TOTALLY AGREE!

She said, "It's not about taking away someone's right to have a gun."
That's the typical leftist comment they make... as they try to take your guns away.
Yeah, let's just make more gun free zones, huh Rebecca Emerson-Brown? It worked so well at Columbine and Newtown.
Idiot.

Any time some writes "typical leftist" (or "typical" anything), then what we learn is that person's opinion is guided by fear and hate and whatever accompanies it is a distortion, an exaggeration or an outright lie.

If that's the case, then give them the weapons they had back in that day...bayonets when that was written....they didn't expect to be talking about millitary capacities we have today! Load up those old things and shoot away, at least one would have a fighting chance.

arn't security guards also citizens?

Tell that to the family of Victoria Soto. I dare you.

Tell that tot he criminals. They'll love you!

Yup Trained professionals....most people with guns, just like hunters facing a large animal, often freeze or can't function well under a stressful situation and would miss or shoot the wrong person....too many guns in the wrong hands....many guns at the Gabby Gifford shooting and finally the guy who shot the killer said that he almost shot the wrong person!

valid common sense comment

Actually Michael - there were several incidents where gun enthusiasts dropped their guns wile in the state house and stories of others playing quick-draw there.

We need professionals whose job and attention are focused on safety so that the rest of us can concentrate on making NH a better place to live and work

"I like stories."

Homer Simpson

Jan, could you please reference your sources for your information? I know of one incidence where a holster was dropped with a firearm in a committee meeting, but not sure what you are referencing from your quick draw comment and would be interested to learn more about it. Thanks :)

"Jan, could you please reference your sources for your information?"

Take your pick:
a) "I heard it from so and so"
b) "I read it on a blog"
c) "Everyone knows that you neo-con, google it yourself"

Yeah, I did not think that Jan Schmidt (NH state rep, Nashua - D) would offer anything to back up her post.

Seamus, the reason why is simple. She doesn't respect you.

Doesn't respect me? I was not the person asking her to provide support for her claim. She did not respond as she has nothing to support what she posted. As usual.

Maybe if you hadn't been so sarcastic in the first place, she'd have bothered to recognize you.

Michael, don't believe all you read. The new legislator is being used as a "mule' by the party to carry the anti-constitutional action message to the public. It does speak loudly about her independent thinking however.

Peter, I think you have me confused with someone else, speak for myself.

And what the heck am I suggesting is in any way against the Consitutiton?

"there were several incidents where gun enthusiasts dropped their guns wile in the state house and stories of others playing quick-draw there."

Still waiting for anything to support this. Was this missed by WMUR, the Nashua Telegraph, the Concord Monitor? Anything from Jan (D-Nashua) Schmidt? Beuhler? Beuhler?

Four guns fell out of boxes and furniture from O'Brien's office when they were moving his stuff out of the NH Speaker's office.....says a lot about responsible gun owners...he forgot he had them.

"Four guns fell out of boxes and furniture from O'Brien's office when they were moving his stuff"

And your proof of this is what? Anything in the Nashua Telegraph? Union Leader? WMUR? Any news source at all? Beuhler? Beuhler?

Really, Ray? Then how about baseball bats? Did you know that bats kill twice as many people as guns in this country? Yes, that's a real statistic; you can look it up.
Baseball bats aren't Constitutionally protected either. No appeals court or supreme court will strike that law down if you manage to get it passed.
Also, bats aren't used for transportation, so there's no danger of ever running afoul of that "right of free travel" that was supposed to be understood from Article 2, yet wasn't.
You might be baffled at how baseball bats can get brought into the gun rights fight, but it's pretty simple, really... bats aren't necessary to a free society, kill twice as many people as guns, yet not one legislator has EVER proposed we ban them, regulate them, or restrict them.
You see, the gun control crowd isn't interested in saving people's lives. They're interested in APPEARING to save people's lives, because to them intentions are more important than results. If a new law makes them feel better about themselves, then to them it was worth it.
The sad reality for the rest of us is that they don't care enough to take a good look at the data to realize that gun control doesn't work.

Gun control does work, the states with the tighter controls have the lowest rates deaths by guns. 60 % of the gun deaths in Massachusetts are committed with guns brought in from out of state.

So the stats prove my point. This is why Mayors such as Menino and Bloomberg call for tighter restrictions in the states like Virginia, where it's easy to get a gun and drive it north.

Scott:

> Then how about baseball bats? Did you know that bats kill twice as many
> people as guns in this country? Yes, that's a real statistic; you can look it up

I did look it up and Snopes says that this "gun fact", like so many others, is basically full of bleep.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

My mistake - I should have checked that info more carefully. The actual article I got the info from stated that in Chicago (where handguns were illegal) more people were killed with baseball bats than with guns.
Jan, it's not very good form to call people who are mistaken liars, by the way.

This still serves to prove a point however, and that is that if you take guns away you'll still have murders being committed, but this time against an unarmed population.
Who has the upper hand in a fight between a 19-year-old male with a bat and an 80-year-old woman with a bat? Clearly, the youth is going to the get the best of that fight.
Now change the weapons to handguns and who has the upper hand? It depends. Odds still probably favor the youth, but by much less this time. Provided the altercation happens in the woman's own home, the odds get even better for her since she'll probably hear him coming as he attempts to break in.

It's curious to me that the left only focuses on gun violence deaths, and not overall violent deaths. Do you selectively choose to ignore the fact that the presence of a gun deters violence more often than not? Consider this chart, which shows violent crime deaths (whether gun related or not) per 100,000 divided by the percentage of households with guns, and you'll see that the states with the most guns have the lowest per capita violent crime deaths: http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/crime-vs-gun-ownership#map-tab

Jim,
national gun laws don't work because they aren't stringent enough. Volunteer submission on mental health information (whether a person is a danger to themselves or others) to a national data base just doesn't work.

And tougher gun laws do not prevent honest people from obtaining weapons to protect themselves. They make it tougher on the bad guys, not the law abiding citizens to get guns. Massachusetts, with some of the toughest control in the country had a recent run on gun sales and permitting after the Sandy Hook incident.

I seriously doubt that's the reason. Schools take kids to a number of other places where people can legally carry firearms.

Yeah, but for decades before the State House gun ban, schools systems sent their children to tour the State House.

Ray: Mass murderers and other criminals actually LOVE "gun control." Restrictions on law-abiding citizens owning firearms are more assurance that a criminal won't get shot when he finally reveals his intention, whether it's going on a shooting rampage, running down pedestrians with his car, or robbing an innocent citizen on his way home.

Do we really need to do a rundown of where these kinds of incidents happen? Random robberies are rampant in all of the states and cities where "gun control" is a major impediment to honest citizens arming themselves—New York, California, Chicago, Massachusetts, Washington D.C., and several others. A hugely disproportionate number of mass-casualty incidents happen in places where guns are forbidden—schools, shopping malls, post offices, hospitals, movie theaters, and so on. It's such a trend that these are the places where we expect these things to happen.

Depriving average people of the right to defend themselves is what enables this trend. It's the reason why bloodthirsty monsters target places like these; they get to be the most powerful person in the building for at least several minutes. Anywhere else, they'd always be running the chance that someone will shoot back.

Ray,

What do you propose? (please cite sources for statistical, psychological or mechanical data if possible)

Ray: Good job declining to meaningfully respond to any of my points. There is no straw-man argument anywhere in my comment, nor did I say "gun ban" even once.

There already are many federal "gun control" measures that apply nationwide; I won't take it upon myself to educate you about them. In some states and localities, "gun control" is a great deal more stringent—some might say unreasonable—and it is a huge impediment to the average, decent, law-abiding citizen arming himself. It is in precisely those places where the highest rates of violent crime are found, and there is a similar trend in specific locations designated as "gun-free zones." They're gun-free until a psycho shows up with a gun and turns them into killing fields.

All of these measures I'm referring to are "gun control," not gun bans. The more gun control there is, the less John Q. Citizen is able to defend himself.

You don't do your side any favors when you don't tell the whole truth...

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

He never shot because of the people in the way and he only thinks the gunman saw him....

Jan, what part of what David said isn't the whole truth? Everything he said was accurate.

You also said, "He never shot because of the people in the way...."
That's correct. So what?
If anything, this proves that to stop a criminal with a weapon, you don't always even have to fire your weapon. The very presence of a good guy with a gun was enough to get this guy to stop shooting and run away.

Also Jan, you need called out on your despicable habit of calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar. I would probably not even bring it up, but you called me a liar in your post above when I was only mistaken and I have now discovered that you also made a factual mistake in your post in this thread. You declared that "he only thinks the gunman saw him....", which is NOWHERE in that news story. In the video, Nick Meli says the gunman saw him; he doesn't say that he thinks he saw him.

And you do no favors for yourself when you let people see how unpleasant you are.

So David then obviously you were a robot for the biggest mass murderers so far in the 21st century that being George W. Bush,Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bush's Black Babe Condi Rice.Bet you don't believe they had part in the 9/11 twin tower downing.Bet you think they were justified in attacking a Country that posed no threat,bet you think they were hero's by avoiding going to Vietnam and serving their country,bet you think they were heros' making sure their nieces and nephews didn't go to fight their wars. Bet you think they are heros' by screwing our country.
Funny how Bush Bots are programmed to lie and deceive. Maybe if guns are still allowed in the State House some of the reprehensible elephants will shoot each other.

"how unpleasant you are."

Another personal attack on a poster. By Jan (D-Nashua) Schmidt

Jan, we certainly don't need to turn the United States into Afghanistan or Somalia where everyone is armed because everyone else is, too, and you just don't know who's going to turn on you because he's pissed so you had better be quick on the draw.

Jan,
A: 2. Just 2 armed security folks in the whole statehouse complex good luck being saved by them. Not their fault they just can't be everywhere. 3 or 4 floors and multiple buildings.
B: If you choose to be harmed because of your beliefs so be it. I object to being harmed because of your beliefs.

Peter, there are state police available. I have seen them in the gallery many times.

And what the heck are you afraid of?

Are you afraid of people with mental disturbances? The let's find a way to help them get care. Are you afraid of assault weapons? Then let's make sure they are only available to those who should have them and will use them responsibliy.

Hey Jan.......... just where did you hear about all those legislators dropping guns on the floor at the State House? No one seems to have heard that story except you. You wouldn't have made that up in an attempt to further your agenda now, would you? You wouldn't do that after the way you accuse other commentators of distorting the truth and lying, would you? I didn't think so. After all, you paint a picture of yourself as the female version of "Honest Abe". So just to clear the record, would you please let us know where you picked up that information?

tmarie:

I long-ago decided that the gun-fondlers'* lust for and obsession over their weapons ought to be considered prima facie evidence of mental instability.

-=-=-=-=-=-

* I'm deliberately distinguishing gun fondlers from folks who own guns for hunting, skeet shooting, target shooting, and the like. You know who I'm talking about: the person with twelve guns and ten thousand rounds of ammunition but still feels that "they" are going to get him unless he buys more arms.

Are there armed guards at the state house? If not, then the people who work there have the right to defend themselves. Some whacko could target the state house just as they would a school...

Just substitute the word "automobile" for firearms, guns, etc. in you rant to see how foolish you sound. Thousands are killed each year by automobiles. Using you logic, we should ban those too. Criminals will always have guns even if they are completely banned. Just look at illegal drugs. They're banned. And yet anyone who wants some can easily get some. Banning weapons would work just as well as prohibition did. The problem is not the guns. Guns do nothing. It's the people who do something with the guns. People blow up building using box trucks filled with explosives. Wanna ban box trucks? During the past month someone shot up a lot of people with a crossbow. Wanna ban those too? Remember Mont Vernon? Should we confiscate and ban all machetes? Armed guards stopped the airplane hijackings; armed guards stopped the abortion clinic shootings; armed guards stopped robberies in banks that had them. And armed guards at schools would stop any further shootings there. As the NRA said, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

Nowhere in the comment do I suggest "banning" guns.

Who expects an honest conversation with someone who hides behind a pseudonym in order to escape responsibility for his own words? Not me.

I started to think about how many deaths are caused by drunk drivers in the United States and found that there are more men, women and children killed by drunk drivers than there are by gunman useing legally owned guns. After discovering that I decided that my time would be better spent trying to get a ban on all cars and trucks not used by the military or emergency services. If you take the vehicle out of the hands of the drunk driver he would not have a weapon to kill with. This is just an awesome idea. Can you imagine the benifits. There would be NO traffic deaths,way less polution (Other than maybe some methaine gas from the horses we would need to use) That would cut our need for fuel so it would make the world wide price of fuel go down. People say that the Unithed States is only taking military action in other countries because because of the oil and if that is true we wouldnt need to do that. Can you amagine how many lives would be saved there alone? I could go on and on about the benifits that we would reap from banning cars but I dont have time I need to spread the word. Thank you for enlightening me. Can you imahine all this could be done without messing with anyones rights. PS. I hate cars anyway.

Dear Mr. Cosgrove,

I support repealing the Second Amendment. Interpreting that as a call to ban firearms is an error I haven't made.

Here's what I wrote: "[G]un ownership should be a privilege, not a right."

Regulations for vehicles, traffic and driving are not subject to constitutional challenges like gun rights issues are. Vehicle ownership and automobile driving are not rights, they're privileges.

Moreover, guns are not necessary for contemporary life and commerce like automobiles are. They're useful in certain situations, but they're not necessary.

I'm not against hunting with a gun. I'm not against owning a gun for personal defense. I'm against gun anarchy, though, and I'm against having public legislation on gun regulation challenged as a rights issue in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Clark,
Thank God your opinion doesn't matter when it come to the 2nd Amendment. And thank God we haven't yet had to use the well regulated militia to take back our country with the weapons guaranteed us by the 2nd Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" , 9th amendment and cannot be repealed you saboteur.

I'm with Mr.Hansen here, just because you're ignorant of what the 2nd amendment is and therefore "want to repeal it" doesn't make it logically valid nor remotely sane.

Idiotic analogies don't help your cause. Very few people have been killed by an accidentally or even deliberately-discharged fire extinguisher and fire extinguishers serve a very useful purpose.

Even so, fire extinguishers have been mostly-supplanted by fire sprinklers (and halon systems and such); In our modern world, they're nearly obsolete. In the same way, in our modern world, we depend upon various law enforcement officers to keep the peace rather than individual armed citizens.

Mr. Clark,
Wrong again! You'll find that automobiles ARE considered deadly weapons by the state and one may be prosecuted for use of a deadly weapon in say running down a police officer or anyone for that matter!

So Peter... Are you suggesting guns be treated like autos?

License, registration, tests, insurance?

Steve:

Even if your claim is true, 28 people have just been killed by the guns *OWNED BUT NOT CONTROLLED* by a legal gun owner (who may or may not have had a concealed-carry permit).

And many of the friends, children, neighbors, and business associates of legal gun owners end up dead of and by the legal gun owners' guns.

No , the NRA;s answer is there are too many criminals. Go after criminals. If you want to pass legislation that gun owners will back you on consider doubling or tripleing the penalties for:

Felon in posession
Posession of a stolen firearm.
Using a gun in the commission of a crime.

Doubt there is a legal gun owner out there that would not back you on them.

Well, when you work as the principal lobby for gun manufacturers, the answer is *ALWAYS* "more guns", n'est ce pas?

Nope! They're merely suggesting that existing police be stationed at each school.

Mr. Forte, we can't go after criminals before they've committed their killing sprees, which they intend to conclude with their own own suicides.

"Steve from NH's" point is essentially right: It's moronic to think that the answer to gun violence is to supply more guns. More guns equals more gunshot deaths. The patterns are clear.

The NRA did not suggest more guns.

She should have had a gun safe with a combination. She had a mentally ill person living in her house with easy access to guns.

Mr. Forte,
regarding the "problem", I think we are on common ground. Ms. Lanza did not control her guns. Further, she had a son with mental health problems and took him to the shooting range. She put a gun in his hands, despite his problems. This son, despite his mental problems, could take apart and put together a computer piece by piece, so if his mother put her arms under lock and key, it's likely this kid could have figured out how to get them out.

Bad judgement on her part cost lives, her life and her neighbor's childrens' lives.
That, I think we agree on. You disagree with me on the solution (I think).

I believe that the American people have the right to arm themselves for self-defense.
But I think the government must be involved in gun control, because the public at large, despite the millions of responsible gun owners, cannot be trusted. Ms. Lanza proves that out.

"Gun culture" undermines the seriousness of gun ownership. The number of guns and their firepower, should be limited and controlled by government. Americans buy guns just like they buy televisions, one for every room. They aren't merely appliances, they are deadly weapons that have potential to cause a tragedy in the community. They affect not only the owner, but innocent neighbors.

If it wasn't for gun deaths then there would be no debate.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center:

"Homicide"

Where there are more guns there is more homicide

Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

Across states, more guns = more homicide

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Oh David, perhaps you're unaware.... Government agencies have been forbidden to track gun deaths. Feel free to flack check that.

And none of the proposals are new, many are well thought out and even planned. Not everyone is attacking or insulting, many of us are opening the conversation while some resort to lies... Like baseball attackers kill more people.

It's time we stop being afraid, and deal with the problem of the wrong people getting the wrong guns. We can do this.... We don't have to dismantle everything to do it either... We just need people like you and me to get on the stick and help bring people together for a step by step comprehensive solution.

Er... Fact check..

I hate auto fill......

Are you on an Apple product, Jan? You can turn that feature off. :-)

Mr. Clark
Thank you for the referenced Harvard study. I am about half way thru the referenced research papers (2nd level reference, but still able to find them on research gate).
They are all interesting papers but only show a corilation of homiside and gun ownership. However the papers do not show any effect for or against legislative changes effect on those paterns. Most also do not link in with other areas of crime aswell. Once again, i'm looking for data that shows a positive effect from legislative change that in some way supports the though of a ban or limitation of some type. Not a paper that for all intensive purpouses me that places that in places that there is alot of crime, people like to use guns. That's equivilent to telling me that places that sell alot of shampoo have a low balding rate.

I will continue to go thru the data and try to see if together I can make a case for more legislation, but so far it seems to be only looking at one peice of the puzzle.

Dear Mr. Martelli,

The important thing to bear in mind while considering legislative changes' impact on gun violence and gunshot deaths is whether or not the legislating authority also has stringent border control to affect smuggling.

For instance, it's very popular for gun promoters to point to Washington, D.C., as a case study for failed gun laws. They have a point, but it fails to take into account the fact that Virginia, where they have very lax gun laws, is just a stone's throw away and there are no border controls to monitor and restrict the flow of contraband.

That being said, there is still evidence in the Harvard studies that shows state laws, combined with the relative availability of firearms within the state, have correlating impacts on homicides and gun deaths.

As said earlier about me... I don't supply links upon request for easily obtainable information. There is a valid reason for this, you will believe information you research yourself.

"I don't supply links upon request for easily obtainable information."

How convenient. Jan Schmidt (state rep; D-Nashua) is a typical politician. Lots of talk. Little substance. Jan expects others to provide evidence for their assertions yet she does not deem it appropriate that the little people ask her to do the same...

Seamus, you have the option of not looking up anything, but my serving it up you will surely be disbelieved... As is evidenced by your deep dislike of me personally.

I don't know why, I'm a perfectly nice person.

Actually, looking up federal law is especially difficult. For instance, just because I can not find a reference to it, doesn't mean the law does not exist. There are numerous different publications with laws spanning different areas.

I would note, that statistics that have been cited on this very thread would suggest that you are incorrect on your belief that there is federal law keeping federal agencies from tracking gun related homicides... For reference:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-annual-crime-statistics-for-2011
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/data_quality_guidelines

Jan, I am fully aware of the laws in this particular issue, and was asking you to cite your source to make sure you were aware of what you were saying, as well as to make sure I understood what you were saying precisely before I posted sources to the contrary.

We are all responsible for the information we present, as you put it earlier by calling someone out as lying simply because they posted information that was out of context. Information is like a virus, it spreads unconditional. Unless your aim is to spread misinformation and hope no one double checks, I would request that you post your sources otherwise I would hope that no one should take you at your word again.

On a slightly related note, if you are in fact a state representative for Nashua, I was curious if it would be possible to have a meeting in your office so that I might have a better opportunity to learn how the local political process works. I am decently versed in federal law and procedure however I have not had much opportunity to work with local governments and would enjoy the opportunity to learn more how local policy is debated and enacted.

Not been in NH long David?

NH is a very special place concerning our House of Representatives. There are 400 of us, with no staff, no office, basically no salary just $100 a year, tolls, and mileage. I represent Ward 1 Nashua, and since this is my first year I have a great deal to learn and readily admit to being a neophite. If you'd like to learn about our government I suggest that you reach out to the Rep for your town, or start by going here http://gencourt.state.nh.us/house/default.htm

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/par-07-231.html

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/faqs.html also interesting

from 1996...
"One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” sent a chilling message.."

from JAMA

"But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research."

We are lambs to slaughter when corporate profit is the only goal we honor.

I am quite new to NH, and while I spend my day job working for the Federal version, I find find local government to be quite a bit more interesting (and in some cases a bit easier to track as a function of demographics).

Thank you for the links, I had been focusing more on crime statistics thru various enforcing agencies rather then looking into the CDC which seems like it would give information in a slightly different context, which is always good :) I will research all I can on the subject.

What I have found most interesting in the debates that have gone on in here and in various other places I have been monitoring is the focus on gun law and crime. A 2nd tier thought process is a standard tool used by most to deduct the reasoning behind certain events and unfortunately most are a slave to that form of thinking. If we had to approve and track multi-milion dollar defense projects using the same reasoning and tactics (as a majority, not saying that politics aren't a big part of it) that we use for figuring out these laws and rationals, I have a feeling we would be speaking Russian by now.

Humans are a complex system, and in this case as in all, The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.

http://youtu.be/2vr44C_G0-o

By the way, this is a great discussion of how complicated simple numbers can really be when determining cause and effect. and a good starting point for learning to think in terms of larger complex systems.

"I'm a perfectly nice person". Modest as well....

Jan is someone who regularly derides people on Patch for not using their real name when posting while her own husband posts as "Atlant" and does not use his last name. She was a candidate for office and did not bother to include that info in her post. She gave me crap for using my middle name but that is what everyone knows me as....

We shall also see how much the Democrats SPEND. If they think people don't care about this important issue they are wrong. Easy enough to throw them out again if they go crazy. Let me repeat "East enough to throw them out again".

I agree 100%. Get people working and then figure out the rest!

Well said. Don't forget trying to repeal gay marriage, school vouchers for rich kids, right to carry in the statehouse, Marty "Send the Disabled to Siberia" Hardy, DJ "Did I really graduate?" Bettencourt, Voter Suppression from ALEC...need I go on...

Stop whining about the Republicans... their majority is gone... let's see what your Democrats can do!

Oh right, I forgot about the cancer center that doesn't have to provide services to communities but only the folks with insurance, thereby poaching from other hospitals people that actually pay.

And gambling, New Hampshire (which has rejected gambling all along due to the crime that comes with it), finally wants to try this one again. Only this time, they are so late to the party, that any economic boost they would have had is far gone. And who would benefit?

Majority of people in NH have wanted gambling. Always blocked by a Millionaire Governor (Lynch) along with democrats. Lets see what our new Millionaire Governor Hassan does. will she be as out of touch as Lynch?

Regarding the Cancer Center Bill. democrats are always useless when it comes to getting something done that will benefit the whole state. Transgenders, democrats are right on the spot.

Are you a bigot? What does transgender have to do anything?

Most people want gambling? Show me the references on that. The problem with all of the gambling bills is that none of them have a plan for what the money will be to the state, how it will impact taxes, and the expected crime impact. That's what we need to know. Will it turn out like Foxwoods, where the casino owns everything around it? How will the impact businesses in those areas? And why is it that only a couple areas have been mentioned for where to put the casino? So many unanswered questions. That's why it fails.

Bigot Boy FTP returns. I knew you would not go away. Another phony ridiculous claim by you. Don't you have an IQ? or is that all you got.

Show me a study or a survey that has not said people in NH have not favored gambling. There have been 3 studies and a number of votes in Salem. You would have to be an ignorant buffoon from Concord who will say anything to get his way. Just a typical democRAT.

You made the claim, you back it up.

I just went through 4 pages of your posts. Not once have you left a reference or a link.

Studies/Surveys have shown a positive gambling stance in NH anywhere from 62% to 70%

Prove me wrong big mouth.

If you assert a claim, it's your job to prove it. That's how our court system works, and it's also how critical thinking works. You come up with a idea, and you defend it. You have offered nothing because you have nothing.

Page 157 has the polling results...
http://www.nh.gov/gsc/documents/20100520.pdf

FTP, another assertion amongst countless assertions by you that are not backed up. You never back up your assertions. Cant live up to standards you set for others. What a joke that is, typical democrat.

And that graph does not show a majority support gambling. What it does show is a 4 percentage points (33% to 29%) folks who would vote for someone who supported gambling.

Prevett's rantings and unhinged ravings make a good argument for more stringent gun control. A person with such a tenuous hold on reality should be vetted before being allowed to possess a firearm.

Thanks. :)
It's always obvious to me that I've made too much sense when the lefties start to call me crazy.
And Soerpus, I've think you've hit on something there. I think if you're deranged enough to vote that law-abiding people shouldn't be able to have guns, then you're obviously not capable of differentiating between a criminal and an upstanding citizen - and therefore should be banned from ever owning guns.

Underwater Couple wrote "FTP, another assertion amongst countless assertions by you that are not backed up."

Feel free to back up your own assertions UC, that other "real" surveys have the approval numbers for video slots at 69% and 72% respectively. Obviously I don't expect you to back up your assertions, I just want to show what a hypocrite you are. Merry Xmas!

Which would you favor most to resolve NH Budget Deficit

Legalized Gambling 52%

Sales Tax 12%
Entertainment Tax 8%
Income Tax 7%
Capital Gains Tax 5%
Inheritance Tax 1%
Meals and Rooms Tax 3%
Business Taxes 1%
All/None/DK 12%

This survey was conducted when democrats last controlled NH and there was an 800 million dollar deficit.

Anybody think that democrats will not increase spending

**** previous comment referred to 2020, should have been 2010.

UC, so anyone could make up a bunch of numbers. Where did you get these numbers? How about a source to back up your assertions? By the way you are all over the place in with your numbers, first you state that "In 2008, a real survey indicated 69% of registered NH Voters supported Video Slots". Then you state that "In 2020, a real survey indicated 72% of registered NH Voters supported Video Slots." Pretty neat trick since it is only 2012 right now. Then you state "Which would you favor most to resolve NH Budget Deficit

Legalized Gambling 52%"

Yet you provide no documentation, no links, no sources for your assertions/claims. Where did you get this information? You're no better than you claim FTP is, you condemn him for doing the same thing you do, you are a hypocrite. It's no wonder that you are underwater.

UC, this is how one should back up their numbers and claims, by providing a link to their source.

http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/library/2012nhstateofstatepoll.pdf
April 18, 2012
"Nelson A. Rockefeller Center Completes 5th Annual New Hampshire State of the State Poll on Politics, Economic Issues, and Social Policies."
Pg 9:
"Asked whether they supported or opposed the expansion of gambling, including video slot machines and casinos, 40.9 percent of respondents were in support, 41.6 percent were in opposition, and 17.5 percent were unsure. This year’s results are essentially unchanged from last year’s, with 41.5 percent in support, 41.3 percent in opposition, and 16.9 percent unsure in 2011. Self-identified liberals have the highest rate of opposition, while self-identified conservatives have the highest rate of support – though the proportions of those in favor of expanding gambling in the state and those opposed to it are near evenly split. The following chart illustrates the breakdown of support and opposition for expanding gambling according to the demographic factors of party identification, political ideology, and sex."

Dear Riley,
A little helpful advice:
Insults are always more effective when you check them for spelling and grammar before hitting Submit.

Still waiting for any documentation or source you may have for your claims and assertions.
And no, you do not know more about how to conduct a survey than Dartmouth does. You have the temerity to pick apart the Dartmouth poll and claim it is flawed and then post an article from the Eagle-Tribune, an out of state main stream media outlet, to bolster your claims? You're a disingenuous fellow UC.

@Oedipuss
One
I explained the problem with the Dartmouth survey question in detail, can't you read.
Two. Tribune has big circulation in Salem. Are you too stupid to know that, besides it was substantiating the vote.
Three. A college student designed survey? you have got too be kidding me.
Four. Why do democrats lack class.

The article states differently...

"While 53 percent of Salem residents voted in favor in 1994, 73 percent expressed their approval nine years ago, he said."

Liberals love gambling. More taxes for them to spend...

Jan, OMG OMG STOP LYING!!!1!1!one!!!eleven

Just thought I'd get your attention since you seem to love accusing people of lying.

But just to give you a much-needed refresher course in basic math, 2012-2003=9.

there was no deficit from the Dems - none.
It was a surplus... why are you still pushing that outright lie?

And yes, everyone... this isn't a misstatment, or a simple error... UC has been told this many times, pointed to the facts, and told again.

"Prior to January 2007, the New Hampshire’s State Budget was just over 9 billion. The State budget Republicans inherited when they won the legislature back four years later was 11.5 billion."

More on the $800 million dollar deficit here:
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/07/democrat-house-rep-cindy-rosenwald-about-that-800-million-dollar-deficit

Granite grok is no better than Fox news. Please find a fair and balanced source, or link to the sources directly that your website is using. I really don't care if your right wing spin zone says the earth is flat or not.

"they found four guns falling out of furniture and boxes in the state house when they were moving his stuff out of the speaker's office"

Anything to support this? Anything from the Nash telegraph, Union Leader, WMUR? Anything at all? And, "I read it on the Partch comments" is not good enough.

"true example" or fairy tale?

"I almost witnessed....." sure you did. But you woke up before that part of the dream, right? Damn the bad luck, eh?