Amazingly, due in large part to efforts of the NHTSA, 2010 had the lowest number of fatalities on the road in 60 years .
The lowest in 60 years?! Was 2010 the year BEFORE we invented cell phones? Oh crap, 2010 had the most cell phones on the road in the last 60 years than any other year EXCEPT 2011!
A drill or a socket wrench cannot kill you if you drop it
Nor does a modern gun. A very rarely does an old gun. Its not like Barney on The Andy Griffin Show - they don't just go off when they get dropped or smacked.
or if you get angry with your pregnant stepmother and decide to kill her while she sleeps.
A knife, a baseball bat, a crowbar all accomplish the same thing when she's asleep. The tool used has no bearing on intent. The gun, however, is an easy scapegoat for a more serious problem in society that would lead a young child to kill their parental figures.
Guns are designed to destroy life.
Correction - guns are designed to move a projectile. Their use can be either to destroy life, or protect life. The choice rests with the individual.
They make it too easy to turn short term emotion into permanent tragedy.
So does a hammer, a baseball bat, or a knife. Again, I think this is a societal problem. The tool used isn't the problem - the problem is the person wielding said tool.
and there's no reason not to regulate it just like we regulate explosives or dangerous chemicals.
The problem with regulation, is that only law abiding citizens obey. Marijuana, cocaine, and many other drugs are all regulated. Doesn't stop their spread.
So knowing that, why would you suggest we regulate a tool that is the most effective device known to man to protect life? I would not want to defend myself with merely a kitchen knife if my assailant was wielding a gun. Regardless of the fact that its illegal in every state to commit a crime while carrying a gun. Obviously my attacker didn't read that law, otherwise he would have not carried a gun while he was attacking me in my kitchen.
Think of the Children!
They're all fucking potty mouths. You apparently have never heard 5th graders talk to each other when they think there's no adults around. And if you're so offended by $#*!, you can use the V-chip in your TV, or call your cable company and ask them to block the offending channel from you lineup. Then you can be sure your little Timmy won;t ever hear a swear word, except at school, in public, in movies, from his friends, from his teachers and most likely from yourself.
Are you proud of the fact that all of our children are potty mouths? Perhaps your attitude is to blame for the societal decline in manners.
Take the swear words, and other non-decent forms of expression and put them on cable. Paid-for subscription channels fall under different decency regulations than do OVER THE AIR broadcasts... And what is at issue here is over the air broadcasts.
Heaven forbid your children ever gain access to weapons - they probably have no respect for human life either, with such an awesome role model such as yourself in their lives.
What the fuck does having children have to do with logical discourse on censorship?
Its not a logical discourse on censorship. Fact of the matter is, its a prime time, over the air network, and it is regulated to try to keep SOME decency on our airwaves.
You want to let your children grow up with horrible attitudes and bad language, put them in front of cable. That's why those restrictions are relaxed on cable TV - you've made the choice to bring that into your home and are paying a monthly subscription for it. Over the air broadcasts should not be an avenue for inappropriate material. Hence why decency laws MATTER for over the air.
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
No doubt he was instructed by his lawyer to do so. At least this means that the 'Oh Shit' lightbulb has finally gone off in someones head, someone finally is realizing that this could very easily end up with jail time and a spot on the sex offenders registry.
Actually, I hope they all end up on the sex offenders registry, and get the book thrown at them... Not because they are sex offenders per say (I doubt their intention was to see naked kids), but they should have thought through the potential issues with photographing the viewer of the laptop screen. I hope the judgment is harsh for two reasons:
1) Its a gross violation of privacy, the 4th Amendment, and basically human decency.
2) Things that get you on the sex offenders list needs to be changed - its too easy to have sex with your 17 year old gf when you're 18 and end up as a sex offender. Those laws need to be re-evaluated.
"I was waiting for someone speak out against all this liberal drivel..."
What a way to begin...
And you've shown where you stand on the political spectrum.
Where? Centrally and with open eyes and mind?
Do you believe Obama to be a centrist too? Leftists condemn their own troops for doing a job we asked them to do. And don't for one minute blame Bush for that war - your congress had to vote to go to war. Thank God we didn't have the amount of media coverage during the Revolutionary War that we have today, otherwise you'd be on England's side!
"War sucks. Period. The problem we have here, is terrorist scum hiding amongst the population and using them as shields."
No, the problem we have here is a helicopter GUNSHIP, manned by soldiers eager to kill, taking on civilians. At best, they might have been taking on a rag-tag group of ne'er-do-wells. But, really, what does a gunship have to fear from AKs?
Really, are you that dense? That gunship is protecting American lives on ground. Do you want our troops patrolling that part of the city, knowing that there are armed enemy combatants in the area? Or do you want more combat casualties because our people walked somewhere, where we had the ability to act and save those troops?
Not really all that dense, but thanks for asking.
Assuming your argument is true (troops on ground, heli protecting), it would seem the logical thing to do is get confirmation from those troops on the ground. I assume there are better ways to do this on the ground than from a moving platform, especially if you want accurate information. I assume, further, it would include heli crew calling down to WARN the ground troops, who would reconnoiter and report back. Your question proposes a false choice.
Yes, because that is the logical thing to do - send troops into harm's way, instead of eliminating the threat in a time of war and not risking any American lives.
"You still want to blame them for making the wrong call that ultimately is trying to save Iraqi and American lives?"
Yes. Who else do you blame for making the wrong call? Santa Claus? Lenin? No, you blame the eager beavers begging that they be allowed to shoot, and who then have a chuckle in the process. If they were indeed trying to save lives, I think, as the kids would say, they were "Full of fail."
Again, you're missing it. After careful scrutiny of the video after the fact, coupled with on the scene intelligence, it becomes more clear that those that died should have not. From the air, in a combat zone, it most certainly looks like an RPG on that street corner, and you have people congregating in a combat zone with things slung over their shoulders. So, should our soldiers let those guys walk, in a combat zone, carrying possible weapons, and let them ambush one of our troop convoys?
"Once again, war sucks, and mistakes get made. Its easy to judge when you're here on American soil in your damn easy-chair."
As you have shown.
Be glad we took the fight overseas. God forbid terrorists do anything in your city that causes you to get out of that chair.
No chair here, but thanks for remote viewing anyhow.
Oh, and, by the way, dickwit, NO IRAQIS WERE INVOLVED IN 9/11, and no amount of spinning from Fox, newsmax, etc., etc., ad nauseum, will change that. I assume those are your info sources.
Of course, I could be wrong. That is where we differ, I guess.
I only called you a liberal in my post, you had to resort to dickwit huh? Like I said, be happy we live when and where we do, where our chances of being attacked on our own soil are very slim. Where we have the freedoms to express our own view points without government oppression. And where we aren't all slaves to Germany or Japan... Go thank a soldier for that.
"I was waiting for someone speak out against all this liberal drivel..."
What a way to begin...
And you've shown where you stand on the political spectrum.
"War sucks. Period. The problem we have here, is terrorist scum hiding amongst the population and using them as shields."
No, the problem we have here is a helicopter GUNSHIP, manned by soldiers eager to kill, taking on civilians. At best, they might have been taking on a rag-tag group of ne'er-do-wells. But, really, what does a gunship have to fear from AKs?
Really, are you that dense? That gunship is protecting American lives on ground. Do you want our troops patrolling that part of the city, knowing that there are armed enemy combatants in the area? Or do you want more combat casualties because our people walked somewhere, where we had the ability to act and save those troops?
"You still want to blame them for making the wrong call that ultimately is trying to save Iraqi and American lives?"
Yes. Who else do you blame for making the wrong call? Santa Claus? Lenin? No, you blame the eager beavers begging that they be allowed to shoot, and who then have a chuckle in the process. If they were indeed trying to save lives, I think, as the kids would say, they were "Full of fail."
Again, you're missing it. After careful scrutiny of the video after the fact, coupled with on the scene intelligence, it becomes more clear that those that died should have not. From the air, in a combat zone, it most certainly looks like an RPG on that street corner, and you have people congregating in a combat zone with things slung over their shoulders. So, should our soldiers let those guys walk, in a combat zone, carrying possible weapons, and let them ambush one of our troop convoys?
"Once again, war sucks, and mistakes get made. Its easy to judge when you're here on American soil in your damn easy-chair."
As you have shown.
Be glad we took the fight overseas. God forbid terrorists do anything in your city that causes you to get out of that chair.
I can't even really blame the troops that much because it's basically a trap for poor people who can't find a job to do the bidding of our imperialist leaders.
John Kerry influence you a little there with that comment? Its a pity people really believe this shit. How many soldiers do you know personally? I've known quite a few in their civilian lives, and I wouldn't peg any of them as poor, stupid bastards.
Apparently the idea of serving anyone except yourself is lost on you, with that type of attitude. The military personnel I've known joined because they wanted to serve their country.
One good turn asketh another. -- John Heywood