Jim Dandy:  The "Socialist" tag was also used as an attack on FDR for Social Security & LBJ for his support of Medicare. 

Artful Dodger: WIKIPEDIA:

"The term ['socialized medicine'] was popularized by a public relations firm working for the American Medical Association in 1947 to disparage President Truman's proposal for a national health care system. It was a label, at the dawn of the cold war, meant to suggest that anybody advocating universal access to health care must be a communist. And the phrase has retained its political power for six decades."

Ferris Bueller: I'd heard it was a very very effective ad,but no,saying it won him the election was probably an overstatement.The fact it is still a popular refrence does say something though in regards to it's impact on political advertising

Jim Dandy:  I doubt that won LBJ the election solely, but it may have contributed to the landslide.  Barry Goldwater, his Republican opponent, advocated using nukes on Vietnam.  So, Johnson's people used the "Daisy" ad to hang the "armegedon" tag on Goldwater.

(V): .. "why do you need an arsenal of 50 firearms?"..... ".. our govenment is plotting aginst me"

This is precisely why the amendment was put in the constitution

Artful Dodger: The definition of the militia in the Iowa constitution and I am paraphrasing because it's been a while since I have read it is, All citizens between the ages of 14 and 60

Tuesday: you can't miss this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQUE_5T4G8I

Tuesday: The more that things change, the more they stay the same

Tuesday: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Tuesday: Yes,I was going to give the utube link, but I didn't think it was allowed

Tuesday:Although "fear" has been overused as a tool in recent years, it's nothing new.The LBJ daisy ad is thought by many to have won him the election back in the 60's

GTCharlie: Not if you like over here use a "you broke the law.. your nicked" policy. It's worked over here with knife crime. There was an amnesty on handing in before, and I guess people use to doing taxes a little extra paperwork is nothing.

.... Yes it would take years to work, but with education and parenting, educational adverts like "Clunk click every trip"..

.. "why do you need an arsenal of 50 firearms?"..... ".. our govenment is plotting aginst me" .. "heard of paranoia?

And as usual in the U.S., the responsible majority will be denied because of the actions of the few

pass all the laws you want..just a bigger black market will result.. same for drugs, alcohol, gambling , prostitution.. etc... doubt very much gun violence will drop much. better education and parenting is the answer. of course years of damage will take years to reverse

sorry... done!! Must re-install spell checker ;)

Ferris Bueller: Down Clay pigeon and .22, archery and some martial arts. Certain nerve pinhes can make a man cry just using two fingers :0) ....From documentaries you can learn how the Chinese use to make weapons from simple materials. More skill involved though, but enough that you could make a someone regret trying it on.. In the UK anyway.. less gun crime ;)

Artful Dodger: Young drivers pay more in insurance, it could be stated that a 'P' plate could be made law so you know if the driver is inexperianced.

Guns.. The gun law was designed to stop another 'imperial war', not to allow wanna be's GI's own enough hardware to take out a town! And it wasn't designed to mean IMHO that having the right to bear arms means you can be irresponsible with a deadly weapon.

If those who want smaller gov through responsible citizens then let them be responsible and lock up or get rid of that which is strickly speaking a 'toy for a big kid'.

.. most people only have two hands. The likes of Rambo and Arnie in his action days only carried two firearms at the time.

Ferris Bueller: Safety nets are already in place in principle, and with all probability I can see *cough* death panels (to misquote a extreme right winger phrase) to look at each case. That a mother was cleared of wrong doing in helping her daughter shows that the UK legal system will investigate any assisted suicides and make sure it was a genuine case.

Artful Dodger:  Mr. Jefferson probably did not have to deal with teens going on shooting sprees near Montecello either.  Or one of his many offspring by different women accidently killing a sibling w/ his musket.  LOL  Thomas Jefferson would likely be appalled at the gun violence he would see in his beloved free country today.

Bwild:Laws and regulation

By law, a potential customer must be 18 years of age or older to purchase a firearm or legally maintain possession of one. Citizens of Canada under the age of 18 but over the age of 12 may procure a Minor’s Licence which does not allow them to purchase a firearm but allows them to borrow a firearm unsupervised and purchase ammunition. Children under the age of 12 that are found to need a firearm to hunt or trap may also be awarded the Minor's Licence. This is generally reserved for children in remote locations, primarily aboriginal communities that engage in subsistence hunting.[9]

Removable bullpup stocks are classified as prohibited devices. This regulation led to the RCMP classifying the stock of the Walther G22 rifle as prohibited while the internal components remained non-restricted. Purpose built bullpup firearms such as the PS-90 and IMI Tavor are not subject to this regulation since the stock is integral to their workings and is thus not removable.

By law, as of January 1, 2001, all firearms in Canada must legally be registered with the Canadian Firearms Registry. In early 2006 the Conservative Party of Canada formed the 39th Canadian government and announced an amnesty period of one year (later extended by a further year) in which licenced or previously licenced long gun owners would not be punished for not registering their long guns. The legal requirement to register as set forth by law has not been revoked; legislation to revoke the requirement to register long-guns was introduced by the Government during the 39th Parliament but was not brought to a vote. It was opposed by the Opposition parties who together have a majority of seats in the House of Commons. However, similar legislation may again be brought forward in the 40th Parliament since the Conservative Government remains committed to the abolition of long-gun registration.[10]

To purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm, a person must have a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) for restricted firearms and be a member of a certified range. To use restricted firearms a person must also obtain long term authorization to transport (LTATT) from their provincial Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) to move the firearm to and from the range. Short term authorization to transport (STATT) is required in most cases to move a firearm from a business to the owner's home, or when the owner wishes to change the address where the firearm is stored. Firearms can be shipped without a STATT by a bonded courier directly to an owner's home.

Semi-automatic center-fire rifles and semi-automatic shotguns have a maximum magazine capacity of five rounds. Some rifles such as the M1 Garand are exempted from this requirement by name[11]. There is no restriction of magazine capacity for rimfire rifles or manual action rifles and shotguns. All handguns have a maximum capacity of ten rounds. The legal capacity of a specific magazine is determined by the firearm it was made for, not the firearm it is used in.

Canada's federal laws also restrict the ability of persons, including most security guards, to carry restricted or prohibited firearms in public, although generally carrying non-restricted firearms is permitted (although subject to other restrictions such breaching the peace if carried in manner that might alarm bystanders, such as in a city setting). For example, section 17 of the Firearms Act makes it an offence for anyone, including a security guard, to possess prohibited or restricted firearms (i.e. handguns) outside of his or her home. There are two exceptions to this prohibition found in sections 18 and 19 of the Act. Section 18 allows for persons to be issued an Authorization to Transport, or ATT, authorizing the transport of a firearm outside the home for certain purposes, such as going to and from a range, a training course or repair shop. Such firearms must be unloaded, stored in secure, locked containers and equipped with a trigger lock. Section 19 of the Act goes on to allow individuals to receive an Authorization to Carry, or ATC, granting permission to carry loaded restricted firearms on their persons for certain reasons specified in the Act. These reasons are as follows: if the person is a licensed trapper and carries the firearm while trapping, if the person is in a remote wilderness area and needs the firearm for protection against wildlife, if the person's work involves guarding or handling money or other items of substantial value, or if the person's life is in danger and police protection is inadequate to protect him or her. It should be noted that the authorities almost never issue an ATC for the last reason, that is to say, because a person's life is threatened and police protection is inadequate. Generally, the only Canadian security guards who receive authorization to carry firearms are those employed by armoured car companies.

Universal Eyes: "self-defence is not a valid reason "
guess those folks never met a grizzly bear!

Gun politics in Canada is controversial, though less contentious than it is in the United States. Civilian firearm owners in Canada mainly consist of citizens who want to keep their right to hunt for sport and subsitence, which is important for many First Nations peoples, as well as target shooting sports and collectors. As far as the Firearms Act of 1995 is concerned, self-defence is not a valid reason to acquire a firearm in Canada. Controls on civilian use of firearms date from the early days of Confederation, when Justices of the Peace could impose penalties for carrying a handgun without reasonable cause.[1] Criminal Code of Canada amendments between the 1890s and the 1970s introduced a series of minor controls on firearms. In the late 1970s, controls of intermediate strength were introduced. In the mid 1990s significant increases in controls occurred. A 1996 study showed that Canada was in the mid-range of firearm ownership when compared with eight other western nations. Nearly 22% of Canadian households had at least one firearm, including 2.3% of households possessing a handgun.[2]

As of December 2009, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,843,913 valid firearm licenses, roughly 5.4% of the population, with a total of 7,459,504 registered firearms (September 2009). The four most licensed provinces are Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.[3]

In Canada if your caught carrying a gun that is on you or in your home and not registered in your name with a safety on it and doesn't have a home as in a locked gun case ,your facing an automatic mandatory minimum 10 year sentence and incarceration period.

"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!"

Yosemite Sam
lol

Vikings: by the way, how did that gun controll work out for Germany?

Pedro Martínez: absolutely!!!, the constitution was set up to protect the people from the tyranny of the government, but it has been perverted to the point that we are now at the mercy of the tyrannic government.
The constitution is all about FREEDOM and that cannot be outdated

Vikings: You can't be serious there. You want to have your courts rule according to and people abide by the original intent of an instrument written in the 18th century?

Pedro Martínez: The problem with people that make ridiculous claims such as this is that they look at what the constitution says and make a general statement like yours, what they fail to overlook is that is such a thing as "original intent", nuclear weapons are obviously not what the original intent had in mind, in fact the original intent was for the people to protect them selves from the governments and a nuclear weapon would negate that purpose

(V):   Generally, I agree with you that excruciatingly painful & chronic or terminal illnesses should not be mandated to linger on, especially against the will of the victim.  But, I do think safety nets are in order to protect against abuses.  In most circumstances, one person should not be responsible for assisted-suicide.

Pedro Martínez: One of my relatives got concerned I know how to make thermite and the plastic version of it... Went on about terrotists and all.. I admit I like fire.. love a bonfire. But I have respect for what it is.

Artful Dodger: I'm not against people having guns, but if there is a problem with kids getting guns via their parents, it is the responsible thing to sort that out. Instead of busting people for stupid things like posessing weed, (700,000 of the them in US jails helping the war effort) sort out those parents and make the USA a safer place.

It won't cure all, but it's a reasonable start.

Ferris Bueller: One step at a time, I think it's a long way from as such (re an old sci fi book) a 'suicide' switch gets designed. Quite frankly being a spiritualist I don't see it being a choice but the right thing to do. Bodies break, they are biological machines. Conciousness is a different matter. And from a personal experiance point of view... Long term illness can be a right bugger... There are worse things than discorporation. Things that make hell look like a nice day on the beach.

Vikings: LOL. One of the amendments to your constitution actually provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It does not specify what arms, so it applies to all weapons, just like the word “people” applies to all the people within the jurisdiction of the constitution. So I don't understand your comment. By the way, I'm not trying to sound intelligent here, so I don't have to ask for help with the big words.

Artful Dodger: Good point, but why would I turn to you when trying to sound intelligent?

Pedro Martínez: there is no responsible use for a private citizen to have a nuclear weapon, there are multiple responsible uses for guns however, so your comment is apples to oranges

I think people should be free to own nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, too. There will be a few irresponsible owners, but far more will be responsible.

Artful Dodger: Well, maybe he's not 100% accurate then. But how do children in the USA get to get firearms legally so easily? You cannot drink till you are over 21 in the US so why not similar rules for firearms?

Over here when joe public could own a gun for shooting at a shooting club they had to be approved by the police and store the firearms in locked bolted down heavy duty metal boxes. Also they had to be stored that a thief would have to break open both to have a usable weapon, as the gun had to broken down into two parts. Eg with a rifle remove the bolt mechanism.