MillenniumMan

Do what? Take matters into your own hands? Protect yourself and think. Nintey percent of the time it's just fear and intimidation that's used to rob a bank or someone on the street if the "weapon" is concealed. If someone's going to rob a bank, and doesn't show you the gun, just makes a bulge in their jacket, chances are good that it might just be their finger. If you're going to rob a bank with a real weapon you're gonna flash it because you know you can get away with it.

Because most people in this day and age are stupid fearful -*BAD WORD*-ers, that's what happens when you let others do for you what you've forgotten to do for yourselves.

I realize that, but I wanted to go more in-depth into each situation. I've gone through this -*BAD WORD*-ed database, and I can only get highlights on some and indepths on landmark cases. The less extreme cases only show stats The college shouldn't be buying three licenses for this crap...

Violent Crimes-Yes And no. Violence and guns don't always go hand in hand, after all, did cain need a gun to waste able? did lizzie borden need a shotgun to wax her parents? Did OJ Simpson need a 9mm to kill his ex and her new BF? It's all a matter of capabilities. Property Crimes-No This is a given, you don't need a gun to bash in a mailbox or smash a window or slash a tire. Murder-Yes Again, not nessecary to have a gun to kill someone. It can still be accomplished by other means. Forcible Rape-Yes Roofies and the like have made this a less violent but still no less horrible crime. And yet again, a gun is not needed to commit this kind of act. I remember a case a few years ago where this guy would hide under parked cars waiting for the female occupants he was stalking to get back to the car from shopping. He would then slash their ankles which would immediatley immobilize them and he would have his way with them (obviously after taking them to a secure undisclosed location which he set up ahead of time. Robbery-Yes Oh god, not another one... Again, not needed to commit this crime, it make it easier, but if the victim is unarmed then all that's needed is a little intimidation and sometimes a knife. You can knock an old person over, beat the -*BAD WORD*- out of them and take their wallet/purse and it would have the same effect. This is usualy a crime of oppurtunity, depending on the situation. Aggravated assault-No This is a given. Burglary-No A gun is very helpful if you face an irrate homeowner with a baseball bat or a kitchen knife. Larceny Theft-No I prefer the ENRON model myself. Again, a given. Motor Vehicle Theft-No In most cases you're correct. Only brazen induviduals would swipe a car with the owner inside it and that's one opportunity for such a !@#$%^&*head to use a gun. Carjackers who do this usualy wait until the vehicle is stuck in traffic, until the light changes at an intersection or if they're in a parking garage. The advantage of these methods is that there is less damage done to the vehicle and if there is an alarm the remote is closeby. Most times however it's a matter of using a coathanger or a doorwedge and flattened aluminum bar at the top of the door, then getting into the car, pulling the fuse that the alarm is attached to (usualy the domelight or entertainment center fuse). Arson-No I've never heared of an arson case where a gun was needed or used by the arsonist. This is always a crime of opportunity that most of the time takes place at night when noone is around to witness it. OK, now that I've written a criminal how-to pamplet, let's see how some of these folks would fair against some of these situations.

:eek: ...like, must be a different world..do you people hunt or something? I don't, I care about animals and don't kill for sport or food (vegitarian). As far as I know none of them hunt either, but I wouldn't care one way or another if they did, that would be their choice. I'd feel sorry for the animal that got nailed, but that's about it.

First off, whoever wants crime stats, here ya go. Two freshly compared cities right off the lexus-nexus law server: Washington DC which has banned the ownership and concealed carry of handguns within city limits versus Louisville, Kentucky which has an open conceal carry law and allows ownership of privatley owned handguns within city limits. The only act you'll notice that isn't consistent is the one about arson. This is usualy a destruction of private property crime that takes place at night when people are asleep. But of course to the anti-gunners, this should still be grounds for banning guns because as we all know guns think for themselves and should be able to shoot anyone they please! Mabey the guns were lazy on those nights? http://mywebpages.comcast.net/josephgrant/crimestats.jpg Second of all, whats to stop these -*BAD WORD*-s from furnishing their own guns? A thin metal pipe, dozen matchheads, a ball bearing, pen spring, nail, popper and a couple of hand made cartriges and they have the makings of a nice derringer-style firearm. Pick up the book Homemade guns-Homemade ammo and you'll see how easy it is to furnish your own. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to do this either, just someone who wants the means to defend/offend. Of course, this could also be used in a tactic called butterknifing, where you have one of these -*BAD WORD*-ty pieces, use it on a LEO and take their weapon. And in a world without guns, this may be a tazer or a rubber bullet gun that can still be used by the -*BAD WORD*- to commit crimes. And to whoever said that it was OK to kill, I never said it was ok to kill, but there is this policy that I have where it's better that the other guy die rather than me or someone I love because in the end, if they live and I don't they'll most likley do it again to someone else. And BTW silk, you don't have to have "MILITARY" training, a typical bystander in a better world wouldn't think twice, they would act based on upbringing and doing the right thing. I've trained my neighbors kids quite well in the use of handguns and riflemanship (ages 8-16) and I can tell you that they know there is a great deal of responsibility involved with guns and wouldn't think twice about using one in a defensive posture. They have no military training, although the oldest now wants to become a police officer for the Harford County sherrifs office thanks to me His grades have also improved in this matter knowing that he has to p!@#$%^&* a written test and wants to have higher scoring so he can get further in his class.

But wasnt all your arguments based around people having guns and using them to their advantage. Now youre making strikes at me saying there is nothing preventing people from using other weapons. You and Akai, do you think i dont know this? Of course i do but this whole topic is about guns not knives, clubs or any other kind of blunt object. Last I checked your argument was about the violence purpotrated by gun owners, regardless of their mental stability and ability to handle one responsibly. You threw this scenario out at me saying that no matter what, even if gun ownership were common and legalized outright rather than mandated that there would still be problems. Yes there would be problems but they would have almost vanished compared to what they are now. Case in point, conceal and carry is banned in chicago, handguns are outright banned within the DC city limits, and yet they have the highest crime rates in the nation, to be more precise, rape armed robbery and murders. Then you have on the oppisite end of the spectrum places like west virginia and arkansas where such crimes are only 1/10 that of the entire city of DC and chicago combined. Why? Prevelant gun ownership and the common sense to use them. And to madhaha, I thought I made it very clear that even the presence of my gun was enough to deter those little -*BAD WORD*-s from going any further, but what does a little thing like facts matter to someone like you huh? At that point, only the most suicidal thug who doesn't care about dying for trying to rob someone wether at gun or knifepoint, is going to bother to try and get away with such an act. Most wouldn't even bother after seeing a gun, knowing that they could get seriously hurt or killed for making an attempt. And you're thinking "MM thinks that a gun makes him feel all big and bad and -*BAD WORD*-" in which case you would be flat out wrong. Frankly, hurting someone is the last thing on my mind, but it's a them or me at!@#$%^&*ude when it comes to self defense, and I would rather live with the fact that I had to kill someone to prevent myself or someone I love from being hurt or worse rather than have the oppisite be true. Despite the propaganda you've been fed, there is no valor or heroics involved in dying without putting up a fight. I'll tell you what, I'm going to hire a big burly friend of mine to go to your house, rape your mom, your dog and you and we'll see who's got the will to not use a gun in self defense, how's that? Ok, obviously I'm not going to do that because that's wrong, but you get the point.

Heres a scenario for you. A family of 5 are enjoying their day in the local mall shopping for school. little Sally wants to go into the toy stoy while little John and his friend Matt want to go into the arcade. So, Bob the dad decided to take the boys to the arcade and the Mom Sue goes to the toy store. While in the arcade, some 18 year old with a depressing past dies in Pac Man. So he takes out his 9mm and decided to pop little Johnny in the head. If guns are legalized so anyone can get them easy with no back ground checks and etc. Whats to stop this from happening? Another Scenario. A jogger is in the park taking his morning exercise route. So a thug behind a tree decided to have some fun and kill the next jogger. But there are other people in the park as well. The thug just doesnt care and decided to come out of his spot, cap the jogger and anyone around him. Even if civilians in a park had weapons, whats to say that they would take the law into their hands and take out the thug? Chances are they would be scared stiff, duck behind a bench or bushes. Unless someone has a military training or any kind of weapon and mental training they arent going to react accordingly to the situation. Yes maybe in some Europe countries they relaxed the gun law? and saw lower crime rate. But were talking about the US here, i doubt we will get the same outcome. New scenario: Same -*BAD WORD*-ed up in the head 18 year old loser dies in pacman, there's no guns because they've all been banned, so he takes the nearest barstool whacks little johnny over the head crushing his skull killing him anyways, does the same to another nearby kid, then takes the stool and smashes the pacman machine, electrocuting himself when the stool goes through the CRT in the machine. But wait it doesn't stop there! There are sparks going off inside the game machine, which then causes a fire which in turn sets the foam padding above it on fire which in turn sets the arcade ablaze which in turn kills several more patrons. Point is, even without guns, people will still find a way to act out their violent tendencies. Wether with a gun a knife a stool or a flaming bag of crap (pointing out silks post). I've already had to use my Walther PPK as a deterence when I was down on 33rd street after the demolition of memorial stadium, when I was getting some after pictures. I was approached by two young punks, one of which had a switchblade knife (illegal here in maryland but it didn't stop them from owning it anyways) The first words out of that little -*BAD WORD*-s mouth was Heya honkey... and I saw the knife coming out of his pocket. The little -*BAD WORD*- just stood there and smiled, then I unpocketed my PPK and just looked at him and grinned Without firing a shot. Beleive it or not, guns don't talk, they don't have minds of their own and they cant control people, they do what the owner makes them do. They are tools like a hammer, frying pan or an automobile. I get disgusted every time I see an antigunner out there that thinks that everyone that owns a gun is owned by the gun or is disturbed for owning one to begin with. Beleive it or not, most of us are far more responsible and intelligent than the propaganda machine that wants to controll us would have you to beleive. BTW, if you're jewish silk, you should know better. The night of broken gl!@#$%^&* should be more than a lasting reminder for you. Being on equal ground with some -*BAD WORD*- with a weapon kind of diminishes that fear quite a bit, doesn't matter if it's a nazi trooper or some -*BAD WORD*- hiding behind a tree with no morales. multiple parkgoers who are armed against one guy with a deathwish will just mean that the guy will be as good as dead one way or another. And I'd prefer that they did take the law into their own hands. Call it cowboy diplomacy, but you would really have less of a problem with people like that with a well educated and armed populace. And don't give me that little johnny goes into daddys bedroom and plays with daddys gun and blows his brains out crap, that's what teaching little johnny responsibility at an early age is for. If you have a gun, learn how to use it, teach your family how to use it, tell the kids it's not a toy, tell them the consequences. More problems occur when you don't do those things.

What's stopping you? ;p Actualy this was throuroughly discussed in another thread here on the political forum a while back before they screwed it all up and we lost all the posts

And now his sorry -*BAD WORD*- is in trouble for his complicity in a Rx drug ring bust. All this time... It's like you didn't expect it and yet you knew. It's like when you would see richard simmons soliciting a female pros!@#$%^&*ute for sex. Who could see that coming?

Silk, you have to realize that an armed populace means that the real criminals are going to be more fearful of what may happen to them. Scenario 1: A 6 month pregnant mother to be is jogging in a park on chicago, where private handgun concealment is banned, some thug son of a -*BAD WORD*- comes out from behind a tree and demands her money. There are a few joggers nearby and he has a gun. Out of sheer malice he caps the pregnant mother anyway and tries the same with some of the witnesses. Many scream and run away in fear of their lives. Scenario 2: The same pregnant mother is jogging along the same path in the same park, several other joggers, mothers fathers and yes younger induviduals around the age of 12 are nearby (no AOC law for conceal-carry but required training). The same stupid thug comes out from behind the same -*BAD WORD*-ing tree and pulls out the same -*BAD WORD*-ing gun. All of a sudden there's five or six guys with various styles of gun from colt peacemakers to tech-9s trained on the guys head and they blast him all to -*BAD WORD*-. The 12 year old stands over the thugs now bullet ridden corpse, and the young man says "stupid punk -*BAD WORD*- beoooootch" and spits in the massive hole in the thugs head. Scenario 3: The same pregnant mother is jogging along the same path in the same park, several other joggers, mothers fathers and yes younger induviduals are nearby. The same tree is still there, and the pregnant mother-to-be passes by the tree without incident. Why? Because the thug realizes that it wouldn't be safe for him to try anything on this or any other day. He gets a sorry--*BAD WORD*- job at wal-mart as a greeter because he couldn't cut it doing anything else decent. Aieleron: Some people just don't get it... Glad you do. Madhaha: Despite what you've been told, it takes a far bigger hole than what one or two rounds going through the cabin of a 737 to cause it to depressurize. Those sons of -*BAD WORD*-es were on a mission to kill hundreds if not thousands of people on the ground. Think of what would have happened if the passengers of flight 93 didnt act, most likely we would have a hundred dead senators *not necessecarily a bad thing* but there would also be hundreds of dead civilians on the ground as well. Now, if the people on board were armed at the time, the hijacking wouldnt have even taken place because the -*BAD WORD*-s wouldn't have been able to fufill their objective of smashing into a building in the first place. And don't give me that bomb crap either. Yeah it would have killed everyone on board the plane, but that already happened when the -*BAD WORD*-s barrel rolled flight 93 without using one. Objective still unobtained. Point is, if someones going to do something to hurt others, if someone's determined enough then no half-!@#$%^&*ed law is going to stop them. Sure, measures like creating new laws will make the world a safer place, but only for the real criminals. Anti gun legislation like the brady bill, prohibition, the age of consent laws, creation of the IRS and department of fatherland security are all examples of idealism taken one step too far, that in the end hurts more people than said ideas claim to protect.

1. I know english. 2. My reasoning is pretty much shared with half the people on the board but they're too scared that they might be looked upon as peculiar or worse. I however am not. 3. I'm not going anywhere. I can make time to play with you, but not much. Beating a dead horse is fun until there's nothing left but a pile of dirty matted hair on the ground, then it's just a waste of my time... Uhhhhhh..... the politics forum isn't a place to randomly spout out my beliefs? Talk about faulty thinking. And who said nationalistic? I'm talking idealistic, I'm talking about letting people be people and not part of a nationalist hive mind whos mind changes with the person(s) in power. Those that believe in God or a number of gods may be seen as silly by those who don't, and vice-verse. What may be something you consider very important like your wanting to drive an SUV may be seen as rediculous and infact evil by some tree-hugging hippie, but it doesn't make him right because it's your choice to make and not his and you don't want someone else making such a lifestyle choice for you through their bantering or threats of violence ALA the E.L.F. Back to the gun issue, people in switzerland aren't sue-happy idiots like they are here. People are more afraid of getting sued by their attackers after capping them rather than being hurt. Unfortunatley we the people have become sheeple that are drawn more by what's in our wallets rather than what's in our minds. And as a lazy and incompetent people, we prefer our security over freedom and free choice. But in the process we have lost both. However, just so long as we can get the nice little conveniences in life like microwave ovens and Mr. Television that fills our minds with happy wasteful thoughts, then those other things that made us human beings over the eons won't be missed all that much. And now, for something more worthwhile that may get the point across, after all, I know most of you can't get through long articles or posts without wanting to look at pictures. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/josephgrant/byebyeterrorists.gif

Oh it may cut "GUN" crime, but then the thugs don't care about the law. The good *Bahhhhhhhh* citizens would gladly give up their guns in the name of civic duty to their masters. Remember what happened to George Harrison about a year before he died from cancer? Some -*BAD WORD*- broke into his $3million mansion with all it's fancy high tech "modern" protection like alarms and lights and nearly stabbed him and his wife to death with a knife. Gee.... if the brits only had the sense to regulate the ownership of kitchen utensils..... But then he would have gone in with a cricket mallet or furnished something out of a rope, duct tape and a rock. Point is, you can't create a law that doesn't make sense because people still get hurt, even if you have some jackbooted thug enforcing it and make token arrests to set an example to the rest of the people as to what they should fear. Want to know what the difference is between organized crime and the current government? The current government has more money and troops... So what if I'm speaking in sedition? It's still a free country... or has the nation suddenly gone into a greater state of martial law?

There are many Americanized countries where the AOC is high, and you still have a high rate of mistreated children, extremley young parents and orphans coming out of the -*BAD WORD*- *no pun intended* You will also find that many non-americanized or partialy americanized countries such as Japan and Canada with a low AOC have low orphan rates and less mistreatment of children, unlike this once great country.

Up until the early 30's, MaryJ was not only legal, but considered a more valid form of medicine than the man-made crap dispensed nowadays, pushed on us by overbearing, GOV-sponsored drug companies that overcharge for their poisons, which not only leaves many poor folks blowing in the wind, but -*BAD WORD*-s up some of the people that use these "LEGAL" drugs more than the disease they suffer from. Look at the side effects from alot of the antidepressants, painkillers, ADHD medicines, and other things that "treat" other diseases. You'll see that the side effects are often worse than the disease. As for the nations youth turning out to be a bunch of idiots..... kinda late for that don't you think *COUGHpokemonCOUGH* And as for great civilizations, that's true. The Phonecians were wiped out by the Greeks, who were smited by the Romans, who were smited by the Galls, who turned into a bunch of whiny pussies we now call the French. I'm looking at this planet's track record, and we will most likley die of crib death in less than 20 years time. What a great way to wipe the slate clean though. Let's all sing along shall we? We didn't start the fire.... It's been always burnin' since the world was turnin... We didn't start the fire, we didn't light it 'cause we tried to fight it... Annnnnnnnnnnnyway, we've gotten way off track on the AOC issue and turned it into an an arguement that's starting to look like the climax to 1984. I say biology and brains determine who's an adult, gotta have both. If you can't think but are old enough to -*BAD WORD*- than watch yourself, and if you're can do adult things like hold a job, pay taxes, do simple household work, change a diaper, do grocery shopping, drive a car without thinking you're driving the Batmobile ™ or the General Lee ™ and can reproduce, then be my guest. BTW, if anyone here has an orange 68 duster with the stars and bars on it, I've been looking for a new car and you may be able to help me

Actualy, banning such things would cause our country to collapse alot quicker. Prohibition and the confiscation of privatley owned gold for instance did more damage than their use and ownership. If they banned the sale of cigarettes today, almost 40% of the economy would collapse overnight. And frankly I am sick of the powers that "wanna"be telling me what to do. Ahh well, at least they make the trains run on schedule... mein heir. Oh wait, they can't even do that right anymore... I just realized something, you're living in Ruby Ridge country, you should appreciate what I'm saying most of all. Not telling you that you should, but you're out in New America for a reason aren't you?

I'm not talking total anarchy, I'm talking about making laws that make sense, not making laws because some politician needs a new bad guy to fight or he wants more pork barrel spending privelages so he can buy himself a new *fill in the blank for expensive thingies here* There are laws that make sense, like not going out and killing people or various forms of theivery. But when you go into things that make no sense like the AOC or prohibition or outlawing something that would go against ones faith convictions, then you're asking for trouble. For me, this is purley a matter of principle, as no matter where I look, there is some politiworm out there looking for a photo op or a cons!@#$%^&*uency rally to line their pockets for the next election. They do it by whatever means nessecary and while in the process trample on our rights as human beings! *slams his fist into the podium* They have gone TOO FAR! -*BAD WORD*- YOU! ALL YOU POLITICIANS! I WILL EAT WHATEVER I WANT! DRINK WHATEVER AND HOW MUCH I WANT! BONE WHOEVER OR WHATEVER I WANT! SMOKE WHAT AND HOW MUCH I WANT! AND NONE OF YOU OR YOUR TRIAL LAWYER PALS ARE GOING TO TELL ME WHATS RIGHT AND WRONG... ANYMORE!!! YOU SEE SOME IDIOT SUING MCIDEES BECAUSE THEY SPILLED HOT COFFEE ON THEIR OWN -*BAD WORD*-ING LAP! SURE SUE MCDONALDS FOR YOUR OWN STUPIDITY! SUE THE TOBACCO FARMERS AND CIGARETTE COMPANIES FOR SOMETHING YOU KNEW WAS GOING TO KILL YOUR SORRY STUPID -*BAD WORD*- ANYWAYS! CREATE ANOTHER BAD GUY I DON'T CARE! I'LL TAKE ALL OF YOU ON AND I WILL BEAT YOUR !@#$%^&*ES DOWN COLD NO MATTER WHERE YOU STRIKE AT ME FROM! *POUNDS the podium so hard the top shatters* I AM A HUMAN BEING... And I shall do as I "-*BAD WORD*-ED WELL PLEASE!!!" *Dennis Leary's jaw drops and Lenny Bruce starts to clap*

It is a serious issue. I'm sure that there are women in this board over the age of 30 whom have passed by a high school or two in their lives just as school has let out, seeing many young studs strutting out and those women would go "Oh dear god if I weren't married I'd jump every single one of them right now" but then the past forty years of brainwashing due to the AOC has them thinking "OH NO WHAT AM I THINKING? WHAT IF I GET CAUGHT? I BETTER LOOK STRAIGHT ON THE ROAD BEFORE SOMEONE SEES ME STAIRING! OH GOD LOOK AT THAT PACKAGE! NO IT'S ILLEGAL!" Ain't that right fallen angel? And while on that matter, why the -*BAD WORD*- do you think clothing designers make such skimpy clothing nowadays for those between the ages of puberty and 21? It's because it's the most natural thing in the world for a man to look at such things. And don't tell me you don't pop a -*BAD WORD*- when you see a tight -*BAD WORD*- and pert !@#$%^&*ties because they you are lying your -*BAD WORD*- off! They make laws to fight biology and human nature, which is unnatural just to stay in power, and they make examples of these poor people who go with their gut feeling rather than with what some idiot politician says is moral or natural. Remember prohibition? Most of you weren't there, but as an example this would fall under the same line as the AOC. It's the most natural thing to want to get -*BAD WORD*--faced and feel good about it, just so long as you aren't hurting anyone what does it matter? People still fought this unnatural law and the people won, not the politicians. No matter what state you are in, if you are under the state's legal age, write to your state senators, governors and other politiworms and demand that the AOC be lowered or overturned in your jurisdiction and get your friends to do the same. If you're old enough to hold a job, pay taxes, feel urges, think for yourself, be responsible and hold your own on your own then you should be thought of as an adult and not a child until you reach this magical age when you're suddenly smart enough to do on your own. "OH LOOK I'M 15 AND THE LEGAL AGE HERE IS 16 AND I'M STILL A DUMB -*BAD WORD*-ER UNTIL I REACH A MAGICLY AND ARTIFICIALY SET AGE! LOOKIE AT ME I DON'T KNOW -*BAD WORD*- ABOUT -*BAD WORD*- BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE SAYS I DON'T KNOW BETTER" is the spirit of the AOC laws. While I can point out 30 and 40 year olds that don't know -*BAD WORD*- about -*BAD WORD*-. Hi, we're with the government and we're here to help you. You don't have to think we're here to do that for you. Follow us, we are your god now...

Monte, I use to drink when I was 12, but I stopped because of my own good judgement, in most other countries they let the "kids" have whatever they want as early as four, france *ewwww* italy, spain, russia. We're the only ones with the say no to booze til 21 propaganda on this messed up planet and enforce it with jailtime. Speaking of jailtime, if you're old enough to kill and understand the consequences of your actions, then yes your sorry -*BAD WORD*- should go to jail. Noone in their right mind would think that if you're under a certain artificialy set age limit that you're automaticaly non-compus mentus and have no grasp of the situation. They should fry your -*BAD WORD*- for such a cold blooded act! Embeslement, armed robbery, DUI, B&E, same thing, if you know what you're doing you should pay for it the same way. As far as I can see, you're the one in the minority here Monte. Despite the laws and propaganda you've bought into, there are people around here from all over the world who would agree with me on most if not all of these points and say you're the one "WITH ISSUES" As I stated once before and will again, being an adult is not a matter of physiological age, but of mental state and the will and the means to be a responsible and productive member of society.

On the child labor laws, the triangle clothing factory fire is what made it nearly impossible to employ 14 year olds, if you kept the saftey regulations in place and employed based on physical and mental capabilities, you could probably employ as early as 12, since most people of that age can do -90% of the reaching and lifting and processing that someone twice their age could do. Obviously putting them in a real high stress or high danger area like back in the coal mines or in construction like back in the early 1900s al the way through the 50s might not be a smart move for an employer, but other places like a sorting line or running an OCR scanner in a shipping/receiving department, would be a better suited line of work. Albeit they would have to still go through school of some kind and graduate. Who would want a country of really dumb -*BAD WORD*-ers after all?......... too late They have paternity leave in some schools since teenage pregnancy is almost a work-a-day thing nowadays. But it only applies to very late term (7-9 mos) some just drop out to raise their family. Noone is going to be stupid enough to let the male side of this sorted affair get off that easy however. Chances are the parents would beat the -*BAD WORD*- out of the unlucky boy, make him get a job so he can help support the child and go to school at the same time. On the whole gay/lesbian thing, that's just flat out wrong. Obviously someone isn't going to consent right out from birth. My argument is based on someone having the facts. You think someone who spits up their gerber carrots and corn mash is going to be able to grasp the concept of having intercourse, let alone having a -*BAD WORD*- stuck in his -*BAD WORD*- or having her labia rubbed by her older sister??? *realizes he's opened a whole can of worms with that last one* They will do one of two things obviously since their range of emotions is limited: it feels good somehow so giggle -or- it feels bad so cry til it stops. Anyone that would do that to someone who couldn't even think in the more emotionaly stable and adult concepts of the real world should have their respective genitelia tied off with fishing line til it turned black and fell off. As for setting the law based on natural events such as puberty, the muslims almost had it right, just one problem. They treat their women like property and not like equals. I'd like to think that Mohammed treated Ayish as an equal and not as his property, and that over time, the muslim religion became twisted by politicians who posed as holymen. On the Christian/hebrew side, and this will most likeley piss off alot of people, but I'm not here to make friends, just state facts, beliefs and convictions. Joseph of Aremathiea was 30 when he married Mary, who was only 13. Mind you, this was long before The Immaculate Conception. They still loved each other and had a real devotion to each other. When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant, she didn't tell him where it came from for quite a while. He was mad at first but decided that he would still treat the child, no matter who's it was as his own flesh and blood, and stopped being angry. Evenualy she told him where it came from, but that's another story for another time. The only reason she was still a virgin by the time the honeymoon came around was because he was busy in another town doing some work to support his soon to be family.

Let's see, you're living in a free society only as long as the idiots we were suckered into voting for who are in charge tell us we can do something. And then they deem something as immoral or illegal, shove propaganda down everyones throats to make it dogma. Let's go over a list of the bright ideas that our sacred leaders have come up with in the name of "OUR BEST INTERESTS" shall we? 1870-1890s California: To spite the Chinese population, the wearing and public display of ponytails was deemed illegal. The excuse was that they would collect lice from passing horses and start an epidemic. The truth is that they were and in many places still are a religious symbol for many chinese. Can't get on the ride without a ticket, can't get into heaven without a ponytail. 1890's thru 1920's Comstock era: A man by the name of Anthony Comstock and his band of merry men on a holy crusade to ban and destroy anything deemed immoral or indecent went and created what was known as the comstock act. This banned the sale and distribution of things like porno magazines (yes they had those back then) artworks depicting nude people, and the most innocuous things like sexual education materials. Yes mommy, babies come from storks not from two people making love and a man squirting semen inside a woman and having the sperm inside that viscous liquid finding an egg in the womans uterus to fertilze. As a result of comstocks -*BAD WORD*- *giggle* during world war one, more of our boys came down out from the field with the clap rather than shrapnel wounds because they weren't informed of the dangers of STDs. Many of the boys that went over there were introduced to sex for the first time and were shocked and pleasently suprised and were then pissed off when they realized what they were missing out on over here. 1920s-1930s Prohibition: Ahh, once again, what is deemed immoral is once again made illegal and banned. But as with human nature, if it feels right and natural people are going to do it anyways. People still wanted to get -*BAD WORD*- faced, despite it being a dry country, and no idiot politician looking to make a quick score and win votes was going to stop most of it's population. No ammount of propaganda was going to close down every home still and speakeasy. Why? Because people still wanted to ge off on a friday night, down a few with their friends and have a good time. This is another law that hurt more people than it claimed to protect. Job losses from the various breweries across the country were into the millions, not just from the layoffs of the plant workers, but businesses related to the creation, sale and consumption of alchohol. Same era: Sterilization of those that were mentaly or geneticaly infirm was also government sanctioned during this era, following suit of the still popular german NAZI party. Beleive it or not we were at one time fond of the nazi government also. This sterilization policy was carried out on the wrong people however, several cases in point: A woman who frequently masturbated had her ovaries removed so she couldn't reproduce, against her will. A set of twins, because the other identical twin had been born without a leg. Both were deemed unfit to reproduce at a very early age. List goes on and on. Still the same era: With the support of those in power, another evil had been seated in this country. The Ku Klux Klan, deemed the saviours of Christianity from those who were deemed evil had at one time had a run of half the country, even having a good contender for the 1928 presidantial campaign, eventual won by Hoover. Even though they got started in the reconstruction era after the American Civil War, the supposed modern clan managed to affect policy, slowly but surley. It's numbers ranged around four million members in the 20's and included senators, governors, congressmen and the like. The thing that killed the clan was an act taken one step to far by those onced deemed moral! David C. Stephenson, a major Klan leader, was convicted of second-degree murder, and evidence of corruption came out that led to the indictment of the governor of Indiana and the mayor of Indianapolis, both supporters of the Klan. So much for thou shalt not murder, eh? Same era AGAIN!: Marijuana was listed in the United States Pharmacopeia from 1850 until 1942 and was prescribed for various conditions including labor pains, nausea, and rheumatism. Its use as an intoxicant was also commonplace from the 1850s to the 1930s. A campaign conducted in the 1930s by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs) sought to portray marijuana as a powerful, addicting substance that would lead users into narcotics addiction. It is still considered a gateway drug by some authorities. In the 1950s it was an accessory of the beat generation; in the 1960s it was used by college students and hippies and became a symbol of rebellion against authority. Mommy's getting stoned off cheap substances rather than expensive man made demerol when they have their babies? No no no we can't have that can we? Who's going to feed and clothe our "LEGAL" drug manufactures? 1940s-1960s: The attempted ban of rock and roll or "THE DEVILS' JUNGLE MUSIC" in many communities across America. For those of you over the age of fifty reading this, you need no explination, for those of you who take this great art for granted and don't know of it's history, in short it was deemed as the cause of trouble, making so called children rebel against their parents and law enforcement. But once again, some politicians decided to make dogma into law and in many places record burnings *SEIG HEIL* and flat out bans had been made on rock and roll music. News reports were aired on how teenagers "the other night" were driven by rock and roll music to destroy mailboxes or burn houses or throw rocks through plate gl!@#$%^&* windows in office buildings. Right, and video games like GTA Vice City made Cain kill his brother Able... List goes on but I think they might be putting a limit on posts here *ala ZippyDan* If anyone can think of idiotic political maneuvers like the ones I've posted ot the AOC laws, please post them. If we're going to change the world, we're going to need all the AMMO we can get. *this post was recorded and analyzed by carnivore and echilon for your saftey, hail the fuhrer and god bless*

Funny, I thought I just did that

Just for the record, I'm not saying the indies are sorry!@#$%^&*es, they're good, I'm saying the hollywood guys are sorry!@#$%^&*es.

No, I'm gonna have to stick with my original line of discontent on this one. Half the stuff that comes out of hollyweird is either crap or a rehash of an original work. Go with some of the indies like here in Baltimore or the people at Tribeca. They're not afraid to get their sorry !@#$%^&*es sued. -*BAD WORD*-, they should be sued for misrepresentation of the law, but then again, isn't that what great science fiction is all about, made up -*BAD WORD*-????? What was I saying? Ahh yes, AOC laws are a god -*BAD WORD*-ed joke, there are 30 year olds that don't know how to tie their shoelaces and yet have the privelage to be called an adult by right of an artificialy set biological age limit imposed on us by politicians who want to stay in power by creating bad guys and imposing their views on the unwashed masses, and by that same token, there are twelve thirteen and fourteen year olds running their own small businesses (NO NOT LEMONADE STANDS) but legitimate hundred grand a year deals, they pay taxes, have people work for them, have to buy licensing for their gear and the right to own a business, and yet they are not allowed to be called adult because of the falsley imposed and flat out wrong AOC laws. They hurt more people than they claim to protect. What's that you say? Statutory rape? I'm sorry, but that's -*BAD WORD*- also. The AOC princilpe is that someone under a certain age is asexual and incompetent and could not make such a great desicion on their own. On my previous argument, I stated that there are 30+ people out there that can't do for themselves or anyone else, not to say that they are re-*BAD WORD*-ed, but they have less motivation and competence than someone half their age and that the certain someones who were half their age could do more but don't have the right under the current system to be called an adult. If we were having this conversation forty or fifty years ago... Let's face it, we wouldn't be, the AOC laws barley had this kind of stranglehold like it does nowadays. A man was someone who could hold a job, raise a family, create a home for said family and put food on the table. Usualy that was around 11-13 years of age back then, before most of the so called free world became pokemon -*BAD WORD*-fied idiots. I'm probably gonna get some flack for this, but Canada isn't as backwards as we are *ducks a facist morons' brick*

This will answer your questions. BTW, there is no national age of consent like MR. TELEVISION says there is. 18 is the hollywood age of consent. As you know most TV shows and movies are made in HollyCRAP, and most TV and movie writers are total dumb-*BAD WORD*-s to begin with. They use their immediate surroundings as a base for their work and say that's how the rest of the world works. For a list of ages of consent, go here, find your state and have at it: http://ageofconsent.com/ PS: The ads on the site are a real slap in the face to some, but I got a kick out of seeing them:) Sex toys for 14 year olds? LOL