KnightTime - guns are no brainers, they kill people, maim people and wreck lives. We are also leading the world in tackling tobacco with plain packaging and high taxes, again reducing innocent lives through passive smoking - now illegal to smoke in cars with children or in many public spaces, certainly not in buildings other than your own home.

KnightTime - guns are no brainers, they kill people, maim people and wreck lives. We are also leading the world in tackling tobacco with plain packaging and high taxes, again reducing innocent lives through passive smoking - now illegal to smoke in cars with children or in many public spaces, certainly not in buildings other than your own home.

Alcohol is actually OK in moderation - less than 2 units a day. Drink driving has been dramatically reduced too with random breath testing of any road user, if you're caught repeatedly you can go to jail and have interlockers fitted to any vehicle you own. I do not think its acceptable for anyone to put others lives at risk through the utter recklessness of drink driving. Do you KnightTime?

Start

Done. 1 guess.

Done, started over twice, then one guess.

Done, started over twice, then one guess.

Done, started over twice, then one guess.

Done, started over twice, then one guess.

start

drWho my point was that people who interpret the 2nd amendment as license to take up arms against the government are wrong. That is called insurrection. It is not protected under the 2nd amendment. To say that the 2nd amendment is there to keep the government from enslaving the people ignores the fact that many of our people, even though they were counted as 2/3 rds of a people were enslaved. The SCOTUS has even ruled that restrictions on private ownership of firearms is Constitutional over and over again.

I'm amused (to the extent that one can be amused about such a serious situation) of those who choose to stick their fingers in their ears and yell loudly 'BAH BAH BAH" when they're faced with facts. Facts about death rates in other countries by guns. Facts about the correlation between % of gun ownership and deaths by guns, state by state. Facts about the likelihood of dying as a result of gunshot vs. a knife, the list goes on and on. "Don't bother me with the facts."

I'm amused (to the extent that one can be amused about such a serious situation) of those who choose to stick their fingers in their ears and yell loudly 'BAH BAH BAH" when they're faced with facts. Facts about death rates in other countries by guns. Facts about the correlation between % of gun ownership and deaths by guns, state by state. Facts about the likelihood of dying as a result of gunshot vs. a knife, the list goes on and on. "Don't bother me with the facts."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo

\nPresident Richard Nixon appoint Warren Burger as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1969. This is a one minute snippet from the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour (the current incarnation being the PBS News Hour) on Burger's view of the Second Amendment.

Penguin - I saw that clip last evening on TV. It's amazing. And Warren Burger was no hippy-pinko-commie-liberal.

Exactly my point. If you wrote the constitution today it wouldn't be in there.

Diane, it is my guess that unlike today's politicians Chief Justice Burger did not receive bribes from the gun industry via the NRA.

Have to do the puzzle again, the site crashed

Phil, on a day like today when the IronSudoku server seems to be frequently down (I had to reload the page several times before I could sign in), it is useful to "Save As Checkpoint" often. That way one can resume instead of starting over.

I actually had a checkpoint saved, just when I finished the puzzle it crashed. Happens occasionally, no big deal. done

It was so easy I didnt save. Then it crashed. Okay here we go again. This will be NG/NG because there are two easy to spot ... easy advanced tricks

https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-projec\nt for those interested in news delivered differently. It's a great show. Wonderful good news segment on a NSW school that had teenagers on camera saying what they thought others would think of them then they got to see what the other kids actually did think about them on camera. Brought a tear to ones eye and should be adopted by every high school in the world. Social media has a lot to answer for with bullying and sadly a lot of resultant suicides.

There was another interesting segment on an Aussie trying to raise funds for the survival of an indigenous culture. Worth watching.

Could someone please explain to me why on US tv a panel of 4 people all feel the need to talk at once!

done

I will try Phil. The US media is corporate owned. There is no unbiased media any more. So if one side starts to say something that may resonate and goes against the bias of that corporate sponsor the other side starts to talk over them to bury it. This is allowed by the "host" or moderator because if they do not allow it they will lose their job. We are not being shown "news" we are being fed propaganda to spread fear and division among the working class.

This is why it is important in the US to know who sponsors your news outlet.

As with everything in this country, Follow the Money.

Has anyone seen the 538 article on gun control? It brings up some interesting points. Link for those interested https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deat\nhs-mass-shootings/

For those ignorant souls who think that public gun ownership is not essential to liberty, I hope you never have to learn that lesson the hard way. We would still be British subjects if the colonists didn't have guns.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria

So drwho you are saying that the Constitution was written before we won the Revolutionary War?

What difference would it make?

All the quotes I gave are from after the Revolutionary War.

It would make a difference because the 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It has nothing to do with freedom from a foreign power.

You are wrong but I'm not arguing that. It is about freedom from a tyrannical government in Washington DC.

It has everything to do with keeping the Republic safe from an invading foreign power.

Yes, and more.

You sound like a scared Black Helicopter conspiracy theorist.

Well now, with all the police shootings of "innocent" black people in the news, I would think you would not want to live in a society where the only people with guns are the police and the government.

As I have said I own a gun. I have never called for banning of guns. I believe in sane gun laws. We do not need weapons of war in the hands of citizens. Even Scalia agreed with that.

As far as innocent people being killed by police that is a completely different issue and I think lk911 would say you are diverting.

A far bigger threat than the government taking away anyones firearms is the threat to our voting rights. That is how we are supposed to keep our government in the hands of the people.

Well Tuco, if they try to take away voting rights then it is time for an armed insurrection.

No, it is time to stand up and demand they be restored and put those who would deny us the right to vote where they belong. In prison.

How are you going to do that without guns?

By marching, protesting and VOTING en masse. Watching the polls. Getting involved.

Ever heard of Tiananmen Square?

Yeah But as you always like to say when the shoe is on the other foot. We are not like Europe, China, etc.. Unless we let it be. Look contrary to public opinion I am not stupid. I am aware that in this country nothing changes until many people die. I am just saying that most lasting change happens with peaceful protests. China has changed after Tiananmen Square. Some would say for the better.

Obviously the US Corporate class believes China has changed for the better.

If you are interested in preventing gun deaths, then the most effective gun control measure would be to ban hand guns.

I am not interested in preventing gun deaths. It will never happen. I am interested in preventing massive gun deaths from people with military style weapons from shooting up groups of humans..

But that is just a blip in the statistics. Of course it is horrifying, but it pales in comparison to the number of homicides in Chicago in a year.

Interesting that you bring up Tianamen Square. You should look into how many times Labor protests have been fired upon in this country.

Chicago again. My god you are a breathing Fox News talking point machine.

I don't see any comparison between people demanding more money and people who want the right to vote.

Does it pale in comparison to NewTown or was that a hoax? sheesh making light of one mass murder by comparing it to another. I guess I will take my murder by sniper instead of face to face. sheesh

Do you really think that stricter gun laws would have prevented Paddock from committing mass murder?

I don't think looser laws would have prevented it. I also don't think looser laws would have saved lives. And yes I do think tighter laws would have reduced the number of dead and injured.

He could have just driven a van full of high explosives into the crowd and detonated it.

Yes he could of, but he didn't and there are laws against possessing high explosives. Except the NRA has fought successfully against putting chemical markers in fertilizer.

The point is, the guy was crazy. Controlling guns is not the issue here, it is how to deal with crazy people. B.T.W. Paddock also had a cache of explosives with him.

Do you know whether there were any concrete barriers around the crowd that may have prohibited him from doing that with the explosives he had in his car?

Okay the guy was crazy, then why did we get rid of the Obama reg saying that mentally unstable people cannot buy a firearm?

From a picture I have seen, there was a chain link fence but no concrete barriers.

Did anyone else find this expert more like a medium?

It is not easier for mentally unstable people to buy firearms now. You are listening to fake news again.

It has always been and still is illegal for people who have been properly adjudicated by a court of law to be mentally ill to buy guns.

I didn't say it was easier. I asked why was that reg rolled back? If that guy was crazy as you said why would we do that?

The reg took away your right to due process.

Okay, so what you are saying is the way things are now a "crazy guy",your words, is able to buy what he purchased and used and that is too much regulation for you?

Or is it just enough?

Would taking away the right to purchase a semi-automatic weapon (with some combination of a pistol grip, bayonet lug, folding stock, detachable magazine, ... etc.) from everyone sane or insane be the solution? I think not. I am willing to consider better background check procedures if they respect the rights of law abiding citizens.

Making it more difficult for the next "crazy guy" to stockpile a cache of weapons like this "crazy guy" did does not seem to me as a disrespect of the rights of law abiding citizens.

It actually makes me feel as though it would be respecting my rights to freedom of movement, gathering in a large crowd, etc. and not have to worry about some "crazy guy" with a crap ton of armament wanting to mow me down.

When will you get it? After someone takes out your grandkids little league soccer match? After someone blows up a Super Bowl? What will it take?

You couldn't carry on shampoo after 911. But you can buy a crap ton of assault rifles? Give me a break.

Here's the way I see it. Criminals and crazy people should not have guns. Laws won't prevent criminals and crazy people from having guns any better than current laws prevent murder. So when that is acknowledged, the solution naturally is to ban all guns. But if you take away all guns then only the police and the government have them and we are no longer able to defend our freedom from foreign or domestic threats.

I think you are willing to give up too much freedom for safety. In the end you will have neither.

Damn it drwho this is where you miss it. NOONE is saying BAN ALL GUNS.

And if you are afraid of your government then you are voting in the WRONG frigging people. sheesh.

No one? Really?

https://newrepublic.com/article/1254\n98/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them

No one who is taken seriously.

Really?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201\n2/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-st\nep-long-term-process

And what the hell are you going to do against a foreign or domestic threat anyway? Shoot up a bunch of concert goers? Take over a Federal Park?

Yeah they even acknowledge it will never happen.

I hope you don't take this guy seriously either:

https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/b\nan-all-guns-now/Content?oid=2147131

I am no fan of any type of Prohibition. Guns, Drugs, Choice. But there are limits to that have to be put on products available to the public. Guns should be regulated as a public safety and health issue. If they want access to military style weapons, join the military, or a well reguated militia.

Look there is precedence for municipalities to ban guns. All guns within their limits. I see nothing wrong with that. That is a different issue than banning guns entirely. I will not and have never supported banning all guns. Unfortunately we no longer have to muzzle load todays weapons. They are more efficient killing machines then they were at the time of the writing of the Constitution. They need to be regulated in their sale and distribtution.

Well we agree on that more than we disagree. However, the Daily Kos article laid out an incremental process to get from stricter gun control to a total gun ban. So be careful when you say that nobody wants to ban all guns, or that it could never happen. Some people really do want it to happen.

And some people want to ban all abortions and illicit drugs. And there are approaches and proposals to do just that. However those opposed to any regulation on either use these approaches to gin up support against any sane regulation. Why? $$$$

It always comes back to the $$

So easy. No brain cells expended in solving this puzzle. 14.

No advanced techniques used at all. I think I used a unique rectangle - so maybe a tough easy or easy medium. This way I can use my brain cells to evaluate the breathtaking dialog going on in the chog.

done