Smoking ban people

[Scott]

Hope your paying attention here, remember when I told you this ban would just lead to more of your rights being taken away?? If you've been paying attention there is obviously talk and much concern about the ban and sales of firearms!! I dont know the exact number but I heard sales are up 50%+ of firearms and ammo, there is certain types of ammo and guns you cant even find because its sold out EVERYWHERE!!! It seems like our constitution doesnt mean anything to people anymore, if we keep letting them take away our rights pretty soon they take it upon themselves to do it!! This is not right at all, people have the right to own and purchase guns for hunting, sport shooting, home defense or just to look at them..

[FiFdYnUtZ]

yeah at the university they are retarded about that kind of shit, they wont even let people smoke in the parking lots

[lil krumm]

yeah at the university they are retarded about that kind of shit, they wont even let people smoke in the parking lots


you cant smoke OR chew on kirkwoods property, which includes some public roads...

[Domestic Disturbance]

yeah at the university they are retarded about that kind of shit, they wont even let people smoke in the parking lots


you cant smoke OR chew on kirkwoods property, which includes some public roads...

when did that happen? there used to been smokers posts everywhere

[lil krumm]

yeah at the university they are retarded about that kind of shit, they wont even let people smoke in the parking lots


you cant smoke OR chew on kirkwoods property, which includes some public roads...

when did that happen? there used to been smokers posts everywhere

This year, its a public school so they have to follow state laws. after to many tickets they can/will expel(sp?) you from school

[Stro]

They had better not touch the second amendment! The NRA would have a riot. I know of a few ammunition manufacturers that are making millions a day in sales alone directly to customers, not including suppliers or businesses.

Ladies and gents, ammunition may be our new currency.

[Jappbox]

Well you cant even use your "guns" as home defense, You go to jail for that. Inless the other guy has a gun as well. I like the smoking ban maybe cause I hate the smell of it, or the fact that I have never tryed it. But they stil let you smoke on your own proporty, just not in public. There is alot more things messed up around then a smoking ban like health care, rising prices, job cuts.... exc. just my 2 cents.

[JacobS]

job cuts

i hear that. and whats wrong with shooting at the shooting range? or hunting for deer?

[JustinS]

Shall not be infringed, means SHALL NOT FUCKING BE INFRINGED. Stay away from my past time and means of protection and we wont have a problem.

When the number 2 al-qaida guy is calling Obama a house negro you know we are in for a world of hurt these next four years.

[69gt4speed]

For reference same thing happened on clinton election. First yr or 2 he allowed several thousands of chinese sks and mak 90's to be imported along w norinco steel core 7.62 ammo. I picked up my sks for a 100, bro a mak 90 for 350. And some steel core norinco ammo. Later brady bunch raised hell and got some assault weapons banned. Early purchases were grandfathered in. I'm sure same thing ppl are thinking.

Smoking ban go to riverside they don't dare screw w the money makers of the state. On ur birthday month free meal, 10 bucks of slots and if friday or sat. live band. All thanks to s.s. old ppl spending their money. Hypocrites. Cards u might make some $. Slots suck.

[Scott]

There is nothing wrong with shooting at a gun range or deer hunting or anything of the like, the point is that these activities are the rights of us americans, "non-criminals anyway" I am just trying to make a point that its funny how people are so happy to invite new laws "BANS" to Iowa such as no smoking, but dont look at it as losing your rights as a individual, and like previously stated it just leads to more and more rights being taken away. but the majority of the americans are all for it, the majority doesnt own guns and excercise that right anymore so they dont see a need for it.. Then the same people vote in OBAMA thinking this country is going to turn into pleasent ville or something. Personally I wish it was more like the 50's or 60's around here before there was sooo many damn rules and regulations and I know that many others feel the same!! So why do soo many people keep inviting more and more rules?? :help:

[Drifte]

This country needs the rules because of how large the population is getting. Also for how uneducated our population is. An educated population would not need all of these rules, but face it, we have inconsiderate morons for neighbors and without the law would be constant fighting. Doesn't anyone remember that kid from school who always acted out, always got into trouble. And the only reason was because his parents didn't set some rules at home? I think of at least 5 of these kids, 2 of whom are in jail...

Other rules/laws are enforced because of health and environmental well being. Gun control is stupid, I hope they just let it be. But sometimes it takes a law to get things to move forward.

[DragonUSMC]

... But they stil let you smoke on your own proporty, just not in public. There is alot more things messed up around then a smoking ban like health care, rising prices, job cuts.... exc. just my 2 cents.

No they do not let you smoke on your own property. Where did you hear that from? Tell that to the people that OWN the bars and such.

[TbTalon94]

Oh I'm tired of this smoking band non-sense.

There is ZERO BENEFIT to smoking, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. So sorry they banned something that kills you and everyone around you. Should they lift the ban on anthrax because people should be able to use it freely.

[Scott]

the topic isnt supposed to be about the smoking ban specifically, "bad thread title, I know" I was trying to make a point about people being happy to loose their rights.. Thats the same out look alot of people have towards guns too, they can kill people, they can kill animals, why own one? might as well ban those too because there's no sense to owning one.. That same attitude can be had toward cars, why mod them? you dont need to, you dont get any real practical benefit from it, wait till they try to ban automotive modifications, they already have banned certain engine swaps and such for smog reasons. What Im trying to say is you better watch what you wish for because this isnt going to be a perfect world no matter what and the laws are just going to get worse, especially when we invite them with open arms..

[Drifte]

Well in the automotive world were in it for the fun. When the earth is in the condition it is, someone has to take the steps to save it. We aren't supposed to swap motors from older cars into newer cars. Makes sense, older cars, lower tolerances, lighter emissions regulations.

But Scott's point is he wants his freedom of choice. I get that, I sometimes wish I lived in the early 70's too. But look at the side effects of that. CFC's, lead, birth defects, cancer. You don't want to go out the way my grandpa just did I promise you.

So now we have safety regulations, emissions regulations etc. Were better off for it.

[Domestic Disturbance]

The increase in the invasion of rights is discomforting. I realize some people don't smoke, and neither do I, but I still feel that if someone own's a bar/establishment, it is their right as the owner to decide if you can or can't smoke there. You could implement ventilation requirements but I think thats just a little over the top to say you 'can't'. Gun's I feel are the same right. People will die from them, same with street racing, but its such a small number in comparison to other major issues, death related or not, in our country. Cancer, education funding, etc.

There's a new bill trying to get passed which most likely won't, that is directed towards cars with excessive amounts of power, to help cut down on street racing. So they want to put a halt to making high performance cars? Some people in politics are so far out there they are far off base from major issues in this country.

Heres the major reasons for death in the country.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html

Gun's and smoking might contribute in there, but guns in 2004 lead to 29000 deaths, with the number of suicides outnumbering the number of homicides. That means hypothetically over half of those deaths might have used another means of suicide if guns weren't available.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/ ... APHIC.html (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html)

Take away over spending to fight street racing, along with all this other small bs. Hell, the war on drugs is a sandpit. Here's how much we spend just fighting marijuana, which is not only everywhere but fairly harmless compared to other more severe drugs. Legalize that, and not only would you save that 9 Billion, but I bet depression rates would drop, along with the fact that it's use could be taxed. Everyone win's except lungs. Thats a little dramatic to use as an example but thats still how I see it.
http://www.mytwodollars.com/2007/02/12/ ... each-year/ (http://www.mytwodollars.com/2007/02/12/9-billion-of-your-tax-dollars-is-spent-dealing-with-marijuana-laws-each-year/)

But just remember, Obama is all about the future. YES WE CAN. What we can I have no idea, but from the looks of things I don't want to know.

- I would like to thank Google for these facts :baby:

[McKeever]

There is ZERO BENEFIT to smoking....

LOL, have you seen the movie "Thank You For Smoking"?

[Xboosted23X]

a bar is a business not a personal residence.
so although you do own it, it is not the same as a personal house
people have the right to smoke if they want to.
people that don't smoke have the right to clean air.

i believe there is a quote that says "having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool"

[ZacFields]

The best argument for banning guns is that the constitution was written in a time when wars were being fought on American soil, which is probably the purpose for giving everyone the right to bear arms. It ensures that if something went down, Americans had the right to have things on hand to defend themselves.

My response to that: Just because we haven't had a war fought on American soil in my lifetime doesn't mean that it'll never happen. Just wait until they ban all guns and then some country gets pissed at us for some reason and invades our country. Because the people who want to ban guns are the same people who want to basically disarm our military and send that money somewhere else. Who's going to stop another country from starting a war on our soil? Wars have to be fought somewhere. The only reason they aren't being fought here is because we've been on the offensive for basically my entire lifetime.

And this is just outside of the point that you guys are making about how we're not all criminals and we should have the right to bear arms. I can kill a guy with a gun, a knife, a fork, or my bare hands if I wanted to be creative. Banning guns has absolutely no purpose.

[DJ0820]

You can tell people that they can't own guns, but who is going to go try and take one away?

[Scott]

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your
shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door
and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder
brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast
knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second
man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the
telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That
are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them
useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that
the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and
Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he
tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to
manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave
yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men
you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't
find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article,
authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous
times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son
Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career
criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the
story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the
international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably
win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized
several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police
for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last
break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait
for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced,
as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand,
your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors
paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for
the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life i n prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed
one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and
is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great
British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law
forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun
sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act
of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms
except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon
by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man
with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street s shooting everyone he
saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun
control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all
privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a
semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public
school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally
unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which
to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the
media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on
all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,
Sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away
most gun rights, the notion t hat a citizen had the right to armed
self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to
grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that
self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens
who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real
criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as
saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several
elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had
no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given
three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British
subj ects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn' t were visited by
police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't
comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns
from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been
registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

[Stro]

Haha, I always liked this one. Someone else had it before me.

http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/images/uploads/LS_if_guns_kill_people_do_pencils_misspell_words.j pg

[Ricky]

Haha, I always liked this one. Someone else had it before me.

http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/images/uploads/LS_if_guns_kill_people_do_pencils_misspell_words.j pg

Only when I'm trying to spell something :)