of the government who has always supported abortion in all it's forms, up to the minute before birth, and even post birth if the child survives the abortion, they want to make the deadly path to abortion free and easy, while doing everything they can do prevent adoption.

The Left calls that compassion.

Just kill the babies.

This is Sparta!

Lol

(04-01-2013 04:27 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 04:17 PM)klake87 Wrote:  27 year old and her mother were attacked on a CTA train by a group of teen aged girls. hit with a lock in a tube sock, hair cut and pulled out. just for riding the train. They flicked a cigarette at the woman to start a fight. Law abiding citizens need to protect themselves. I didn't even mention the roving gangs of kids on Michigan avenue. Police are overmatched.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...6041.story

Concealed carry does not solve this. Better parenting does.

this is a moronic statement because this isn't the right place to apply this statement. as a parent you can control how you teach YOUR kids proper values. you cannot control parenting of these others who become troublemakers.

(04-03-2013 03:58 PM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 04:27 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 04:17 PM)klake87 Wrote:  27 year old and her mother were attacked on a CTA train by a group of teen aged girls. hit with a lock in a tube sock, hair cut and pulled out. just for riding the train. They flicked a cigarette at the woman to start a fight. Law abiding citizens need to protect themselves. I didn't even mention the roving gangs of kids on Michigan avenue. Police are overmatched.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...6041.story

Concealed carry does not solve this. Better parenting does.

this is a moronic statement because this isn't the right place to apply this statement. as a parent you can control how you teach YOUR kids proper values. you cannot control parenting of these others who become troublemakers.

you got the joke

(04-03-2013 09:45 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 08:41 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:28 PM)klake87 Wrote:  you think burglaries will be down in Nelson,Ga? They just passed a law that every home is required to have a gun. Criminals will bypass this town now. Or we will have a lot less criminals. Which isn't a bad thing

The town manager was interviewed on WCPT last week and admitted that no person will actually be legally required to own or carry a weapon; the law was passed as a deterent but gov't requiring everyone to own a piece of physical property is over reaching and the kind of "Big Gov't" that conservatives and libertarians normally rail against.

(04-02-2013 08:44 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:30 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:28 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 10:36 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  No, but for the time/effort spent on this issue by the mayor/police chief, you'd think it is THE problem.

Agreed. The ability to have or not have guns is not the issue Chicago should focus on. The problem is a social issue.

we need fewer welfare babies. We promote women having babies because the get more entitlement dollars. If you take the money away, you will lower the pregnancy rate of women on welfare.

What we need are those who want fewer welfare babies to get off their religious self righteous high horses and stop their inexorable attempts to limit or ban abortion. You want fewer welfare babies who tend to be single parent kids who don't get the guidance that most 2 parent homes are able to provide; then stop advancing all this bull$hit legislation all over the country trying to limit access to abortions.

You reap what you sow.

Anything to keep people from actually being responsible parents. Even if it means killing babies.

That's really compassionate!

The "self-righteous religious" people that you hate so much actually do supported numerous charities that will help expectant mothers, as well as adoption agencies. Many of them even adopt, and more of them would except that there is this problem with excessive government regulation that makes it really tough to adopt an American baby.

When you have people like Obama in charge of the government who has always supported abortion in all it's forms, up to the minute before birth, and even post birth if the child survives the abortion, they want to make the deadly path to abortion free and easy, while doing everything they can do prevent adoption.

The Left calls that compassion.

Just kill the babies.

This is Sparta!

Oh Yes of course it's the President's fault that adoption is so hard; just another problem he caused when he was inaugurated that never existed before.

Oh BTW, it's not a baby until it's been born.

If Abortion were illegal there would be millions more single parent children living in poverty and even more bitching and complaining from the 1% ers that their taxes are too high.

I have a carry permit in Florida. but I've never actually carried a gun on me anywhere. At times I keep one locked up in my car if I know I'm going to a not-so-nice part of town or if I'm going to be out somewhere late at night. There's plenty of people that I know that do the same thing.

People like to know that they have the ability to carry a gun legally, but I bet only a small percentage of those people actually carry at all times.

(04-03-2013 06:58 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 09:45 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 08:41 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:28 PM)klake87 Wrote:  you think burglaries will be down in Nelson,Ga? They just passed a law that every home is required to have a gun. Criminals will bypass this town now. Or we will have a lot less criminals. Which isn't a bad thing

The town manager was interviewed on WCPT last week and admitted that no person will actually be legally required to own or carry a weapon; the law was passed as a deterent but gov't requiring everyone to own a piece of physical property is over reaching and the kind of "Big Gov't" that conservatives and libertarians normally rail against.

(04-02-2013 08:44 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:30 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:28 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  Agreed. The ability to have or not have guns is not the issue Chicago should focus on. The problem is a social issue.

we need fewer welfare babies. We promote women having babies because the get more entitlement dollars. If you take the money away, you will lower the pregnancy rate of women on welfare.

What we need are those who want fewer welfare babies to get off their religious self righteous high horses and stop their inexorable attempts to limit or ban abortion. You want fewer welfare babies who tend to be single parent kids who don't get the guidance that most 2 parent homes are able to provide; then stop advancing all this bull$hit legislation all over the country trying to limit access to abortions.

You reap what you sow.

Anything to keep people from actually being responsible parents. Even if it means killing babies.

That's really compassionate!

The "self-righteous religious" people that you hate so much actually do supported numerous charities that will help expectant mothers, as well as adoption agencies. Many of them even adopt, and more of them would except that there is this problem with excessive government regulation that makes it really tough to adopt an American baby.

When you have people like Obama in charge of the government who has always supported abortion in all it's forms, up to the minute before birth, and even post birth if the child survives the abortion, they want to make the deadly path to abortion free and easy, while doing everything they can do prevent adoption.

The Left calls that compassion.

Just kill the babies.

This is Sparta!

Oh Yes of course it's the President's fault that adoption is so hard; just another problem he caused when he was inaugurated that never existed before.

Oh BTW, it's not a baby until it's been born.

If Abortion were illegal there would be millions more single parent children living in poverty and even more bitching and complaining from the 1% ers that their taxes are too high.

And where do you get the authority to make such an arbitrary declaration?

So you are saying that just because someone has human DNA, they are not really human until the government declares they are.

It really takes a Liberal to spout off such a stupid and heartless philosophy. Whatever it takes to kill more inconvenient babies, I suppose.

I seem to recall reading about past Governments declaring that negros are only 3/5's human, and that Jews are not really human either because their noses were too big. What a convenient way to justify enslaving people or commiting genocide! Now we use that same rationalization to justify killing babies in the womb, and sometimes even outside the womb.

So why is it that when someone murders a pregnant woman, the person gets charged with two counts of murder?

Have you ever heard of an expectant father in the delivery room, who upon hearing the doctor announce that he is now the father of a baby girl (or boy) breathe a sigh of relief and say, "Oh thank God! She's a girl. I was afraid it might be a horse or an elephant or a duck-billed platypus, because until the baby is born, it's not human yet!"? The Fly was just a movie. Women do not give birth to larvae.

Quote:If Abortion were illegal there would be millions more single parent children living in poverty and even more bitching and complaining from the 1% ers that their taxes are too high.

Even if the babies are destined to grow up to be Democrats, that still does not justify killing them.

(04-04-2013 08:36 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 06:58 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 09:45 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 08:41 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:28 PM)klake87 Wrote:  you think burglaries will be down in Nelson,Ga? They just passed a law that every home is required to have a gun. Criminals will bypass this town now. Or we will have a lot less criminals. Which isn't a bad thing

The town manager was interviewed on WCPT last week and admitted that no person will actually be legally required to own or carry a weapon; the law was passed as a deterent but gov't requiring everyone to own a piece of physical property is over reaching and the kind of "Big Gov't" that conservatives and libertarians normally rail against.

(04-02-2013 08:44 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:30 PM)klake87 Wrote:  we need fewer welfare babies. We promote women having babies because the get more entitlement dollars. If you take the money away, you will lower the pregnancy rate of women on welfare.

What we need are those who want fewer welfare babies to get off their religious self righteous high horses and stop their inexorable attempts to limit or ban abortion. You want fewer welfare babies who tend to be single parent kids who don't get the guidance that most 2 parent homes are able to provide; then stop advancing all this bull$hit legislation all over the country trying to limit access to abortions.

You reap what you sow.

Anything to keep people from actually being responsible parents. Even if it means killing babies.

That's really compassionate!

The "self-righteous religious" people that you hate so much actually do supported numerous charities that will help expectant mothers, as well as adoption agencies. Many of them even adopt, and more of them would except that there is this problem with excessive government regulation that makes it really tough to adopt an American baby.

When you have people like Obama in charge of the government who has always supported abortion in all it's forms, up to the minute before birth, and even post birth if the child survives the abortion, they want to make the deadly path to abortion free and easy, while doing everything they can do prevent adoption.

The Left calls that compassion.

Just kill the babies.

This is Sparta!

Oh Yes of course it's the President's fault that adoption is so hard; just another problem he caused when he was inaugurated that never existed before.

Oh BTW, it's not a baby until it's been born.

If Abortion were illegal there would be millions more single parent children living in poverty and even more bitching and complaining from the 1% ers that their taxes are too high.

And where do you get the authority to make such an arbitrary declaration?

So you are saying that just because someone has human DNA, they are not really human until the government declares they are.

It really takes a Liberal to spout off such a stupid and heartless philosophy. Whatever it takes to kill more inconvenient babies, I suppose.

I seem to recall reading about past Governments declaring that negros are only 3/5's human, and that Jews are not really human either because their noses were too big. What a convenient way to justify enslaving people or commiting genocide! Now we use that same rationalization to justify killing babies in the womb, and sometimes even outside the womb.

So why is it that when someone murders a pregnant woman, the person gets charged with two counts of murder?

Have you ever heard of an expectant father in the delivery room, who upon hearing the doctor announce that he is now the father of a baby girl (or boy) breathe a sigh of relief and say, "Oh thank God! She's a girl. I was afraid it might be a horse or an elephant or a duck-billed platypus, because until the baby is born, it's not human yet!"? The Fly was just a movie. Women do not give birth to larvae.

Quote:If Abortion were illegal there would be millions more single parent children living in poverty and even more bitching and complaining from the 1% ers that their taxes are too high.

Even if the babies are destined to grow up to be Democrats, that still does not justify killing them.

It's not my "arbitrary declaration"; that is documented & accepted Case Law since Rowe V Wade. It's been the law of the land for decades.

(04-04-2013 08:36 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 06:58 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 09:45 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 08:41 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:28 PM)klake87 Wrote:  you think burglaries will be down in Nelson,Ga? They just passed a law that every home is required to have a gun. Criminals will bypass this town now. Or we will have a lot less criminals. Which isn't a bad thing

The town manager was interviewed on WCPT last week and admitted that no person will actually be legally required to own or carry a weapon; the law was passed as a deterent but gov't requiring everyone to own a piece of physical property is over reaching and the kind of "Big Gov't" that conservatives and libertarians normally rail against.

(04-02-2013 08:44 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:30 PM)klake87 Wrote:  we need fewer welfare babies. We promote women having babies because the get more entitlement dollars. If you take the money away, you will lower the pregnancy rate of women on welfare.

What we need are those who want fewer welfare babies to get off their religious self righteous high horses and stop their inexorable attempts to limit or ban abortion. You want fewer welfare babies who tend to be single parent kids who don't get the guidance that most 2 parent homes are able to provide; then stop advancing all this bull$hit legislation all over the country trying to limit access to abortions.

You reap what you sow.

Anything to keep people from actually being responsible parents. Even if it means killing babies.

That's really compassionate!

The "self-righteous religious" people that you hate so much actually do supported numerous charities that will help expectant mothers, as well as adoption agencies. Many of them even adopt, and more of them would except that there is this problem with excessive government regulation that makes it really tough to adopt an American baby.

When you have people like Obama in charge of the government who has always supported abortion in all it's forms, up to the minute before birth, and even post birth if the child survives the abortion, they want to make the deadly path to abortion free and easy, while doing everything they can do prevent adoption.

The Left calls that compassion.

Just kill the babies.

This is Sparta!

Oh Yes of course it's the President's fault that adoption is so hard; just another problem he caused when he was inaugurated that never existed before.

Oh BTW, it's not a baby until it's been born.

If Abortion were illegal there would be millions more single parent children living in poverty and even more bitching and complaining from the 1% ers that their taxes are too high.

And where do you get the authority to make such an arbitrary declaration?

So you are saying that just because someone has human DNA, they are not really human until the government declares they are.

It really takes a Liberal to spout off such a stupid and heartless philosophy. Whatever it takes to kill more inconvenient babies, I suppose.

I seem to recall reading about past Governments declaring that negros are only 3/5's human, and that Jews are not really human either because their noses were too big. What a convenient way to justify enslaving people or commiting genocide! Now we use that same rationalization to justify killing babies in the womb, and sometimes even outside the womb.

So why is it that when someone murders a pregnant woman, the person gets charged with two counts of murder?

Have you ever heard of an expectant father in the delivery room, who upon hearing the doctor announce that he is now the father of a baby girl (or boy) breathe a sigh of relief and say, "Oh thank God! She's a girl. I was afraid it might be a horse or an elephant or a duck-billed platypus, because until the baby is born, it's not human yet!"? The Fly was just a movie. Women do not give birth to larvae.

Quote:If Abortion were illegal there would be millions more single parent children living in poverty and even more bitching and complaining from the 1% ers that their taxes are too high.

Even if the babies are destined to grow up to be Democrats, that still does not justify killing them.

You really do scare me.

(04-11-2013 06:21 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 08:36 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 06:58 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 09:45 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 08:41 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  The town manager was interviewed on WCPT last week and admitted that no person will actually be legally required to own or carry a weapon; the law was passed as a deterent but gov't requiring everyone to own a piece of physical property is over reaching and the kind of "Big Gov't" that conservatives and libertarians normally rail against.

(04-02-2013 08:44 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  What we need are those who want fewer welfare babies to get off their religious self righteous high horses and stop their inexorable attempts to limit or ban abortion. You want fewer welfare babies who tend to be single parent kids who don't get the guidance that most 2 parent homes are able to provide; then stop advancing all this bull$hit legislation all over the country trying to limit access to abortions.

You reap what you sow.

Anything to keep people from actually being responsible parents. Even if it means killing babies.

That's really compassionate!

The "self-righteous religious" people that you hate so much actually do supported numerous charities that will help expectant mothers, as well as adoption agencies. Many of them even adopt, and more of them would except that there is this problem with excessive government regulation that makes it really tough to adopt an American baby.

When you have people like Obama in charge of the government who has always supported abortion in all it's forms, up to the minute before birth, and even post birth if the child survives the abortion, they want to make the deadly path to abortion free and easy, while doing everything they can do prevent adoption.

The Left calls that compassion.

Just kill the babies.

This is Sparta!

Oh Yes of course it's the President's fault that adoption is so hard; just another problem he caused when he was inaugurated that never existed before.

Oh BTW, it's not a baby until it's been born.

If Abortion were illegal there would be millions more single parent children living in poverty and even more bitching and complaining from the 1% ers that their taxes are too high.

And where do you get the authority to make such an arbitrary declaration?

So you are saying that just because someone has human DNA, they are not really human until the government declares they are.

It really takes a Liberal to spout off such a stupid and heartless philosophy. Whatever it takes to kill more inconvenient babies, I suppose.

I seem to recall reading about past Governments declaring that negros are only 3/5's human, and that Jews are not really human either because their noses were too big. What a convenient way to justify enslaving people or commiting genocide! Now we use that same rationalization to justify killing babies in the womb, and sometimes even outside the womb.

So why is it that when someone murders a pregnant woman, the person gets charged with two counts of murder?

Have you ever heard of an expectant father in the delivery room, who upon hearing the doctor announce that he is now the father of a baby girl (or boy) breathe a sigh of relief and say, "Oh thank God! She's a girl. I was afraid it might be a horse or an elephant or a duck-billed platypus, because until the baby is born, it's not human yet!"? The Fly was just a movie. Women do not give birth to larvae.

Quote:If Abortion were illegal there would be millions more single parent children living in poverty and even more bitching and complaining from the 1% ers that their taxes are too high.

Even if the babies are destined to grow up to be Democrats, that still does not justify killing them.

It's not my "arbitrary declaration"; that is documented & accepted Case Law since Rowe V Wade. It's been the law of the land for decades.

As long as you want to make the Supreme Court the arbiters of morality, The Dred-Scott Decision was also documented and accepted case law and the law of the land less that two centuries ago. I suppose that would have been okay with you too.

(04-01-2013 06:38 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 05:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I just think its ridiculous that people think that concealed carry will stop these crimes.

Chicago’s nightmare is due to gun control – and the disdain for the rights and worth of the individual that inevitably accompanies it - not in spite of it. Chicago has become a big, fat, juicy unarmed target full of helpless victims.

“This is a big surprise” said nobody who lived in Chicago, ever.

C'mon. Chicago was a nightmare before gun control. Most big cities have been.

(04-18-2013 12:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 06:38 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 05:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I just think its ridiculous that people think that concealed carry will stop these crimes.

Chicago’s nightmare is due to gun control – and the disdain for the rights and worth of the individual that inevitably accompanies it - not in spite of it. Chicago has become a big, fat, juicy unarmed target full of helpless victims.

“This is a big surprise” said nobody who lived in Chicago, ever.

C'mon. Chicago was a nightmare before gun control. Most big cities have been.

If you are a middle class person in Chicago you probably live in a nice low crime area where almost nobody owns a gun. Its very safe and the chances of getting shot are nil.

If you are a poor person living in the ghetto where there are LOTS of guns there is 1000x the gun violence. You could own a gun and have it on you at all times and you'll still likely get shot.

Conceal carry isn't going to fix chicago.

(04-18-2013 12:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 06:38 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 05:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I just think its ridiculous that people think that concealed carry will stop these crimes.

Chicago’s nightmare is due to gun control – and the disdain for the rights and worth of the individual that inevitably accompanies it - not in spite of it. Chicago has become a big, fat, juicy unarmed target full of helpless victims.

“This is a big surprise” said nobody who lived in Chicago, ever.

C'mon. Chicago was a nightmare before gun control. Most big cities have been.

So, at best, your argument is that gun control in Chicago has not accomplished anything. It sure has not brought the city to anywhere near the security that its proponents claimed and keep claiming it would.

Let's restrict freedom and accomplish nothing.

(04-18-2013 07:35 PM)niuguy Wrote:  Conceal carry isn't going to fix chicago.

I'd agree with you that legal concealed carry isn't going to fix Chicago. But, banning it hasn't helped either. So, at best it is a wash.

Again, concealed carry goes on every day in Chicago, just not legally.

(04-18-2013 10:14 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 07:35 PM)niuguy Wrote:  Conceal carry isn't going to fix chicago.

I'd agree with you that legal concealed carry isn't going to fix Chicago. But, banning it hasn't helped either. So, at best it is a wash.

Again, concealed carry goes on every day in Chicago, just not legally.

No question, today Chicago/Illinois cops can arrest any one for carrying a gun, with concealed carry, I would assume that a gang banger without any felony convictions would be allowed to lawfully carry a gun. Seems to me that would take away one major avenue cops have today to bring in a gang banger when no other evidence is apparent.

(04-18-2013 10:14 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 07:35 PM)niuguy Wrote:  Conceal carry isn't going to fix chicago.

I'd agree with you that legal concealed carry isn't going to fix Chicago. But, banning it hasn't helped either. So, at best it is a wash.

Again, concealed carry goes on every day in Chicago, just not legally.

If it is a wash, I would prefer the side with more freedom.

(04-18-2013 08:43 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 12:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 06:38 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 05:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I just think its ridiculous that people think that concealed carry will stop these crimes.

Chicago’s nightmare is due to gun control – and the disdain for the rights and worth of the individual that inevitably accompanies it - not in spite of it. Chicago has become a big, fat, juicy unarmed target full of helpless victims.

“This is a big surprise” said nobody who lived in Chicago, ever.

C'mon. Chicago was a nightmare before gun control. Most big cities have been.

So, at best, your argument is that gun control in Chicago has not accomplished anything. It sure has not brought the city to anywhere near the security that its proponents claimed and keep claiming it would.

Let's restrict freedom and accomplish nothing.

If you believe that I'm a supporter of Chicago's gun ban them you don't know me very well. Not everyone sees the world in black and white.

(04-19-2013 01:36 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 10:14 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 07:35 PM)niuguy Wrote:  Conceal carry isn't going to fix chicago.

I'd agree with you that legal concealed carry isn't going to fix Chicago. But, banning it hasn't helped either. So, at best it is a wash.

Again, concealed carry goes on every day in Chicago, just not legally.

If it is a wash, I would prefer the side with more freedom.

By that logic, since the war on drugs hasn't eradicated all drugs from this country, we might as well give up and make all drugs legal. Since that would be the side with more freedom

(04-19-2013 07:36 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 01:36 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 10:14 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2013 07:35 PM)niuguy Wrote:  Conceal carry isn't going to fix chicago.

I'd agree with you that legal concealed carry isn't going to fix Chicago. But, banning it hasn't helped either. So, at best it is a wash.

Again, concealed carry goes on every day in Chicago, just not legally.

If it is a wash, I would prefer the side with more freedom.

By that logic, since the war on drugs hasn't eradicated all drugs from this country, we might as well give up and make all drugs legal. Since that would be the side with more freedom

That would be fine with me, as long as I am not forced to pay for the druggies' rehab or herroin needles. Drug addiction should not be covered as a disablility either.

Imagine actually treating citizens as responsible adults, rather than increasing the nanny-state.