Yea, I do remember.  but he did relent.  And besides, Leauki needs some one to debate that is at least rational (most of the ones that take him on are the far side of the Far Side).

I have only banned 3 folks in my career.  And none for their views. (2 were to the right of me).

Anyway. I think the problem is more around enforcement of the current gun law, and the stupidity of some gun owners' opinion that they should beware of government tracking them.

More track-down of these guns to the source, mesay. If we find that a legitimate gun owner seems to be the sources of 40 black-market guns, well, he is clearly a problem. Either he isn't responsible for the privilege the society grants him, or he is a criminal-supplier. Either way, he should be punished for his lack of responsible action.

You're looking at this from a skewed viewpoint. When is the last time you bought a firearm? Guns are not cheap, but a criminal or a gang member can buy one for 50 bucks. Why is these? Criminals don't go to gun shops and buy them. Gun owners don't go to gun shops to buy a $500 handgun, so he can turn around and sell it in a back alley for $50. Many guns used are stolen. Have you ever seen what types of guns are being picked up from criminals? They are not antiques, crooks and gangs don't find them cool enough, they want Glock's and Ingram's (think MAC 10). It is much easier to steal the guns than buy them. Criminals don't pay retail.

I get a big kick out of when I see a big cache of weapons seized from Mexican gangsters. These are often accompanied by photos and a right up about how the weapons are flowing from the US to Mexico. That's pretty amazing when a majority of the weapons are Chinese AK's, but sometimes you see American M-16. Now here's the funny thing about that, you can't buy a fully automatic M-16 in the US unless you are a US law enforcement organization, or you have obtained a yearly issued Class III license (no easy to obtain). Then you have to find one of the few suppliers that will have one to sell you. Your corner gun store doesn't. These guns can be identified by markings on many of their parts. So where do the guns come from?

Well there is another buyer authorized to purchase these weapons, the Mexican Government. Can there be corruption in the Mexican military? How unthinkable.

I have two "assault" styled rifles, an XM-15 and a G-3, both semi-automatic. Let me tell you both of these would be terrible for a criminal activity. They are hard to conceal, heavy, and most importantly, require skill to use effectively. Criminals prefer handguns, gangs like machine pistols (for the coolness, large capacity spraying power, and concealment). These are even harder to get because they are uncommon. Police and military don't use them (Uzi's had a use with US special forces long ago, but have been long replaced by the MP-5). So many of these types of weapons are smuggled in from abroad, where they are made cheaply due to few moving parts, stamped in sheet metal.

I'm not saying private firearms are not used for criminal purposes, they are. So are baseball bats, shouldn't those be registered too?

Funny thing is, when a crime is committed and the weapon retrieved in the USA, almost 100% of the time, the authorities trace it back to its molten metal!  So I do not think we need more registration.  And indeed, while the MSM wants to phrase the argument in that manner, it is hardly about that (every weapon that is in legal hands they know where it came from).  instead the debate is on the actual ownership of them.  They are not trying to get more documentation, but rather more restrictions (you can only own a gun if your birthday falls on the second tuesday of each week).

I still want to know why a Jewish city in the Ottoman Empire suddenly became "Arab" just because an Arab state once annexed it but didn't become Jewish again when Israel annexed it.

Should Israel have thrown out the Arab population (like Jordan threw out the Jewish population) or destroy the mosques (like Jordan destroyed the synagogues)?

To me it looks like anti-Semitism when an annexation is defined as legitimate or illigitimate on the basis of whether the annexor is Jewish and when ethnic cleansing of Jews can make a city legitimately Arab.

So they are able to know where is the point the gun ceased to be in legitimate hands? Probably stolen is most case?

Unfortunately about 387 AD.  It is not something to be proud of.

Yes.  Once stolen, of course, they cannot trace it until it turns up again.  But it usually will since people stealing them are not usually going to put them in a collection somewhere.

The Obama nutjob that shot up her fellow professors in Alabama?  They traced the gun back to New jersey (I think, May have been new Hampshire) to a FRIEND of her husband who originally bought it.  They can tell just about everything about the weapon except how many times it was cleaned.

Ntiro said 'have been long replaced by the MP-5' Actually, they are replacing the MP-5 with the MP-6.  In my opinion, the MP-5 was the worst in the MP series when it first came out.  Without the silencer that acts like a barrel extention it just arkward to fire.

Nitro, your thoughts?  Anybody else can comment as well, its just that Nitro brought up the MP-5.  The gun that I plan on purchasing next (as the L-RD's wills) is the M1 Garand.

Since we are talking about Israel here I'll blend the two.  Israel has a gun that's like the MP-6 but better. I can't remember what its called.    Leauki, those law enforcement officals that dress in all black and ride on the black motorcycles (usually the sport bikes) carry the Israelie version of the MP-6.  The reason is because it is very accurate, light, easily to conceal, and has high rate of fire.  If you ever go to Israel, stay away from these guys.  They are tough as nails and supposedly they are to crack down on drugs.   Leauki, if you know the guys I speak of maybe you can give more information about them.

I'm heading to the gym now. I've gotten a little pudgie.

I'm sure you're correct. When I was leaving the military, a lot of the special forces guys were still using the MP-5, but I had heard they were looking at other options. It was actually looking MP-5's when I got interesting in the G-3 (HK-91) back in 84, always liked .308 caliber better anyway. Three years ago I replaced the synthetic stock and fore grip with all wooden (and combat distressed) furniture. It looks sweet. 

Yes awesome weapon the M-1. The M-1 Carbine is nice to, especially if you want a lighter gun in smaller caliber. Are you getting an original or new production? The only flaw with this rifle is "ching" noise it makes when the last round is spent. The Germans used to wait for the noise, as they knew the GI was reloading. I also like it's predecessor, the M-14, it has a more modern box magazine, but it is heavy. The Ruger Mini-14 is the civilian and also is a fine rifle. But the M-1 is a great choice, and nice shooter.

If I get a chance I want to pick up a Barrett model 82A1, before the gov. decides to outlaw .50 cal. BMG. Now to come up with 5 grand for the rifle and another 3 grand for the optics and BORS. This could take awhile.

387 is about the time when the Roman ban on Jews living in Jerusalem ended. At the time the city was part of the Roman (later Byzantinian) Empire.

In 614 the (Sassanid) Persian Empire took the city. I claim this as "taking the city back" because one the Persian Empire was allied with the Jews (and Jews fought among the Persians for the city) and two the last legitimate (per the Bible) government of Israel was also Persian (before Alexander's invasion). Iran and Israel have been allies for 2500 years until 1979 (and actually well into the 1980s during the First Gulf War).

In 629 the Byzantinians again took the city. (And again Jews were not permitted to live there.)

In 638 the (Arab) Muslims took the city and Jews were allowed back in. Note that those were " Moses said to his people" Muslims, not "Death to the Jews" Muslims.

In 1099 the Muslims expelled the Christian (but not the Jewish) population of the city. Then the Crusaders took the city and again threw the Jews out.

Then in 1187 the (Kurdish-led) Muslims took Jerusalem and again allowed the Jews in. Saladin announced that the exile (which both Jews and type-1 Muslims believed in) was over.

The the first Turkish tribes arrived and drove out random parts of the population, including Jews.

From 1250 the city was ruled by (Turkish) Mamluks from Egypt. By the 16th century it was in Ottoman (Turkish) hands.

In 1918 the British took it. And in 1948 it was divided by Israel and Jordan.

In 1967 it became Jewish again. At that time it had had a Jewish majority for over one hundred years.

And this is why Jerusalem is an Arab city. 400 and 50 years of Arab rule in a space of 2000 years make a Jewish city Arab.

Oops, my typo.  I meant 312 (must have been thinking of my age. )

I was referring to when Constantine converted to Christianity.  When it became the big dog in the world, it strayed from the teachings of Christ and became just another despotic organiation out to squelch opposition.  I am not saying that his conversion caused a massive wave of genocidal attacks, only that it was the catalyst for the dark ages to come (and the prejudice that still lingers today).

Right, true enough.

Oddly enough Christianity becoming the official religion of the Empire later caused the Muslims to believe that they have to take Constantinople to become the new legitimate Emperors, which the Turks did 500 years ago. That's how Byzantium's Half Moon became the symbol for the Islamic Empire.

Greek Christianity then moved its seat to Moscow, whereas the Turks claimed that the legitimate centre of the Empire remained Constantinople. At that point the world had four "centres" of the Christian/Islamic Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, and Vienna (the capital of the Holy Roman Empire and its Spanish and Portoguese possessions).

Oddly enough it never occured to any of those people to make Jerusalem the capital of the world. Jerusalem was only ever the capital of a state important to Abrahamic religions when it was under Jerwish or Persian rule.

Well, because it was the center of Political Rule. It all comes down to a simple fact: Religion is the servant of Politics, not the other way around. You won't see any massive political movement erupt purely because of religion, it always has some sociological behind it, and the leaders are using religion along for the ride.

For Jews, Jerusalem was the centre of political rule.

For others, Jerusalem doesn't have that meaning, as you say.

At the time (350-1500), Jerusalem was the center of nothing, except as a religious catalyst for Christian/Muslim wars to open/close the Road to the East. Jews had no say anyway, until the 1850's.

It became a new catalyst recently, I guess, for another pan-Middle eastern conflict, but it is not the actual objective of the conflict, whatever both sides might want to tell you.

That's not completely true. As I mentioned in my short history of the city earlier, Jews did take it back for a few years before the Muslim invasion.

After that it was ruled by Arabs for 400 years and by Turks for nearly 1000 years.

But under Turkish rule it became a Jewish city again, even if you just use population as a defining attribute.

Jerusalem is one of our objectives. I doubt it is really on objective for the other side.

We already tried giving it up. It didn't help. They were still after us and tried to kill us.

I believe one definition of insanity is to try the same thing and expect different results. So what should we do? Give up Jerusalem again and hope that the unreliable terrorist group we give it to will hug us this time?

I like how most people from the States/Canada/The West think by giving up Israel that they'll leave us alone.  In reality, they hate everything that we represent.  They hate the porn, scanty clothing, sex and the sexual innuendos, and just our lust for life.  What they represnet is almost the antithesis of what the States/ West represent which comes down to what ever feels good.

If they get Jerusalem what do you think will come next?

Except that most people don't think that.

You could say the very same thing about some christians in the USA

Please go into more details with your two statements because they are very vague.

How do most people think then?  Why do you think for past countless years there has been a push for a 'two state' solution?  Is no one supporting that?

Again, can you please explain both of your points.

It certainly seems like they do. Or perhaps "most liberals" rather than most people.

Yes, you could.

But not everyone who hates something feels that they have a right and obligation to obliterate it by force.

I would argue that American Christian support for a country that recognises homosexual marriage over countries that execute homosexuals and for a country where pornography is legal over countries where women can be stoned for adultery shows that while they oppose homosexual marriage and pornography, they are still willing to support a free country.

Sadly for all their talk about freedom and equality many liberals can simply not be counted on actually do defend freedom and equality.

But perhaps those Christians can be, even if they disagree with how freedom and equality are used or abused.

I actually agree with cikomyr on both statements.  But the difference between conservative christians and muslims (at least for the most radical) is how they act on the hatred.  Conservative christians pray over you (and in some cases actually protest at funerals), but for the most part do not go out and blow up buildings (people who are chrisitan do go out and blow up buildings, but not because they are christian).  We know that the radical muslims do just that.

Part of the reason for the disparity (I am not contending it has always been that way, so anyone wanting to bring on the Spanish Inquisition, please save it for another thread) is that the Christians are more isolated in their violence.  In other words, they do not have figures of authority in their religion egging them on.  Muslims do.

Just like all generalizations, this is not meant to be about every muslim or every christian.  or even a majority.  But just to examine the differences between the ones that yell (christians) and the ones that blow things up (Muslims).

Apart from rare nutters like the Westboro family I cannot recall any Christian murderer who is adored by Christians because he is a murderer.

But many Muslims adore Bin Laden, not because he is a great scholar but specifically because he murders infidels.

However, do note that a few cases of Christians advocating violence and acting still exist:

In spring of 2009 three American clergy visited Uganda to help its churches seek revival and to specifically discuss “the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family”.

These three American evangelical Christian pastors were headlined as American experts on homosexuality.

One month later, the aftermath of their visit was a rather literal interpretation of one of their messages: ‘…the wages of sin are death’. Almost immediately calls went out for homosexuals to be put to death. To be put to death by law.

The American pastors identified what they believe to be a cause of Uganda’s raging problem with AIDS/HIV: homosexuals; even though the evidence is that most Ugandan carriers are heterosexual and infected through infidelity.

Now in early 2010, with church support, a law has been proposed that anyone that knows a homosexual and does not turn them in will be imprisoned.

http://bill4dogcatcher.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/death-to-gays-says-ugandan-christian-church/

The blogger continues (and sounds very Christian in doing so):

The way I see it: if God actually has a plan for each of us and is our creator then we are are all his children. When Jesus brought the good news and taught on the mount, Jesus extended God’s grace to all. We should too. We are all God’s children.

Words matter. If the wages of sin are death then there are several lists of deadly sin in the Bible … but as Jesus taught us: ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’

In one blog entry the man teaches us both that Christian violence exists and that a real Christian cannot actually support it.

Both lessons are missing in comteporary Islam. Islamic violence is rarely acknowledged by Muslims and very often justified by those that do acknowledge it.

(Plus there is the weird case of those who acknowledge the violence, condemn it in general, but make certain exceptions like for "resistance against occupation" where immoral acts are suddenly moral proving that in their worldview morality is not absolute but depends on politics alone.)

To be fair, American Christians do condemn this outbreak of violence in the name of Christianity:

In a case of strange political bedfellows, conservative Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has joined leftist comedian Al Franken, a Democratic senator from Minnesota, in sponsoring a bill denouncing Uganda’s Christians for considering passage of legislation to outlaw certain unhealthy and immoral homosexual practices

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/af_uganda0114_02_12.asp

"Christianity Today" reports:

 The proposed anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda has created tension between American Christians who have condemned the legislation and Ugandan Christians who don't want to see homosexuality become an acceptable practice.

Several American pastors and leaders have condemned legislation in Uganda that, if passed in its proposed version, would punish homosexual acts between adults—including touching "with the intent of committing the act of homosexuality"—with life imprisonment. The punishment for "serial offenders," homosexual sex with minors or the disabled, or homosexual sex while being HIV-positive, is death.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/decemberweb-only/151-41.0.html

But while there are scholars who acknowledge violence against non-combatants and outside self-defence and regardless of who the enemy is, they are considerably rarer in Islam than among Christians.

Hey. talk of the devil.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/michigan.arrests/?hpt=C1

But then again, since the SPLC had labelled them as "dangerous patriot group", they were probably nice christian Tea Partiers who got a bad press, right?

The only thing the SPLC does it exagerating and promoting it's Liberal agenda, right? There is no possibility of them actually shedding the light on dangerous groups. This is probably a big misunderstanding.

Scott Roeder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Tiller#Reactions_to_Tiller.27s_killing