volgadon

Some cities might have good transport, but plenty of places don't, Utah itself has a very, very long way to go (even Egypt has better systems), and don't even get me started on inter-county and state options.

Much like bigfoot, people claim to have seen him, but that is about it.

I will also add that good public transport systems and infrastructure allow those unable to have personal transport the ability to get around, to and from work, shopping, cultural and recreational activities, political meetings, etc., thus increasing their freedom and advancing the interests of society as a whole. At least that is what civilised places attempt to do. So, yes, a step forward any way you look at it.

Sure, there are one or two advantages to personal transport, but most of the need for them is obviated in civilised nations with good public transport systems. Next time you are stuck in traffic forever, please tell me how that "freedom" is going for you. I came from a nation with good public transport, I've been to others with even better, so coming to this nation which lacks a very good system is a step backwards, away from civlisation and progress, in that regard (as well as others, which we won't go into here). It limits my abilities, and, indeed, my prosperity.

Better public transportation would actually be a step forward in the direction of civilisation.

Wait, you served in the Rostov mission? That is where I served! I even spent seven and a half months in Rostov itself. A long seven and a half months...

Does anyone know why this bill was proposed and ratified? As much as I am for adoption (and Eastern European orphanages tend to be hell on earth), there are some valid concerns, which the USA has addressed.

Jingoist nonsense, IMHO.

Look here. http://cdm16040.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p4013coll8/id/2807/filename/2787.PDF Google books is also useful for searching the term, as you can limit the range of years searched. Assault weapons would have been heavier calibre things.

Nonsense. You'll find the term used in military circles at least as far back as the early 1940s. It was even used in operational documents from WW2. The term makes technical sense, as there are weapons intended for defensive purposes, and weapons for assault.

Don't you think that this might be a manifestation of pride?

Go with the answer you got to your prayers.

Well, sort of.

There is no fool-proof defense. However, if entrance is denied, you have far greater chances of stopping the carnage before it begins.

When you cannot keep the assailant where you can control the situation according to your plan, you've as good as failed.

The Israeli philosophy of defense is to deny the assailant entry to the school. Once entrance is gained you stand a poor chance of neutralising the assailant in a timely manner, IE, before a large number of people are killed. Focusing on outward defense and initial response is far more efficient than arming teachers. You kind of have to "look for trouble" in order to prevent it, which is why dedicated personel are needed. I've never seen an armed teacher in class in Israel. Not only did I go to school in Israel (as did all my siblings), my mom was a school teacher for over 20 years. The only exceptions are field trips. Even then, a teacher will only be assigned a gun if there are no professional guards hired, or if none of the students' adult relatives volunteered. Field trips present far more vulnerable targets than schools, hence the exception. The group itself, as it is mobile, must be armed. There simply is no alternative, as we've learned from bitter experience over the years. In case you are inclined to dismiss this as the mere ramblings of some anonymous bloke on the internet, I spent two years in the IDF as a security guard, so I have some idea of what I speak.

Between a year and a half to three and a half.

That is what we do in Israel. Far better solution than arming teachers. Half of the point is to deny entrance to the shooter. You can't expect the teachers to be patrolling the facilities when they have lessons.

It is easy to jump to that conclusion when a member of the bishopric asks you to talk about Elder So-and-so's talk...

I agree. It is a fad which appears to have started in the US a few years ago. I've never seen it anywhere else.

No, the Ten Commandments are only a small portion.

This quote, to put it mildly, is baloney. Never mind that it wasn't in Haaretz, but to take it just like that reveals a deep ignorance of those years. Egypt's intentions were hardly secret. What the general staff did discuss was the opportunity to strike before Egypt and its allies were able to solidify and strengthen their position.

The motto is taken from Proverbs 24:6. Proverbs 24 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

I've never got the big deal over home schooling.