zoocrew

But the company owns it. And the company has to have safeguards in place per federal regulation to prevent it from falling into the hands of someone who could do harm. The point is the safeguards have to be there. I would submit that the current safeguards for guns are not sufficient and that the allowable weapons need to be examined as to what will be available to the public and what will not. As to what those particulars are, that is up to the lawmakers and is a whole different topic. For right now, I'm saying there needs to be more, more, more. What America has currently isn't working.

Way to jump to a conclusion.

Without that gun, the crazy person has a much harder time harming large numbers of people..

I just don't understand the insanity when simple controls and reasonable measures could save countless lives.

Certainly. That is what I said. Others in the thread were lamenting the choice of Obama, not me. It is of no consequence to me whatsoever.I was only pointing out that saying Obama was getting the Person of Year as an "award" is completely a false assumption as to what the naming is all about.

Exactly. The point is there is licensing and controls because we know the danger that could be wrought.

The vast majority that had dynamite didn't blow up buildings but we banned it from private ownership. The logic doesn't hold. Who said anything about taking away your gun?

Yes. And?

Sorry, you are mistaken. Gandhi was given the title in 1930.

People with guns kill people faster and more easily than with other forms of weapons.

Good heavens. Do you people not realise the Person of the Year is one who has great influence or impacted the world for better or worse? It is not an award like a Noble Peace Prize for humanitarian efforts, but the naming of the person of the year who had the most impact.

You left out the next part. Remember, it would have cost even more to not have bailed out GM. Bush made a good decision to do this. From a business standpoint, it was a no brainer.

No problem. This is stuff I have to consider periodically with the attorneys as a just in case Plan B and Plan C. It was never a serious note, but after 2008, it is a situation that any company could find itself in at any moment should the worst happen at the worst time. GM was already in trouble and most likely would have eventually gone through a normal bankruptcy. But when the credit markets froze, there was nothing anyone could do; Not would do, could do.The credit markets were frozen and even the groups that wanted to help, were prevented because their own balance sheets were falling

Excellent question. The reason is that in normal bankruptcy of a company, the company is allowed to continue operations while the process works itself through the normal route. In GM's case, it was locked in a death spiral since it had no cash coming in (no one buying cars or financing); it was burning through cash (and no one wanted to lend it operation cash since no one had any cash to lend in 2008 with a frozen credit market); it's hard assets and notes were being devalued daily because of the declines and that meant its balance sheet was bankrupt each day with no option to balance the

Personal space. My purse is mine and mine alone and I do will pitch the hissy fits of all hissy fits if he goes into my purse. Likewise, I do not go into his wallet, either. On a side notation, my husband carries a man purse, so it is not like the normal guy wallet, although he does have a wallet in the man purse. Still, both are off limits.

Really, it is not historically accurate.

May want to brush up your history. This is not entirely accurate.

Nah. It's just hypocrisy. The morality has no place in your discussion. Got it.

But I can't help to notice your inconsistency when you didn't say anything about post #138. The difference, please? Or is it just hypocrisy?

And he gave you a Positive. He didn't get what you said at all.

Prima facie.

Now that is a good point and real discussion. I appreciate it. I agree we have rules and that punishments are codified when broken. I would disagree that there are some weapons that are just too dangerous to be in the hands of the public because they are more than overkill and not protection. An example would be a tank or a fighter jet. Yet, there are some firearms that maybe need to be codified in the American system of law because America just doesn't want risk/reward scenario to be played out in real life as a tragedy. Now, as to what weapons those should be, that is a different dis

In case you haven't noticed, most on here: A) don't want to put any weapon on the table as being too dangerous to the general public to be owned; no new taxes whatsoever; C) don't want to discuss comprehensive causation; and D) believe in simplistic answers that simply will not work in the real world, e.g., have everyone go to church and get along like the old American show of Leave It to Beaver.

All of the above should be part of the discussion. This is not a single answer because there is no single problem. Until America decides enough is enough, the killings with guns will continue. It is time America says let's have the discussion, put everything on the table, there is nothing sacred except the right of self defense, and begin a comprehensive plan to diminish the number of these horrific events.