Bella

Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. The point remains. An automobile by design should not be killing/maiming/injuring anyone. But it does. The fact that such a tool results in more tragedies than does a tool designed to elicit exactly those outcomes says what? Poor design? Miss-use? Both? Your "point" does not remain, as your argument is nonsensical. Not from my point of view. Your rebuttal lies in a statistical equivalency (more cars being used so more tragedies). I'm not arguing numbers, necessarily. I'm arguing design. We do not design tools to kill... unless we design them to kill. Yet when someone abuses such a tool to do harm indiscriminately to innocent people, we blame the tool. That is ludicrous and anybody that would argue for it isn't grounded properly. Yet, when a tool designed for transportation is used to harm either on purpose or accidentally, that tool is never blamed. Instead we blame the abuser of the tool. Rightfully so! Since the tool is being misused. If that continues to be nonsensical to you, you are welcome to move onto a different subject.

Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. The point remains. An automobile by design should not be killing/maiming/injuring anyone. But it does. The fact that such a tool results in more tragedies than does a tool designed to elicit exactly those outcomes says what? Poor design? Miss-use? Both? If it is miss-use (drunk driving, driving recklessly, etc) then we acknowledge the tool isn't being used properly. And our laws punish the abuser. We blame the operator and not the tool. Yet, when a gun is miss-used, we blame the tool. Programming. Who's we? When a person kills an innocent with a vehicle or a gun, I blame the person. 'we' is society. I don't know you personally. Certainly you are aware of the social view on guns and that the tool is always blamed and the person abusing it and their circumstances is usually secondary? Even today the President reiterated his position that we need more gun control. Could you ever imagine a political entity stating that we need vehicles in fewer hands because of the number of tragedies resulting from their use? Me neither.

Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm no actuary, but comparing gun deaths and transportation deaths by count makes no sense. How many people in this country drove today, but didn't hold a loaded firearm? Most transportation deaths are accidents. Most gun deaths aren't. The point remains. An automobile by design should not be killing/maiming/injuring anyone. But it does. The fact that such a tool results in more tragedies than does a tool designed to elicit exactly those outcomes says what? Poor design? Miss-use? Both? If it is miss-use (drunk driving, driving recklessly, etc) then we acknowledge the tool isn't being used properly. And our laws punish the abuser. We blame the operator and not the tool. Yet, when a gun is miss-used, we blame the tool. Programming.

What are you referring to? Deaths by auto accident vs gunfire? Auto deaths have dropped dramatically while gun deaths have stayed high. It's probably because there isn't an organization like the NRA fighting public health measures to reduce auto mayhem. If that's what you're referring to. I was referring to the link posted earlier regarding that topic, yes. I think the issue is worth exploring, don't you? Aside from your reference to the NRA (which is inaccurate, I think), the fact remains that more people are killed/maimed/injured by a tool designed for transportation than via a tool designed to do exactly those things. Yet, society accepts the rates of the former and focuses on the rates of the latter. Why? Is it because everyone likes cars but not everybody likes guns? Isn't that a product of programming? I can't flip the channel without seeing a car ad. Never have I seen a commercial for a Colt.

I would disagree. Guns are equipped with palm safety and trigger safety in addition to the standard push/switch safety. These are innovations not originally designed in previous renditions. To bad the Florida shooter didn't have those engaged. Interesting reply. I would assume because his intent was to do harm? Remember the young lady in Las Vegas earlier this year (or late last year) that intentionally plowed her vehicle into a crowed on the strip? Too bad she didn't operate her 'safety' brake pedal as it was designed. Or, did she intentionally plow into those people? All I can remember is that the reaction to those murders was that she was mentally unstable and needed help. absolutely no mention of the weapon used or outcries to ban transportation. Programming at work. And working on a great many people.

Some handguns also incorporate visual cues to help determine if a round is chambered. Another safety feature designed into firearms. Realistically, transportation is designed for transportation and not designed to kill. Yet, it out-kills the tool designed to kill. But (and here is where it gets interesting) because society isn't programmed to hate transportation as it is being programmed to hate firearms, there is no outrage. And excuses are subconsciously offered to validate the inconsistency, in order to affirm the programming. It really is that simple.

I would disagree. Guns are equipped with palm safety and trigger safety in addition to the standard push/switch safety. These are innovations not originally designed in previous renditions.

Again. Cars are mainly used for transportation and no one is articulating getting rid of them. Guns on the other hand were developed for killing and the one in question was developed for the military to kill a lot of people...Bringing a car to a gun fight makes as much sense as driving a gun to the supermarket. I'm curious. Don't you find it a bit perplexing that a tool developed for killing is being out-killed by a tool developed for transportation but that the public outrage is directed at the tool designed to kill? The gun after all, is doing what it was designed to do. The transportation tool is malfunctioning or being used incorrectly. But the outrage is muted? I'm off topic though. And I'm convinced that the mere mention of guns on these forums is against moderator policy. I've personally been cut short on the subject in a previous thread. The fact that this thread has lived this long delving into the various banned subjects is perplexing to say the least.

Thank you. It was reported that the shooter didn't have any problem walking into a gun store and buying a high-capacity magazine. That's one thing I'd like to see controlled. It's being reported that the suspect was on the FBI radar and had been interviewed by them a couple of times. He still bought his weapons legally - which require an FBI background check. I'm convinced that our government is incompetent to the point that it doesn't matter what laws are passed regarding buying a gun or a high-capacity magazine and that It's nothing more than a false sense of security implemented by the three stooges. Nothing will result from this but a further loss of freedoms. Until the next act of terrorism committed by someone or some people that could have been prevented by a competent entity. Does Israel, surrounded by enemies, have such issues? No. And then, when it does happen again here, more calls for the loss of more freedoms will be the answer from a completely incompetent government. And many will agree. Sad.

It's just time. There are cycles to everything. Everything. The cycle of war; economic collapse; social collapse, etc, while being separate entities in and of themselves with their own cycles, and usually afflicting individual country's over the course of time, are all lining up at this point in time to affect the whole world. Nothing like this has ever happened before in the history of Man. The old Chinese proverb "may you live in interesting times" doesn't even do justice to what the near future holds for all of us. We are only on the cusp of what is to come. Prayers to the wounded and dead. They aren't the first in this, and they will not be the last.

This week: NYSE: CDE Last week's results? I did OK. It was fun.

Long term investment is the commonly accepted vehicle for growing money. If you can make 4% return over the long haul that's boring. Day trading is another animal altogether. I believe you men term it 'hit it and quit it.' You can easily walk away with an STD. Then there is the in-between strategy. 2-3% on the invested funds. Then use those gains for more buying power. 2-3% again on the invested funds. And so on. Doesn't that sound 'fun?'

Gamble? No. It's all 'just for fun' though. Don't take me serious on anything I post in this thread.

AMZN is an investment stock. I'm more interested in short term gain potentials. Wanna make a couple hundred or thousand a week? Just for fun of course.

Just because something is up 382% doesn't mean it can't go up another 100%. AG all time high is ~$20 or so. Just for fun, I think it can run a bit more. Short AAPL. Just for fun.

Trying to make money off of positions you have taken? You know, just for fun... I need all the help I can get. Janet Yellen had to sit down and open her mouth. Sent AG and a number of other mining shares south today. Tomorrow should be back up. As long as nobody else threatens to raise interest rates. And no. I'm not giving investment advice. It's all 'just for fun.'

I'll start... NYSE: AG still going up. pro tip: short AAPL http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ag&fr=uh3_finance_web_gs_ctrl1&uhb=uhb2

Not mine, posting here for anybody with deep pockets. http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/ele/5582025416.html

wont even answer the door at that price , even if I did sell them it would take 8k to own them . 6500 ? did you take your meds this morning ? So you outbid me, don't like them, and then offer to sell them to me at a profit. Does the new price include KY jelly? Reminds me of the line from Animal House..."Thank you Sir, may I have another?" Subtotal $7,350.00 Shipping $298.17 And 4 hours of my time to go to the hub to pick them up by the way what does a lawyer get for 4 hours of there time ? Is it customary to charge for the footwork in taking possession of a purchase? If so, I've been selling my used cars for too cheap. I should have included the drive to the dealership and the time for haggling over the price when I bought them new.

I don't think driving is a Right. It is a privilege that is well regulated. You sign the contract which is your license; you agree to the myriad of motor vehicle laws. It is interesting that with any transaction you have with .gov they require your signature (consent). Now I have heard that signing the license WITHOUT PREJUDICE precludes the judge from holding you accountable to the laws governing motor vehicles. Which is an interesting topic in and of itself, but I don't know how viable the tactic is.

^this ^ and this.

I have never heard RF-7's. But I have owned Heresy, Lascala, and currently own Khorns. The Palladium's do not have the horn issues that any of those models have. If the RF-7's are anything like those speakers then, no, no where near an RF-7.

I have the 37's and can comment on those - I imagine them not to be too terribly different than the 39's you have coming. The top end is smooth and silky; not at all harsh, and crystal clear. You will not believe you are listening to horns. Rest easy. You are going to love them.

Welcome to the rabbit hole. Your journey may be very expensive before you reach your destination. You've stumbled onto what many consider the very best loudspeaker systems ever devised. And I might add, that you'll enjoy every dime you spend. I have no first hand knowledge of the Heresy. But the Heritage line as a whole is something to behold. You might move to the Heresy, then you'll hear a Lascala...

If I was called an ******* for what I posted then I want a chance to respond--It made no sense so I wanted a clarification. It made no sense because it was not directed at you. I do not and it has never been my character to intentionally insult another human being. It was done, as Oldtimer said, in the spirit of what used to be an interesting topic to me. But I am exiting the thread.