Previous -3 - 2
In response to:

Cheap Politicians

JohnnieBo77 Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 12:46 PM
We already pay our government workers too much. They should be paid LESS because they are not supposed to work in government for the pay; it is supposed to be about service to your community, your state, or the country as a whole. And it's supposed to be temporary. Today, from the municipalities on up, you have people who choose to work for the government so they can work less, get paid more, with full benefits, retire early, collect pensions, etc. We have mercenaries from the most basic desk clerk all the way to the presidency. Private schools outperform public schools because private school teachers are there because their passion is to teach; they're not there for the paycheck as much as they are there for the children - and that's obvious when you compare their salary and the students' results to a public teacher's salary and our public school students' results. Need another example? Look at the US military. Where is the bureaucracy? At the highest levels where compensation is at its highest. Where is the military most efficient and where do we get the most out of our military? At the NCO and grunt level. Why? Because that's where the majority are who's service to country is of top priority; not the pay - and we know how low their pay is. Start paying EVERY government worker even LESS, stop making government work a career, and the result would be what the Founders intended... only those who WANT to serve will serve since the compensation isn't of their priority. And from those who WANT to serve, you will most certainly get the most for your tax dollar.
Exactly right, Legal Texan. The gun itself isn't what determines legal/illegal status. It's the use and possession that determines such. When a criminal obtains a firearm illegally, the firearm isn't illegal - the act of obtaining it is.
The only one "blind and stupid" here - and bigoted - is Geraldo. "Just as protects access to weapons for cops and hunters, it also protects access to weapons for domestic abusers, mental patients, jerk-offs on the no-fly list, all-around dim bulbs, and now little children." Actually, Geraldo, a federal background check when applying for a permit (as I would have to here in NJ) would prevent "domestic abusers, mental patients, jerk-offs on the no-fly list" from obtaining said permit. And what constitutes an "all-around dim bulb"? As to your question, "What was she training for, revolution? Invasion? Service in the coming post-apocalyptic social disorder?" Is every "gun nut" one who is preparing for such things? This is the type of stereotyping you typically claim to be against. Owning and training with a firearm can't simply be about self-defense? Granted, I do agree that in no way should a 9yr old be holding, let alone firing, an automatic Uzi - but the end result serves as the example as to why. Not to mention, the most basic of protocols when having a young child fire ANY firearm were broken left, right, and center. I just wonder, after reading your comments, Geraldo, who exactly is the "blind", the "stupid", and the "nut"?
In response to:

The Media and the Mob

JohnnieBo77 Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 4:40 PM
Knee-jerk politics exhibited by Obama, re: Henry Louis Gates: "...not having been there and not seeing all the facts..... the Cambridge police acted stupidly."
....which is why I wrote-in "No Confidence" his first time around and I'll do it a second time. " astounding accomplishment for any conservative in a Democratic stronghold like New Jersey..."? Aside from the mainstream media who refer to ALL Republicans as "conservative", who the hell thinks he's "conservative"? Usually when anything with an "R" next to their name wins in a "D" dominant state, chances are that the "R" is short for RINO and anything but "conservative".
To a law-abiding citizen, a gun-free zone means you can not bring your firearm(s) into that particular zone or you will be punished by law. To a criminal wanting to commit robbery or mass murder, a gun-free zone is merely a target-rich environment in which he/she knows in advance where to go in order to meet the least resistance. I think every lawmaker who advocates such blatantly dangerous (if not outright stupid) laws should themselves live in a gun-free zone... no protection at their office, no protection when traveling, no protection at their homes, etc. And like gun-free zones, let's advertise WHO has been designated "gun-free" and who doesn't have security.
Previous -3 - 2