I was NOT a good father (indifferent) to my first son and lost him. With my next son and daughter I lavished them with my love, I learned.

Congrats for raising your 2 boys to decent men. You certainly bucked the trend and skewed the results of that study! (This is a good thing)

I just wish I knew more about showing my daughter on make-up and girlie stuff, but as a young woman she is doing just fine.

Actually a lot of people do. You get credit for like $75.00 a day and instead of paying a fine they can just do a certain amount of days.

The link was provided, on the first page. Being on youtube means we should start with a neutral stance on its credibility. If it were on FOX or CNN at least there would be a major network staking their own credibility on the credibility of the recording. Without that backing, what we have is a recording of unreliable origin, with no particular cause to believe it to be a fake.

If you've ever been to trial, and if you listen to it carefully, and if you've paid attention your whole life to the difference between acting, lying, and authentic dialog, then I think you will agree that it is almost certainly real.

I'm always judged for "looking" at older men. I'm 18, and the age range I usually like to go for is 25-35. I don't see how it is something so bad. Age is nothing to me, it's about the person :)

I believe that every state that allows Conceal Carry requires that you pass a CC course, so that is already in place.

I absolutely agree, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

But if I were to walk around town with a loaded handgun, how am I infringing on your rights? The basis for limiting my right to carry a handgun, is an assumption that I will violate your rights. What other right is preemptively infringed upon? Do I have the right to prevent you from speaking, because you might say something to hurt my feelings? Do I have the right to take your house or car, because you might use them to commit a crime? If not, then what right does the Government have to prevent law abiding citizens from being armed?

I believe we do sell our young men short by not having a man involved. I felt I sold my daughter short by not having a woman involved to teach her about make-up and stuff. Thank goodness for pre-teen girlfriends and their moms!!!

This may be why I'm so vocal now?

That is true, but what was the point of allowing people to own guns? It was for protection, right?

Doesn't that mean that our right to bear arms is a sliding scale? In other words, we have the right to own the prevailing arms of the time? What good is a single shot black powder rifle vs a Glock 9?

Do you also feel that your right to free speech should be limited to print, since the Internet, TV and Radio didn't exist when the Constitution was written? Or does the right to free speech expand to encompass new forms of media?

Your right there is a failure, but its not communication, its comprehension.

There is not a regulation in existence that is not preventing someone from access to something.

When a tool is regulated what the government is saying is you are not allowed to have this tool without permission.

This is not true across the board.

The countries that have lower crime rates, had lower crime BEFORE the gun bans took place.

In every single case an armed population saw reductions in violent crime.

The examples of countries with low crime AND a gun ban had few guns before the ban, and low crime before the ban.

There is not a single example of a gun ban in a country with hi crime and large quantities of weapons reducing crime. This include regulation which just makes guns hard or expensive to get.

Gun regulation just makes protection unaffordable, or illusive. Do you really want the rich, or the determined to be the only groups with the means?

There is just no logic on the regulation side. It defies the constitution and all in the name of emotional appeals to the illusion of safety.

Its fundamental msharmony. In order for you as a person to protect yourself from another person who may be armed requires you to be prepared.

The second you allow a government to lay claim to who gets the right to defend themselves and who doesn't you have tossed away your liberty and pursuit of happiness for the concept of safety. You are not more safe, but if it makes you feel safe that is enough for you.

My best friend being murdered showed me that no one is safe. She was murdered in broad day light in a pet store. She was beat in the head with a fire extinguisher, she was raped, she had her life taken from her, and if she had been prepared she may still be alive.

This is true of ~12-20K people every year, this makes it more than personal. It makes it a fact of the environment. Ignoring these facts does not make you safer.

Yes it is a personal decision to carry a firearm, one that many people do despite the government telling them its illegal. I just regret that my friend was not one of them, she didn't want to carry a concealed gun illegally, and she kept putting off getting her permit.

So you can wishful think yourself into feeling safe, but understand that you live in a dangerous environment where violent offenders can find you in the best of neighborhoods and the police are minutes away when you have seconds to live. If you do nothing else know that is true.

The way your mind works is interesting. You automatically assume that the Government has the right to decide who can or cannot own a weapon, despite the second amendment protecting our right to arms.

You are not going to get any attention posting an anonymous blog.

Its a perfect example of PROPAGANDA by an anonymous person.

What could be the motive? Political ploy to get people to hate greedy bankers?

I think we already do.