Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Why on earth would you want that many gazelles anyway?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                           

Gun control the NRA is guaranteed to foam at the mouth over

All concerns addressed. Here goes:
 
(0)
  [vote for,
against]

I'm going to leave personal opinions and boring statistics out of this. Here is my proposed raft of gun regulations:

(Note: the following to be applied only in urban cities)

1) CCW holders may carry in all public spaces one (1) handgun with a magazine not exceeding a capacity of ten (10) rrounds. When in any public space, the owner must be physically present within arm's reach of the firearm. If the owner leaves it unattended in his/her vehicle (on public OR private property), it must be secured in a lockbox. Locking the vehicle itself is insufficient.

2) All other styles of firearm must be secured, when taken off the owner's property, by a trigger lock or lockbox. The locking device may only be removed within city limits at a licensed shooting range.

3) No firearm may be left unsecured in a private residence unless the owner is physically present on the property to ensure it cannot be easily stolen. If the owner is present on the property but out of the house, the house must be locked if there are unsecured firearms inside.

This legislation ought to alleviate concerns on both sides of the issue. It allows private citizens to defend themselves at all times, while ensuring that no firearm at any time is both unsecured and unattended. It imposes no new restrictions on ownership of certain types of firearms or high-capacity magazines. It imposes no undue burden on gun owners residing outside heavily populated cities.

21 Quest, May 20 2014

This has nothing to do with the idea... http://abductionlamp.com/
[normzone, May 20 2014]

Dynamite License http://www.halfbake...20purpose_20license
These restrictions should also apply to dynamite. Also pet wild boars ("ten round" boar capacity would need clarification). And also that floating spike orb from the movie Phantasm, if you have one of those. [bungston, May 21 2014]

Strict Moderation Protects Online Communities http://lesswrong.co...ns_die_by_pacifism/
Keep out the idiots or lose the regulars [sninctown, May 24 2014]

When someone wants a gun http://www.youtube....watch?v=6sLkIUkCDKE
and when a couple won't carry one even if they could [pashute, May 26 2014]

[link]






       Isn't this more or less widely known to exist, with minor variations per your jurisdiction?
  

       I'm okay with 1) and 2) but I question 3) - you can leave guns locked in your car and walk away from it but you can't leave guns in your locked house and go someplace ?
  

       And "all concerns addressed" ? You didn't mention alien abductions.
normzone, May 20 2014
  

       A lock box or gun-safe is significantly more secure than your average house door and door frame. For that matter, so is the average car door.
  

       Unless you live in a place that has no glass in the door (and no side windows), a metal reinforced or all metal door, and a metal door frame on a solid joist substructure, the effort to get into a place of residence will be less than to break into the lock box. For the vast majority of houses, about two seconds with a short pry bar, a single pane of broken glass, or a well placed solid kick will do the trick.
  

       I have to admit I've never quite understood the pro-gun knee-jerk reaction to having to do something as simple as turn one more key to protect a dangerous weapon when it is not being carried on their person.
  

       Of course I also have major problems with the fact that the CDC is forbidden from doing any research on gun violence. If your position is so shaky that you're scared of the facts, it's not a very good position.
MechE, May 20 2014
  

       //Of course I also have major problems with the fact that the CDC is forbidden from doing any research on gun violence. If your position is so shaky that you're scared of the facts, it's not a very good position.// IIRC that rule was changed by Obama after Sandy Hook and the new data hasn't been talked about much because it generally supported the pro-gun side.
  

       I'm not against anything in this idea but I don't think it's revolutionary either. Like norm said lots of places already have rules like this.
DIYMatt, May 20 2014
  

       While we're posting personal opinions on gun control (are we really doing this topic again?) I'll go ahead and share my thoughts as a gun owner. I think in a free country you should be able to get almost anything you want (yes, including RPGs), IF you do enough paperwork. As the pro-gun side is quick to point out, criminals commit crimes, not guns. The problem is, in the US you can't walk 10 feet without tripping over a gun so criminals have lots of them. I think acquiring any weapons permit should require a process similar to getting a CCW - thorough background check (including mental health records), long application, written test, and practical test. This would not only prevent criminals from buying guns, but it would also prevent stupid people from buying guns and probably prevent lots of accidental deaths. The permit would be a one-time deal, once you have it you can buy as many guns as you want without further hassle. The permit would have to be shown to purchase ammunition. Class III and higher weapons should require a full vetting process with multiple character witnesses or 'cosigners' but otherwise be unrestricted.
  

       "There are already too many illegal guns on the streets for this to help" you will say. And that may be true, but there is no good short term solution to that problem. Over time making guns and ammo very difficult for criminals to get will result in higher black market prices, and eventually a dried up supply.
DIYMatt, May 20 2014
  

       Quote from Norm: "3) - you can leave guns locked in your car and walk away from it..."
  

       That is incorrect. Quote from my post, second half of rule one (1): "If the owner leaves it unattended in his/her vehicle (on public OR private property), it must be secured in a lockbox. Locking the vehicle itself is insufficient."
  

       To really cut down on gun theft, I believe all 3 rules must be implemented. I know there are *variations* of rules 1 and 2 in some places, but this is like the 3 laws of robotics. 1 and 2 just don't quite cut it.
21 Quest, May 20 2014
  

       Yeah, [21], that's what I meant but I did not clearly express it. Including RPGs [DIY] ? Can you imagine how expensive target practice would be?
  

       It would be fun to play with alternative means of control. I think some combination of your idea and [21]'s would work great. You can own anything you want to but you have to take it all with you everywhere, all the time.
normzone, May 20 2014
  

       The easiest way is just to call in all the guns, disassemble them, average out the number of components, return that many items picked at random from the pile.
  

       Example, Uncle John gets three barrels, two magazines, fourteen triggers and a bag of assorted screws and springs, Uncle Bill get 19 breechblocks, a laser sight a bag of assorted screws and springs.
  

       Between them all they have, on average, one gun.
  

       Ok, just to be 100% fair, each one of them gets the cell-phone number of someone who has one of their bits.
  

       Next problem please.
not_morrison_rm, May 20 2014
  

       //making guns and ammo very difficult for criminals to get will result in higher black market prices//
  

       The black market price will never rise above the cost for a small shop to manufacture guns from scratch.
Voice, May 20 2014
  

       //The black market price will never rise above the cost for a small shop to manufacture guns from scratch// I feel like most of the expertise in gun manufacturing lies on the legal side. 3D printing is a looong way from being a problem. I didn't address it in my first comment, but for the idea to work there would have to be some control over gun parts as well so any unlicensed person can't just assemble an AR- 15.
DIYMatt, May 20 2014
  

       I also like the idea of an invisible fence of sorts. Any mentally challenged folks or children residing in the home have to wear a shock collar which zaps them if they enter a certain proximity to the gun safe.
21 Quest, May 20 2014
  

       As an alternative to remove the unreliable / crazy / testosterone-and-beer-driven human element, how about this modest proposal:
  

       Allow private ownership of autonomous surveillance/security robots. Legislate and standardize software to automatically make mutual non-aggression and defense "treaties" with robots passing by. Give robots sufficient intelligence to detect possible crimes, warning signs of future crimes, or nearby robots disconnecting from the network, and respond by swarming the site and, if necessary, summoning actual law enforcement.
  

       This technology could ensure liberty and peace in law-challenged areas (war zones, ghettos, very wild parties, unlit parts of major cities, etc). I predict security drone capabilities are part of most cell phones in no more than 20 years.
  

       Appropriate measures to prevent a robot apocalypse include but are not limited to:
- hard-coding of control logic with highly regulated update capability
-extensive testing and debugging
-a network protocol that transmits only appropriate data in a certain, limited, format
-a few slightly larger security drones to police individuals' security drones
sninctown, May 20 2014
  

       My viewpoint remains unchanged. I've always advocated for stricter gun control measures (my position on this issue is stated in the annos of my post about mandating steering wheel locks for vehicles, for instance). What I am not an advocate for is stupid, knee-jerk reaction controls that won't have any appreciable effect on reducing gun fatalities, such as banning a type of gun which accounts for less than 10% of the gun fatalities in this country.
21 Quest, May 20 2014
  

       This issue is so tired. Why do I have to come here and point out that stricter gun control means more cats? I thought this idea would be about giving gun owners mandatory foaming chewing gum that could stain their lips blue so that you could see visually how many people around you own a weapon at any given point in time this way the fight could accelerate and go physical already. Isn't everyone tired of waiting?
  

       The NRA would be smart to ask their members to self identify in this manner every day in the public forum but they won't because they are scared that's why most people own weapons in the first place and also who wants blue lips, maybe it should be a different color or a mix of colors red white and blue perhaps. Colored lips are good the mark of a satisfying icy treat or great candy. Weapons sales have surged it's an anxiety issue overall.
  

       Foaming chewing gum could change everything.
vfrackis, May 21 2014
  

       //IIRC that rule was changed by Obama after Sandy Hook//
  

       I'm afraid you recall wrong. Congress is the body responsible for preventing the research. Obama has, in fact proposed the change to Congress, but they've still refused to fund it.
  

       That's the CDC. The NIH has put out a call for studies, but they're still in the preliminary stages, no data has come in yet.
MechE, May 21 2014
  

       It is rare that I find myself so fervently agreeing with vfrakis, to the point I must place ice in my pants to cool the fervent. I _am_ tired of waiting. Vfrakis for King. Or Pope. Or King of the Popes.
  

       That said, I find cats growing on me. Rubbing on me, for sure.
bungston, May 21 2014
  

       Isn't the NRA set to auto-froth?
  

       I'm surprised the Centre for Disease Control would be in any way involved in investigating gun crime. Did they try to muscle in on the ATF by calling it lead poisoning?
Loris, May 21 2014
  

       The CDC is the primary body that does mortality/actuarial research in the US. They routinely keep statistics on things like automobile deaths and medical errors, even though neither is a disease as such.
MechE, May 21 2014
  

       I don't get this.
  

       If the three rules proposed by [21Q] are meant to *tighten* gun control, what the f**k does the law say at present?
  

       Anyway, it's good to see a discussion about gun control on the HB for a change.
MaxwellBuchanan, May 21 2014
  

       M'lord, CTRL-F search shows that you are the first person to use the word "tighten" on this page. I think he's just attempting to standardize.
  

       Generally speaking, based on where you live in the states, you are / are not allowed to own firearm/s. You can spend all your money on them every month / may only purchase one per month. You may only own certain kinds / can own any kind, and caliber / magazine capacity is / is not regulated.
  

       You may / may not have them in your home / auto / on your person. Some places require / do not require a permit to carry firearms concealed / openly. Some places willingly / are unwilling to issue permits.
  

       Your firearms are / are not required to be locked up when not in use. Whether or not children are on the premises must be taken into account / doesn't matter.
  

       I think I have / have not summed the situation up adequately.
normzone, May 21 2014
  

       One state now requires private property owners to allow others to carry on their property. Because places like churches, non-government schools, and bars are apparently limited by the second amendment.
MechE, May 21 2014
  

       Funny that. If it was up to me, everyone would be required to carry, and if you wanted to not carry, you'd have to apply for a permit, or risk being cited. Of course it would not be widely enforced.
  

       Not that it makes sense, but it would certainly be interesting. Kind of like no shirt, no shoes, no service.
  

       Or those restaurants where they will loan you a coat. "Here, sir, please wear this on your belt while you are dining..."
normzone, May 21 2014
  

       Because you want people who are in a bar, drinking heavily, with the resulting impaired judgement to have access to a tool that allows them to kill on a whim?
MechE, May 21 2014
  

       //I think he's just attempting to standardize.//
  

       Ah yes, now it makes sense. I keep thinking of the USA as one country, which is silly.
MaxwellBuchanan, May 21 2014
  

       [MechE] - I have to give you credit - you have divined my logic exactly in a brief period of time and expressed it neatly in one sentence.
  

       Does your user name come from mechanical engineer?
normzone, May 21 2014
  

       // Because you want people who are in a bar, drinking heavily, with the resulting impaired judgement to have access to a tool that allows them to kill on a whim?//
  

       YES !!!!
  

       but only in the bar and there should be a special license issued to people who who prefer to forfeit their constitutional rights the license would allow them to choose not to carry a firearm and still enter.
  

       I can imagine the owners of such establishments spending time crafting VIP lists, marketing and then charging huge admission fees.
vfrackis, May 21 2014
  

       // surprised the Centre for Disease Control would be in any way involved in investigating gun crime. //
  

       Firearmism is a disease, didn't you know that? It gets conservatively worse with possessionism.
21 Quest, May 21 2014
  

       It is too bad about swords being passé. Because they would fulfill all the kill on a whim bit, but also make it easier to only wound on a whim. And if you are openly carrying you could have a long and suggestive scabbard swinging around, not some stubby little muzzle. Maybe 2 scabbards - didn't the Musketeers have 2 swords? You could just pull out the short one if you were a little mad, long one too if really bad.
  

       Plus dueling scars from swords are chick magnets. Old gunshot wounds just look like you had a boil.
bungston, May 21 2014
  

       // If it was up to me, everyone would be required to carry,
  

       Yes that's it... mandatory gun ownership and open-carry at all times. The government mandates you have to buy a gun, just like health insurance. The guns are bright yellow and you wear them on a hip holster so the authorities can spot evaders quickly.
tatterdemalion, May 21 2014
  

       or possibly oxen.
FlyingToaster, May 21 2014
  

       Actually sword carry used to be legal until recently, but like so many other sensible means of discriminating between gentlemen and the less fortunate, it became illegal recently.
  

       And the fashionistas would have to challenge the yellow.
  

       Actually, there is some good logic to the mandatory carry idea. If it was limited to .50 cal, nobody who's ever fired one once in practice would ever needlessly fire one in the heat of the moment. No, seriously.
  

       I rented a Desert Eagle .50 at the range and bought a box of 25 rounds. They advised as how this was my first time, I should only put one in the magazine at a time, so as to avoid possibly puncturing the ceiling.
  

       I still have 18 rounds. I had to reset the gun in my grip after each shot, and I was lucky to hang on to it. Like holding a board and letting someone hit it with a sledge hammer.
normzone, May 21 2014
  

       Most depictions of the musketeers show them with the traditional dueling pair, that is a rapier and a heavy dagger. While the dagger was mostly a defensive weapon (with the heavier blade and a wide guard, it was largely designed for parrying), it could be used as a weapon when too close to stab with the main blade, especially when the main blades were locked in a parry.
MechE, May 22 2014
  

       Sp: rapier and main gauche. The media also fails to depict the impressive steel breastplate worn under the Musketeer's tunic.
21 Quest, May 22 2014
  

       //sword carry used to be legal until recently//
  

       So, let me get this straight so I can tell my friends over tea - there are places in the US where it's legal to carry a gun but not a sword?
  

       Actually, thinking about it, that makes a lot of sense because if... I mean...that is to say...nope, it still doesn't make sense.
  

       You colonials are a hoot.
MaxwellBuchanan, May 22 2014
  

       M'lord, the original colonists who foolishly fled your ancestor's benign oversight brought with them a host of strange ideas. Some of them still exist in mutated form today.
  

       As an example, something as basic as a ball point pen may be ruled a deadly weapon in the courts today. You and I know that in the hands of a determined individual it could truly be so, but such flexibility in the laws gives our oligarch's the tools to grind us under their thumb should they desire to exercise their prerogative.
  

       We truly are a hoot. Funny enough, one of the few places we can still wear swords are at ren fairs, where we pretend we are at home in merry old England.
normzone, May 22 2014
  

       Lethal force is lethal force. Some locales have blade length restrictions for carrying knives in public (usually around 4.5 inches), which would technically not rule out a spear. My town had no such restrictions. I called the state troopers help desk a few years back and asked them about it. They said if I was waving a sword around downtown they'd probably come and have a talk with me, but there's no legally defined length restriction here.
  

       Unless you get mugged by someone with a baseball bat or a knife, a sword isn't likely to do you much good. Why you'd carry a sword when most common thieves have you out-classed, I have no idea.
21 Quest, May 22 2014
  

       /why wear a sword/
  

       Maybe a thief would figure you had a sword instead of a gun, and would then from a distance threaten you with his gun to steal your money.
  

       As opposed to killing you quickly with his gun, as would be prudent if he thought you had the ability to shoot first.
bungston, May 22 2014
  

       How else are you supposed to side-step a bullet and slice it in half simultaneously taking out the sniper behind you and igniting conveniently stacked barrels of petrol creating a chain reaction which causes your arch nemesis to abort their plans and prematurely launch their escape capsule?
  

       Duh...   

       ah yes, what [normzone] said! (back up there referring to sword-wearing.)
[Maxwell] has such a *cartoon* version of the colonies, one would think he has never been here! (but maybe watches a lot of cartoons!)
[MB] Do you still wear tights and buckle shoes?
xandram, May 23 2014
  

       Most people bold enough to carry a sword in public would be also concealing other implements. Why must I point out the obvious? Does nobody besides me ever go outside adequately prepared to do your duty if need be ? ;-)
normzone, May 23 2014
  

       concealed carry weapon = CCW ?
popbottle, May 23 2014
  

       //[Maxwell] has such a *cartoon* version of the colonies, one would think he has never been here!//
  

       I have been to look at the USA many times. Each time, I have found that yes, it really is true, and returned to England.
  

       //Do you still wear tights and buckle shoes?// Only on weekdays and weekends.
MaxwellBuchanan, May 23 2014
  

       Yes, [popbottle]. Said CCW license readily available in some (shall issue) states, only available by wealth and influence in others, not available at all in a few.
  

       Amusing - [popbottle], [bungston] and my elf are all here in San Diego I believe.
normzone, May 23 2014
  

       Basically, everyone on the east side of the Atlantic can't understand why people on the west side need weapons, and vice versa.
  

       Even though I'm on the west bit of the Pacific, I still think it. Anyway, stoopid name Pacific, as it often has storms and all.
not_morrison_rm, May 23 2014
  

       Well, it's the usual divide. You have two groups.
  

       One thinks that they should have firearms, and possibly everybody or some subset of everybody else also.
  

       The other thinks that they should not have firearms, and possibly nobody or some subset of everybody else also.
  

       So we're not all that far apart, from the point of view of a negotiator.
normzone, May 23 2014
  

       //I know which side would win in a lawless
  

       Seeing as none of us live in a lawless, or near lawless society....
  

       Being very boring here, but the whole thing seems to rest on how idle the US military will continue to be.
  

       Should they finally get their act together and get some weapons which the public cannot defend themselves from, say nanotech, swarm drones or drones that are invulnerable to small arms fire, then the whole idea of defending self against the state becomes meaningless.
not_morrison_rm, May 23 2014
  

       Nah. Our geek contingent would develop countermeasures.
  

       Set aside the traditional arguments for the moment. Do you own any nice guns? Can you recognize the appreciation of well engineered technology?
  

       I see the extremists on both ends arguing the same stale arguments. This same argument was once had about pointed sticks and sharpened stones. It will be had about drone copters, and techs we've not yet developed. Some people want to be armed, and some don't.
normzone, May 23 2014
  

       It may be an over-generalization but I bet every human ever victimized feels a desire to keep themselves armed... even if they adamantly resist this desire, it still persists.
  

       That's how I feel about it anyway. I have never willingly harmed anything yet but I can't shake feeling the need to be able if conditions call for it.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst... right?
  

       Exactly.
  

       And, yeah, what was said about our geek contingent. Ours is a society that built a car to break the world land speed record, that built monster trucks that can go over literally any type of terrain in record time, and is constantly finding ways to improve on cannon design for nothing more meaningful than chuckin' pumpkins and potatoes, and why did we build these awesome pieces of tech? Because we were bored. Go ahead, get us really pissed off. See what we build.
21 Quest, May 24 2014
  

       //Nah. Our geek contingent would develop countermeasures.
  

       Kind of tricky with nuclear weapons
  

       //Do you own any nice guns?
  

       No can do, habibi. No handguns allowed for citizens, can buy a hunting rifle (bolt action) but the police come check up on you, talk to your spouse/neighbours/doctor on a regular basis.... anything a bit off and licence revoked.
not_morrison_rm, May 24 2014
  

       [marked-for-deletion] let's all, WKTE
  

       because this is a purely political idea, and one that others have already debated at length elsewhere.
sninctown, May 24 2014
  

       Gee, it's too bad I'm not here to take part in this discussion. Seems like a real potboiler.
Alterother, May 24 2014
  

       //Gee, it's too bad I'm not here to take part in this discussion.
  

       It's ok, I did your annos for you...you can return the favour
not_morrison_rm, May 24 2014
  

       Just to throw something else into the pot, this boils down to a common law vs code law debate.
  

       Common law says there's no case if you haven't willfully harmed or defrauded anyone. It tends to keep control of the law in the hands of the people; it's mostly a Good Thing, and it's an endangered species. Rafts of regulations tend to weaken common law and transfer control of the law to magistrates, police prosecutors, and lawyers. For that reason, I am against this idea.
spidermother, May 24 2014
  

       //Common law says there's no case if you haven't willfully harmed or defrauded anyone.//
  

       No. Common law says there's a case as long as there has been one in the past. Adultery is a felony under traditional common law, even if all parties involved consented.
MechE, May 24 2014
  

       [MechE] I think that's only part of the story. Yes, common law is traditionally (and sensibly) strongly based on precedent; but see, for example, jury nullification. In effect, a jury can bring its own law, and overturn precedent, although that doesn't happen very often.
spidermother, May 25 2014
  

       In 1989 after finishing my army service I studied at a Yeshiva and got to know the headmaster's son Shmulik Zarbiv. He had sat in jail for two years and had a serious psychological scar for the rest of life, after the following story to the best of my recalling:
  

       It was 1984. He had an M-16 rifle from the military, serving at a local base's kitchen, so he would have the week off every other week. His uncle owned a wedding hall at the entrance to Jerusalem, and he worked as the day guard for the hall. He became friendly with the Arab night- guard, even picking him up and driving him home occasionally.
  

       He would leave his rifle (in parts) in the locked manager's room, inside a locked metal closet, and thought it safe.
  

       One night it rained heavily, and the night guard asked him for the key to the entrance, so he could stay out of the rain. My friend gave him the key, not knowing that it was the master key to all rooms including the manager's office.
  

       The next morning, when coming to work, the door was locked and the guard, who lived in the Deheisha refugee camp near Bethlehem (a 15 minute drive away) was nowhere to be seen. He opened the door with his spare key, and noticed doors that were open, although supposed to be locked. Running up to the office he discovered it open, the file closet open and empty, and the walls sprayed with large writing in Arabic, some of which he was able to recognize and read: Allah Hu Akbar (Allah is great) and Atbah Il Yahud (Slaughter the Jews).
  

       He immediately went to the police, told them about what happened and gave them the night- guard's address.
  

       Two days later he was called in again, interrogated and released, after they told him all was OK. Leaving the station he was stopped by military police. Are you Shmuel Zarbiv? Your gun was used to murder two people.
  

       It turned out that Issa (Arabic for both Jesus and Esau, in the original Hebrew Jesus was a short name for Joshua) Abbed Rabbo (master's servant) went drunk, took the gun and met a student couple from the Hebrew university, activists in the Peace Now movement, who were touring the Crermisan valey, near the monastery.
  

       He first talked to them, and they discussed their views. Later he revealed while crying that they were actually extremely nice, "the nicest people I ever met". He left them and returned with the gun, tied them, and while pleading for their lives and reminding him of their affiliation, he put sacks to their heads and shot them at point blank.
  

       Last year (2013) he was released from jail as a show of seriousness for supposed preliminary peace talks through John Kerry and Benjamin Natanyahu. After putting flowers on Arafat's grave, he returned home to Deheishe, after serving less than 30 years in jail.
  

       He retold his story a bit differently. Not the way it was depicted in the Israeli and world news years before: (see youtube link. begins with image of Palestinian president Abu Mazen raising hands with him, then the interview)
  

       The operation was supposed to be against an Israeli civilian bus. I waited and waited but no bus came. I was forced to change the plans, and improvise.
  

       Then a car passed by and stopped so I said to myself: Here's my chance,
  

       Reporter: At least you won't go home empty handed...
Issa: At least I won't go home empty handed.
  

       They left the car and started going down into the ravine (wadi) and sat under a pine tree.
  

       I went over to them, of course my face was covered and I had a gun. They said, are you the guard here? I said: No I'm in my home. I told him, you are in a place which is forbidden for you. (Starts banging lightly on the table) I told him: This is our land and our country. You stole it, and captured our our land, and I will act against you.
  

       They were surprised at what I told them. Of course I tied them. I then gave them a death sentence in the name of the revolution.
  

       I then shot one bullet in each of them, and went to the mountain. [cut] (smiling slightly), I went to my causin, and said: (again banging on the table lightly) We revenged the blood of Mohamed.
  

       Reporter: She is the mother of the saint (Shaheed) Mohamed Abed Rabo? [cut]
  

       Issa: I told her, I brought you two instead of one. And she jumped from joy and rejoiced.
  

       Abed Rabbo's mother received this year an honorary prize from the Palestinian Authority at an official ceremony from the Minister of Education.
pashute, May 26 2014
  

       I'm sure Germans had horrible, true stories about Jews as well.
RayfordSteele, May 26 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle