h a l f b a k e r yIt's as much a hovercraft as a pancake is a waffle.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
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.
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]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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 |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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? |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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..." |
|
| |
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? |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
[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? |
|
| |
// 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?//
|
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
// 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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
// 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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Sp: rapier and main gauche. The media also fails to
depict the impressive steel breastplate worn under
the Musketeer's tunic. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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?
|
|
| |
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? |
|
| |
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 ? ;-) |
|
| |
concealed carry weapon = CCW ? |
|
| |
//[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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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? |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] let's all, WKTE
|
|
| |
because this is a purely political idea, and one that
others have already debated at length elsewhere. |
|
| |
Gee, it's too bad I'm not here to take part in this
discussion. Seems like a real potboiler. |
|
| |
//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 |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
//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] 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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
I'm sure Germans had horrible, true stories about
Jews as well. |
|
| |