PDA

View Full Version : Bay Area All Stepping In Line: Ammo Limits.



Spade: The Real Snake
2nd February 10, 01:24 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/01/BA9U1BR2EL.DTL

Any new public policy measure undertaken to reduce, regulate or limit access to the guns and ammunition that have contributed to the loss of human life across the nation's urban landscape is a step in the right direction.

Toward that end, the Oakland City Council tonight is expected to weigh the merits of an ordinance that would impose license and regulatory requirements on the sellers of ammunition in the city.


Under the new proposal, anyone who purchases ammunition would be required to provide a thumbprint.


If approved, the city's chief of police would have the power to approve all new firearms dealers and impose strict rules on ammunition storage and record-keeping, matching existing state laws on handgun ammunition.
Similar laws have already been passed in a number of California cities, including Richmond, Berkeley and San Francisco.


While Oakland city officials should expect to receive some heat from the Bay Area gun lobby, this is one local ordinance that should take no great political debate to resolve.


Of course elected officials have the duty to enact laws to promote the safety of citizens, and it has nothing to do with someone's right to bag a deer in Wisconsin or go duck hunting wherever it is that duck hunters go.


It also doesn't bar the constitutional right to bear arms in the protection of home, life and property. It's not about gun ranges or target practice, skeet shooting, dude ranch weekends or fast-draw competitions.
This is about the very real-life carnage that has taken place in Oakland and dozens of other U.S. cities since the early 1980s.



Oakland has recorded more than 600 homicides since 2005, the overwhelming majority of them carried out with firearms. The city has one of the highest per capita homicide rates in the nation.


Now if someone were looking for an urban setting with explosive violence to test out a new wave of strict gun laws, Oakland really would be the Model City.
A member of Calguns, an organization that educates citizens about gun rights and enters "strategic litigation" to protect gun owners, said he planned to attend the meeting but declined to be identified.


He argued that even as Oakland has but one licensedfirearms dealer, a sworn Oakland police officer who does not sell to the general public, the city has not seen a drop in crime over the last 20 years.


That may be so, but in New York, the strictest gun laws in the nation and a police department push to remove weapons from the street have shown remarkable results.


It is that level of weapons regulation that Oakland and other crime-besieged cities like it should be moving toward.


If Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums was ever looking for a national issue on which to leave his mark, he has all the ammunition he needs for one in his own backyard.
There is no denying the strength of the gun lobby on national policy - there are dead bodies strewn across the urban landscape as testament to that success. But there is no reason for the council to hesitate from enacting this public safety measure.


Under existing U.S. gun laws, it's obviously no problem for anyone with the cash and desire to purchase just about any weapon they want to buy, but if more cities adopted laws to limit the ammunition, maybe it would make a difference in a half-dozen cases a year.


____________________________________


If this takes hold in the entire state of California.......

let the exodus to Out-Of-State Walmarts commence.....taking with it, all the much needed state sales tax!


Otherwise, the general citizen will just drive out of town and the Bay Area will lose the sales tax they need.

the crook will just all take the CALTRANS on down to somewhere like San Jose or Salinas or something, buy ammo, and sell it to the homies at a profit and spliff away his ill-gotten booty.

Commodore Pipes
2nd February 10, 04:11 PM
Of course elected officials have the duty to enact laws to promote the safety of citizens, and it has nothing to do with someone's right to bag a deer in Wisconsin or go duck hunting wherever it is that duck hunters go.




Wow. Chip Johnson doesn't even pretend to be impartial. So when did California become a part of Canada?

Phrost
2nd February 10, 04:22 PM
This would be where I insert an animated image from the first Superman movie where Lex Luthor tries to separate California from the continental United States via an earthquake.

Commodore Pipes
2nd February 10, 04:24 PM
This would be where I insert an animated image from the first Superman movie where Lex Luthor tries to separate California from the continental United States via an earthquake.

Oh, you really should.

EDIT: Does it track sales of primers, powder, and brass? If not, it wouldn't effect most of the collectors I know, since they reload. I have only been collecting for a year, and haven't invested in a home-reloading set up. Although I need to, since most of my beauties are antiques and should only fire black powder.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 04:34 PM
Best I can do on short notice:

LgbEYSbyepM

Which also ties into my platform of OMFG WE NEED TO GET OFF THE PLANET ASAFP.

Spade: The Real Snake
2nd February 10, 04:38 PM
EDIT: Does it track sales of primers, powder, and brass? If not, it wouldn't effect most of the collectors I know, since the reload. I have only been collecting for a year, and haven't invested in a home-reloading set up. Although I need to, since most of my beauties are antiques and should only fire black powder.
It doesn't indicate that it DOES, however I am sure if they are availible for sale at gun stores, it will require it.

I expect gun shops will be setting up little road-side kiosks just outside the city limits selling ammo like New Mexican Firework booths.

Commodore Pipes
2nd February 10, 05:00 PM
Best I can do on short notice:

LgbEYSbyepM

Which also ties into my platform of OMFG WE NEED TO GET OFF THE PLANET ASAFP.

I watched the whole thing and now I am frightened and depressed.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 05:02 PM
Then join me in my campaign to get us the fuck off the planet before we go extinct.

HappyOldGuy
2nd February 10, 05:35 PM
Of course this is retarded, but it's also pretty empty since there are no gun stores left in Oakland.

Actually, I'm not sure if that makes it less or more retarded? Is a bad law worse if it is pointless? Or better? Paging DA Young.

Zendetta
2nd February 10, 06:10 PM
I actually usually really like Chip's columns, as he has been the most robust voice when it comes to regularly busting the chops of our lame-ass mayor.

Zendetta
2nd February 10, 06:13 PM
Of course this is retarded, but it's also pretty empty since there are no gun stores left in Oakland.

Actually, I'm not sure if that makes it less or more retarded? Is a bad law worse if it is pointless? Or better? Paging DA Young.

People may find it interesting to note that Oakland's only gun store is owned by a cop and only sells to other law enforcement.

Spade: The Real Snake
2nd February 10, 09:15 PM
People may find it interesting to note that Oakland's only gun store is owned by a cop and only sells to other law enforcement.

THIN BLOO LINE!

SOMEONE CALL KRACKER AND TLH!!!!!

Wounded Ronin
2nd February 10, 09:28 PM
It all seems to keep going back to people who want to regulate firearms don't actually know anything about them. If the article author wants people to actually hit their targets instead of bystanders when defending themselves, said people need to practice their trigger control more than 50 times a month.

Ka-Bar
2nd February 10, 11:07 PM
There's one licensed gun dealer in Oakland, an Oakland police officer who doesn't sell to the general public, yet the streets of Oakland are flooded with guns.

More regulation is clearly the solution here.

kracker
3rd February 10, 01:17 PM
THIN BLOO LINE!

SOMEONE CALL KRACKER AND TLH!!!!!


I'm here and pissed off as usual but if I have to explain why it's a bad idea that California's most violent and criminal element have a monopoly on force then there is no hope.

I could go on a rant here, but you can probably guess what I'm going to say.

Phrost
3rd February 10, 05:33 PM
I honestly have no idea why leftists don't get the idea that more guns, and not more Government, equals more freedom.

Spade: The Real Snake
3rd February 10, 05:48 PM
I honestly have no idea why leftists don't get the idea that more guns, and not more Government, equals more freedom.

Because the guns are not directly in their hands but are one degree removed and thus allow plausible deniablility of any actions taken with said guns.

Zendetta
3rd February 10, 06:10 PM
I honestly have no idea why leftists don't get the idea that more guns, and not more Government, equals more freedom.

Its an interesting question, and it has multiple layers.

One, simply, is that the left tends to abhor violence. Its a priveleged, urbane attitude.

I was recently talking with a friend about violence and pacifism. I asked him how he could philosophically explain his pacifism and he cited "aesthetics" - most people simply don't like violence. I didn't want to bust his chops, but my thought was "this is the paradigm of someone who has not been in a position of having to do something that they don't want to do." :jihad:

So another issue at play is "Ivory Tower Syndrome" - they haven't spent enough time in rough-and-tumble environments to realize that violence is a completely normal human activity. :icon_slap:

There is a cultural component as well: not being raised with guns, they assign them to the Krazee KowBoy Right and see them as the tools by which white euro honkies have wtfpwnt everyone else. They don't want to indentify with that John Wayne crap.

Yet another element is that the left tends towards collectivism. There's not much thought about individual soveriengty - and thus not much passion for self-preservation - under that paradigm.

In addition, I've come to a painful conclusion: some (but not all) Lefty Pacifism is simply Cowardice gussied up in a self-rationalizing philosophy. :soapbox:

Cullion
3rd February 10, 06:15 PM
There's no clear category of 'leftism' really. Lots of people have kind of gotten used to calling themselves 'left' or 'right', but they're bullshit overly-broad categories that were created for the populace rather than by the populace.

Zendetta
3rd February 10, 06:19 PM
Worse still, they're French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_wing

kracker
3rd February 10, 06:42 PM
I believe in as little government and possible (only essential features like prosecuting things like rape and murder) and an absolute right to guns for everyone. I'm honestly not sure why people refer to me as a leftist.

HappyOldGuy
3rd February 10, 06:57 PM
I honestly have no idea why leftists don't get the idea that more guns, and not more Government, equals more freedom.

Because idiots on the right keep mixing and matching those two entirely disconnected concepts and making it easy to feel superior.

elipson
4th February 10, 03:15 AM
Originally Posted by Phrost
I honestly have no idea why leftists don't get the idea that more guns, and not more Government, equals more freedom.

Because people on the left have a sufficient amount of freedom to live comfortably and are not concerned with obtaining more, but instead with not being shot.

Whether or not "sufficient" freedom is good enough I leave up to you, but this IS how people on the left feel.

Wounded Ronin
5th February 10, 08:07 PM
Its an interesting question, and it has multiple layers.

One, simply, is that the left tends to abhor violence. Its a priveleged, urbane attitude.

I was recently talking with a friend about violence and pacifism. I asked him how he could philosophically explain his pacifism and he cited "aesthetics" - most people simply don't like violence. I didn't want to bust his chops, but my thought was "this is the paradigm of someone who has not been in a position of having to do something that they don't want to do." :jihad:

So another issue at play is "Ivory Tower Syndrome" - they haven't spent enough time in rough-and-tumble environments to realize that violence is a completely normal human activity. :icon_slap:

There is a cultural component as well: not being raised with guns, they assign them to the Krazee KowBoy Right and see them as the tools by which white euro honkies have wtfpwnt everyone else. They don't want to indentify with that John Wayne crap.

Yet another element is that the left tends towards collectivism. There's not much thought about individual soveriengty - and thus not much passion for self-preservation - under that paradigm.

In addition, I've come to a painful conclusion: some (but not all) Lefty Pacifism is simply Cowardice gussied up in a self-rationalizing philosophy. :soapbox:

I mostly agree with your post; I've long felt that anti-gun in the US was mostly a cultural value of urban intellectual elites who basically have no understanding of violence.

kracker
6th February 10, 12:47 AM
Because people on the left have a sufficient amount of freedom to live comfortably and are not concerned with obtaining more, but instead with not being shot.

Whether or not "sufficient" freedom is good enough I leave up to you, but this IS how people on the left feel.

There is no such thing as sufficient freedom. The safety you seek can only be found in freedom. The more freedom you have, the safer you are from cops. The more laws there are, the more of a danger they are to you and your family. You give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That mile could be your life, or that of someone you love. No amount of restriction in terms of posession should be tolerated by a self-respecting man. I believe Ben Franklin said it best, "He who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither and will lose both."

elipson
6th February 10, 10:58 AM
Like I said, that part is up to you. Nevertheless, that is how a lot of people feel.

Cullion
6th February 10, 05:12 PM
We don't have a gun ownership culture in the UK, and didn't really have the same kind of thing as a mass movement even when gun ownership was a legal right. The closest equivalent would be to see the dividing lines on sports that involve driving big noisy machines really fast, beating each other up or killing fish and animals (i.e. 'country sports').

You tend to find far fewer people who are into those things in left-wing political circles.

Left and Right are sports teams.

Once people join a team, they feel compelled to disapprove of things people on the other team tend to do, even if it's got nothing to do with what made them originally pick their side.

Zendetta
7th February 10, 01:08 PM
^^^ Agreed. This is why my dharma leads me to try to get rednecks to hug trees and get hippies to shoot guns.

Commodore Pipes
7th February 10, 07:48 PM
I think the irony is that in some respects the culture of 'country sports' in America was originally tied very closely with conservation. Specifically, the national popularity of conservation espoused by someone like John Muir is tied closely to Teddy Roosevelt, who was an avid hunter who believed in responsible herd maintenance. This is not news to any one on this site, of course. You're all savvy cats.

I have to admit there are always going to be assholes, like the ones who hunted the passanger pigeon to extinction and some of the guys I used to work with in NE Wisconsin, who had no qualms about outright poaching. But there are plenty of assholes on the left, too, like my aunt, a generally very intelligent woman, who thinks that contraceptive feed is a more realistic way to manage a deer herd than hunting. Sure, it's more realistic if you're trying to find a method that DOESN'T FUCKING WORK.

A hunter whose philosophy I really admire is Tred Barta. Unfortunately, I don't think he has much more time on this earth.

Kein Haar
7th February 10, 07:52 PM
You know what's awesome about contraception?

It works for a while, and then when her heat cycle sputters back to life, it's often out of sync with the season, and she can give birth in the fall or winter. The fawn will die a pleasant death by freezing.

Hippies FTW!

Commodore Pipes
7th February 10, 07:59 PM
Yeah, because we can't fucking guarantee dosage, so we just wind up pumping random levels of hormones out into the deer population! It's just a retarded idea. The Audubon Society supports hunting and opposes contraceptive feed, but of course they actual spend time outdoors and know what they're talking about. It's not theoretical to them.

HappyOldGuy
7th February 10, 10:48 PM
Hippies FTW!
Yeah, like you care about some hippie spawn freezing in the snow. :pity:

Zendetta
8th February 10, 01:50 AM
I think the irony is that in some respects the culture of 'country sports' in America was originally tied very closely with conservation.

Still are.

Ducks Unlimited, B.A.S.S., etc. Hunters do a lot for the wild. Also, a lot of the private land that is hunted is held as nature preserves - otherwise it'd be developed already.

Commodore Pipes
8th February 10, 09:25 AM
Still are.

Ducks Unlimited, B.A.S.S., etc. Hunters do a lot for the wild. Also, a lot of the private land that is hunted is held as nature preserves - otherwise it'd be developed already.

Yes, many hunting organizations still believe in strong responsible resource management. I didn't mean to imply that that wasn't the case, but rather that a superficial understanding of conservation tends to view it as a hippy thing, when in fact the hippies are sort of retarded about it.

Ajamil
8th February 10, 11:34 AM
The closest a hippie gets to nature are govt. maintained parks in cities. Think about it - biggest hippie places in the 70s: Haight-Ashbury and Golden Gate Park, Coconut Grove and Miami down in Florida, and the Village in NY.

Commodore Pipes
8th February 10, 12:30 PM
That's because real nature is too violent. "Man is the only animal that kills its own species" = RETARTED

Ajamil
8th February 10, 12:48 PM
For some reason, the animals and plants don't seem to understand the word commune and won't just give us food.

Zendetta
8th February 10, 01:55 PM
A superficial understanding of conservation tends to view it as a hippy thing, when in fact the hippies are sort of retarded about it.

The closest (most) hippies gets to nature are govt. maintained parks (not always in cities, but certainly nature constrained by civilization.)

This.

Part of the cultural divide manifests in outerwear: fleece (from recycled free range tofu, naturally) versus Wool (which doesn't burn when you drink a little and get too close to the fire).

A hunting buddy of my uncle's referred to fleece as "nerdfur" - as in, "if you were to skin a nerd..."

A peculiar part of the hunting controversy that I try to represent: Hunters are responsible for a tremendous amount of conservation, both historically as well as currently.

People that bitch about hunting? Not obvious that they are saving too much.

They certainly aren't saving the animals. Prey species like deer evolved to handle the pressures of predation, and when the herds aren't culled it leads to disease, resource depletion, starvation, and deer eating my cousin Debo's soybeans.

Killing to survive is so deeply woven into the fabric of nature that I don't see how one can consider themselves a "nature lover" and not have respect and awe for the process. Anti-hunting/PETA/Vegan people seem neurotic to me, at war with themselves trying to suppress a primal natural desire and need.

Its true that taking life sometimes requires a conquering of one's own disgust and disquietude at the pain and death... but does giving birth not require pain and sometimes even death as well?

Circle of Life, Bitches.

Nature is Red in Tooth and Claw... and it is a beautiful, elegant hue of crimson.

Ajamil
8th February 10, 02:25 PM
It's not a matter of trying to avoid pain and death - it's doing it for a taste-based reason that I avoid.

I also don't agree with those trying to stop hunting, but I have a philosophical problem with factory slaughtering and treating living things as meat support systems.

Though on the same note, seeing those who choose to not fulfill a base animal craving as neurotic seems to me a bit too similar to the mindset of militant vegans.

Do you think supressing the desire to eat meat is worse than the desire to copulate with your wife or urinate/defecate in public? What about the desire to hit annoying people - or their kids? Plenty of things a culture will teach you to suppress - why is this one so important?

Commodore Pipes
8th February 10, 03:12 PM
Prey species like deer evolved to handle the pressures of predation, and when the herds aren't culled it leads to disease, resource depletion, starvation, and deer eating my cousin Debo's soybeans.



OMG. This this this. The surest way to condemn multiple mammal populations (including deer) to starvation is to let the deer over-populate. They'll denude acres and acres of any greenry. They'll kill trees like Arbor Vitae by stripping their bark for food.


I also don't agree with those trying to stop hunting, but I have a philosophical problem with factory slaughtering and treating living things as meat support systems.


I think many hunters are with you on this. I plan on taking my own kids to witness an animal being harvested. Though it sounds cruel and heartless to some people when I put it that way, I want my kids to understand what it means to eat meat so they don't waste it.

Zendetta
8th February 10, 03:14 PM
It's not a matter of trying to avoid pain and death - it's doing it for a taste-based reason that I avoid.

I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't hunt or eat meat does it for moral reasons - although I'd be surprised if your vegetarian tendencies didn't arise at least partially in response to your spiritual path or some other moral framework.

If you don't like the taste, then I'd say to follow your instincts, don't eat meat... but watch out for slow-healing injuries if you are vegan.


I also don't agree with those trying to stop hunting, but I have a philosophical problem with factory slaughtering and treating living things as meat support systems.

That's the kind of industrial food chain that is likely to support urbane city-dwellers, but has nothing to do with the ethics that I am espousing.

A direct relationship with the food chain actually tends to increase the compassion and consciousness of the act.


Though on the same note, seeing those who choose to not fulfill a base animal craving as neurotic seems to me a bit too similar to the mindset of militant vegans.

What's so wrong about a "base animal craving" unless one is trying to reject an animal aspect of oneself?

And is it even so base? Most hunters take pride in a clean kill, whereas many animals eat their prey alive.

I am suggesting that we should embrace, joyfully and without guilt, something that has been a matter of basic survival for most people throughout most of history. I am also saying that many of those who cannot do so are motivated by an unexamined revulsion for a perennial necessity of life.

Its similar to repressing the sex drive.

Many people must use animals for food as a matter of survival. The "closer" one lives to nature, the more inescapable this becomes.

The hardcore animal rightist in our culture, typically a city-dweller from a non-sustainable industrial society, thinks that basic biological reality is evil.


Do you think supressing the desire to eat meat is worse than the desire to copulate with your wife or urinate/defecate in public? What about the desire to hit annoying people - or their kids? Plenty of things a culture will teach you to suppress - why is this one so important?

Those social norms are essential to getting along with the rest of the tribe. While modern taboos against nudity and sexuality are often very neurotic, the taboo on shitting in the village square actually represents a very sound instinct towards hygiene, and the taboo against smacking kids in K-Mart reduces violence.

Whereas hunting (or raising your own animals for meat, eggs, etc) can connect us to deeper natural cycles that are (imo) very healthy for people to participate in.

It's when people choose to not take responsibility for what nourishes them that we get cruel, inhumane, unhealthy, industrial food.

My Girlfriend was vegetarian for 22 years. Now she is regularly buying us local grass-fed, happy-cow filet mignon. It makes her feel good for several days. If listening to one's body is any guide - and I think it should be - then eating meat is "good" for her.

Phrost
8th February 10, 09:04 PM
Every vegan/vegetarian I've ever met was sallow-looking and unhealthy.

On the other hand, I also think that if you eat a certain type of animal, you should make yourself participate in the slaughter and preparation of that animal at least once.

Ajamil
8th February 10, 11:06 PM
As far as I know, studies usually find vegetarians (not vegans) healthier on average. This is most likely due to the fact that veggies in the US need to check labels, and are barred from most fast/junk food, thus are forced to eat more wholesome, healthier meals - not because the diet is inherently healthier.

Kein Haar
9th February 10, 09:00 AM
thinks that basic biological reality is evil.

And when you have a child, you're called a "breeder", and thus contributing to the inevitable death of the earth to which we have a magnitude of claim equal to some random mussell.

Zendetta
10th February 10, 03:57 PM
And when you have a child, you're called a "breeder", and thus contributing to the inevitable death of the earth to which we have a magnitude of claim equal to some random mussell.

Exactly. Mollusks are people too!


Every vegan/vegetarian I've ever met was sallow-looking and unhealthy.

On the other hand, I also think that if you eat a certain type of animal, you should make yourself participate in the slaughter and preparation of that animal at least once.

True Story: my friend Ryc had been vegan for years. He grew his own food, dried fruit from the trees in his yard, and was very vigorous, athletic, and healthy.

While living in China he broke his foot, and the injury just wouldn't heal. He finally got over the language barrier and told his chinese doctor about his veganism. The doctor was like "wtf N00B?!??!" and told him to eat some freekin' protein, eggs at the least.

He ate eggs and his foot healed immediately. He is no longer a vegan.

Vegetarianism can be good for some people. Tons of americans get fat and die from heart disease as a result of too much animal food.

But veganism is a cruel, life-hating philosophy.

socratic
12th February 10, 03:14 AM
As far as I know, studies usually find vegetarians (not vegans) healthier on average. This is most likely due to the fact that veggies in the US need to check labels, and are barred from most fast/junk food, thus are forced to eat more wholesome, healthier meals - not because the diet is inherently healthier.
Vegetarians have a diminished potential for athleticism as a general rule; the reason why no athlete of note is a Vegetarian.

For women, aenemia is a serious risk when eating vegetarian food. As a general rule I wouldn't advocate vegetarianism to anybody. Nutritionally it just doesn't make sense.

socratic
12th February 10, 03:16 AM
Vegetarianism can be good for some people. Tons of americans get fat and die from heart disease as a result of too much animal food.
From what I understand it's the over-abundance of certain totally useless plants (or their derivatives) in US food that has caused the rampant obesity. Too much grain (particularly refined flour) and sugar (particularly refined from corn).

I'm yet to see a fatass that ONLY eats steak.

Ajamil
12th February 10, 08:29 AM
Vegetarians have a diminished potential for athleticism as a general rule; the reason why no athlete of note is a Vegetarian.
Define "of note."

Phrost
12th February 10, 09:02 AM
The only vegan athlete of any note is Carl Lewis. And it remains to be seen if he was vegan during his peak performances at the olympics.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th February 10, 10:11 AM
The only vegan athlete of any note is Carl Lewis. And it remains to be seen if he was vegan during his peak performances at the olympics.

I thought Mac Danzig was a truffle?

Zendetta
12th February 10, 11:46 AM
Mac Danzig is vegan, and was sponsored by that nazi-chic clothing line.

Hitler was a noted veggie lover too.

DO YOU SEE, PEOPLE??!??!??!?!

Spade: The Real Snake
12th February 10, 11:48 AM
^^^
God-WIN!

Ajamil
12th February 10, 12:12 PM
So was Ben Franklin, are you suggesting Franklin was like Hitler?

Zendetta
12th February 10, 12:23 PM
Don't be silly. Franklin makes up for being a veggie by banging all those hot french chicks.

Hitler thought the genocide of the American Natives was cool, proof of white supremacy. But Franklin spent a bunch of cash outfitting a group of Bad Dudes to defend some Indians from killer rednecks. True Story!

Hitler, on the other hand, had a big interest in the Vedas.

Vedic Lore, Vegetarianism, one un-descended testicle... Oh My Godwin! Arjuna = Hitler!!!!

Ajamil
12th February 10, 12:28 PM
How did you hear about the testicle? And Hitler totally stole all our best stuff - the word aryan, the swastika, the kinky sex with black neoprene rubber.

Zendetta
12th February 10, 12:30 PM
How did you hear about the testicle?

Snake told me. :gaygay:


And Hitler totally stole all our best stuff - the word aryan, the swastika, the kinky sex with black neoprene rubber.

agree, agree, agree.

Gawdam Natzees.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th February 10, 01:08 PM
Don't be silly. Franklin makes up for being a veggie by banging all those hot french chicks.
He was able to tolerate the stench of their unwashed undercarriages because of suffering through the odor of his own persistent cabbage shits.


Hitler thought the genocide of the American Natives was cool, proof of white supremacy. But Franklin spent a bunch of cash outfitting a group of Bad Dudes to defend some Indians from killer rednecks. True Story!
....and we now have the plot of Inglourious Basterds II

HappyOldGuy
12th February 10, 01:13 PM
So was Ben Franklin, are you suggesting Franklin was like Hitler?
Now that you mention it. If hitler had settled down with eva and got fat, bald, and happy and she made him shave that silly moustache, I can totally see it.

socratic
14th February 10, 05:21 AM
Define "of note."
We'll start with "Olympic" and then work our way back to "successful in non-olympic elite competitions".

socratic
14th February 10, 05:22 AM
Now that you mention it. If hitler had settled down with eva and got fat, bald, and happy and she made him shave that silly moustache, I can totally see it.
Hitler with a skullet.

Ajamil
14th February 10, 04:50 PM
This was Google's first choice. (http://ezinearticles.com/?Vegetarian-Athletes---10-Olympic-Champions&id=1401638)




Charlene Wong is a champion figure skater who represented Canada in the 1988 Calgary Olympics. She began competing at the age of 6 and in 1980 was named to the Canadian Team and represented Canada in the Junior World Championships. She was highlighted in The Vegetarian Sports Nutrition Guide by Lisa Dorfman.
Paavo Nurmi, a Finnish runner, was a vegetarian since the age of 12. He is often considered the greatest track and field athlete of all time. A long-distance runner, he competed in the 1920, 1924 and 1928 Olympics, winning 12 Olympic medals.
Chris Campbell, wrestler, trained for the 1980 Olympics but did not compete as the American team boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics. At age 37, he began training again and secured a place on the US team, winning a bronze medal at the 1992 Olympics, becoming the oldest American to medal in Olympic wrestling. He says, "I take care of my body. I don't eat meat, and I do yoga every day. It makes a difference."
Carl Lewis, vegan athlete, won 10 Olympic medals, including 9 golds, in a career that spanned from 1979 to 1996, competing for the US. He said, "most athletes have the worst diet in the world, and they compete in spite of it."
Surya Bonaly, professional figure skater, represented France in the Olympics of 1992, 1994, and 1998. She is also now a US citizen. A vegetarian, she has appeared in PETA ads protesting Canada's baby seal hunt and English and French fur trade.
Debbie Lawrence, vegetarian racewalker, has been a three-time Olympian (1992, 1996, and 2000) and is the world record holder for the women's 5K racewalk event. She attributes her success to hard work and a vegetarian diet.
Murray Rose, a vegetarian since birth, has six Olympic medals. He was born in 1939 in Nairn, Scotland, but he moved to Australia with his family at an early age. He was an Olympic champion at age seventeen. He was known for his vegetarianism during his career, earning him the nickname, "The Seaweed Streak." He competed in the Olympics from 1956 through 1960, winning six medals.
Al Oerter, discus thrower, won four Olympic gold medals for the US - in 1956, 1960, 1964. He was also an abstract painter.
Edwin Moses, hurdler for the US, is a gold medalist who went eight years without losing the 400-meter hurdle. Over his career, he won two Olympic gold medals. After retirement from track, he in completed in a 1990 World Cup bobsled race in Germany and won the two-man bronze medal with US Olympian Brian Shimer. Edwin Moses is a vegetarian.
Leroy Burrell, sprinter, twice set the world record for the 100 meter sprint. He won a gold medal for the US in 1992 in Barcelona. He is a vegetarian.The skeptic in me asks how many are/were vegetarians during training and competing, but some of them answer that as well.

Zendetta
16th February 10, 08:26 PM
The skeptic in me asks "why (with the exception of that geezer wrestler) are all the noted vegetarian athletes grouped into DANCING and RUNNING AWAY type events?"

Ajamil
17th February 10, 12:39 AM
Number 8 played frisbee!!