BANG !

[Uji]

Main Street is jumping off "the ledge" and Wall Street is still reaping bonuses.......all these events have made begin to at least see it from the perspective of a Public Health issue.......and that's my change for today.

My sense is that the current recessions/down-turn/financial-crisis is here for a long stay. All equally severe down-turns (1870s, 1930s, etc.) lasted for 10-20 years. If ours started five years ago (a generous starting point), we've still got 5-15 years to go.

I think you are dead on, Fangz: This IS a public health issue. And that aspect has only JUST begun to show itself. Figures from last month show that repossession and mortgage defaults are now beginning to be due to job loss, not over-financing. In other words, most of the folks beginning to lose their houses now are missing payments because they've lost they're jobs (not because their ARMs went up).

And the reason main street is jumping instead of wall street is that while wall street was flying in the '90s, middle-incomes were falling. We ended the great "up-turn" with real wages lower than they were in the 1970s! So, most of us are hit by this crisis much harder than in the past.

This won't be the '30s; it will be different. But it's not gonna be pretty for anyone except AIG executives. And we've only just started feeling the pain.

Off the subject (but sorta on it): Just read that the Harvard economist who designed/implemented the Bush "tax-cut" for the top .1%, is also on the board of directors of AIG. Uhmmm...

[Wise One]

edited and posted later

[resigned]

Guns are becoming a big problem. My husband who is a hunter believes that something should be done. But not sure what the answer is. According to this opinion piece gun control isn't the answer. In researching the internet I can find many cases that state that that gun control is not the answer and in Canada they have found that more gun control isn't the answer either.

Apparently the laws we have on record must not be working either. I agree with you WO, its appalling what is happening in regards to guns. My husband and I have been watching this show 48 hours where the detectives say that in order to solve a homicide crime they need to gather information and investigate within 48 hours in order to solve the case. What we see on that show is that all the young men on the street all have guns and use them callously. I don't even think they fully understand the consequences of having a gun in their possession. They get them readily and with so little effort.

Is there an answer to this problem? For one I want a gun in our house to protect us from any intruder. And we have had some incidents in our area that make me want that gun. We are so isolated here and having a gun we feel would be a deterrent. We need to be able to be prepared to protect ourselves. Could laws be made along the line of child abuse that makes it a mandate to report anyone who seems mentally unstable? Again I don't know if that would work either. It seems that the carnage committed by people with guns is in Europe also. In Germany where they have extremely strict gun control laws they apparently didn't stop the shooting at that high school. In Australia where they have continued to adopt stricter gun laws they have found that in 2002/2003, 85% of firearms used to commit crimes were unregistered. How does a country go about getting the guns from those who can obtain them so easily. This issues begs to be addressed but in researching what other countries are doing stricter laws don't work. Since their stricter laws in Australia they have found that more crimes were committed with knives. (from Wiki)

I as a gun owner am also deeply concerned about the gun issues. But at the same time, do not want my gun confiscated. I want to be able to protect myself. Will stricter laws prevent the shootings you have listed? I wish I could say I believe that would occur, but somehow I don't think so. I believe its' usually not the average law abiding citizen who owns a gun who commits these crimes but those who can get a gun off the streets. And I am sure if searching the web site one can find those who have committed crimes with a gun who is a defined as a law abiding citizen. I did some searching on the web and found that a number of those with permits to carry actually did commit crimes or crimes were committed by someone else.

Do we take guns away from all those who own guns? Then you would be taking guns away in the most part from many citizens who followed the letter of the law. How then do we get the guns from those who are on the streets? That would be impossible. It seems to be a problem as big as trying to stop those crossing our borders from Mexico and Canada. We have laws against that but yet it continues at an alarming rate. We read in the news how the Mexico drug lords are invading some of our border states, kidnapping or killing our citizens. I understand that in the most part those citizens are usually involved in drug trafficking. The so called war on drugs is not being won. In my way of thinking it has gotten so bad that it seems to me many are throwing up their hands in despair and saying lets legalize marijuana.

Does gun control put people at risk? Interesting.

Finally I don't know the answer to this problem but I can say I don't want my gun taken away because I want to defend myself in case of an intruder etc.

[coondog]

Guns are like anything else with lethal potential; drugs, automobiles, golf clubs. In the wrong hands, they become a problem. Determining who's hands are the wrong hands by premptive mandate is a difficult measure. It's easy after the fact, but, by then, somebody's already lying there bleeding. And....it's easy to project, from a number of individual incidents, that premption is not only possible, but necessary. Well.....it's neither!

No society is entirely free, but in a self proclaimed free society, which suggests if not exemplifies some level of intellectual attainment, prohibitions serve only to induce crime, create criminals, enable enforcement and restrict freedom. And that, ultimately is the point and the problem - how to control elements within a society without allowing control over society as a whole.

So....what is the origin of all this gun violence? Ignorance. Poverty. Attitude. Well, let's start with poverty. It's always been around, it's on the rise and thievery is a time honored profession. Combine that with ignorance. At one time, firearm safety was a component of education - taught in the schools - like home economics. Education of proper use and respect for firearms is sadly lacking as it is now inadvisable to even utter the word 'gun' within the environs of learning. Combine that with attitude. Steeped in poverty and knowledge of firearms limited to that gleened from glorified violence on the TV and Rap music romanticizing 'poppin' a cap in sombody's a$$', an attitdue of nonchalance toward firearm possession, use and an aura of violence ensues. It becomes, either consiously or unconciously, not only acceptable, but at some level, desirable. This is evident at the extremes of criminality and law enforcement as well as middle ground areas of domestic conflict, mental health issues, low self esteem. destructive inclinations and spontaneous urges.

As with drugs and alcohol, a ban only places control within the element of organized crime....another time honored tradition. Beyond that, the demonizing of an activity, be it drugs, alcohol, cuban cigars, sex or Canadian football, merely enhances the allure. In an era where availability of guns is uncontrolable and inevitable, maybe the societial attitude toward gun possession should not be one of abstenance, but of education.

Education, that is, where facts preceed moral imperatives rather than the way it too often works today.....founded on fear and superstition (see Mothers Against Drunk Drivers). Enlightenment is athema to violence, but, until we can eliminate the percieved necessity of guns as a source of empowerment........we might as well get used to it.

A kinder and gentler Coondog

[Neck-aint-red]

Arm the Senate!

Isn't it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation's Capitol?

I've been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association, and I have decided that they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence.

If they believe that, why don't they live by it?

Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn't NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the very seat of our democracy?

Congress seems to think that gun restrictions are for wimps. It voted this year to allow people to bring their weapons into national parks, and pro-gun legislators have pushed for the right to carry in taverns, colleges and workplaces. Shouldn't Congress set an example in its own workplace?

So why not let Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) pack the weapon of his choice on the Senate floor? Thune is the author of an amendment that would have allowed gun owners who had valid permits to carry concealed weapons into any state, even states with more restrictive gun laws. The amendment got 58 votes last week, two short of the 60 it needed to pass.

Judging by what Thune said in defense of his amendment, he'd clearly feel safer if everyone in the Capitol could carry a gun.

"Law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense, especially because the Supreme Court has consistently found that police have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from other individuals," he said. I guess that Thune doesn't think those guards and the Capitol Police have any obligation to protect him.

He went on: "The benefits of conceal and carry extend to more than just the individuals who actually carry the firearms. Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit a crime when they fear they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed."

In other words, keeping guns out of the Capitol makes all our elected officials far less safe. If just a few senators had weapons, the criminals wouldn't know which ones were armed, and all senators would be safer, right? Isn't that better than highly intrusive gun control -- i.e., keeping people with guns out of the Capitol in the first place?

"Additionally," Thune said helpfully, "research shows that when unrestricted conceal and carry laws are passed, not only does it benefit those who are armed, but it also benefits others around them such as children."

This is a fantastic opportunity. Arming all our legislators would make it safer for children, so senators could feel much more secure bringing their kids into the Capitol. This would promote family values and might even reduce the number of highly publicized extramarital affairs.

During the debate, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) quoted a constituent who told him: "When my family and I go out at night, it makes me feel safer just knowing I am able to have my concealed weapon."

Why shouldn't Vitter feel equally safe in the Capitol? Why should he have to go out on the streets to carry a gun?

The pro-gun folks love their studies. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) offered this one: "A study for the Department of Justice found 40 percent of felons had not committed certain crimes because they feared the potential victims would be armed."

That doesn't tell us much about the other 60 percent, but what the heck? If it's good enough for Barrasso, let the good senator introduce the amendment to allow concealed carry in the Capitol.

Barrasso already dislikes the District of Columbia's tough restrictions on weapons. "The gun laws in the District outlaw law-abiding citizens from self-defense," he complained. So go for it, Senator! Make our nation's Capitol an island of firearms liberty in a sea of oppression.

Don't think this column is offered lightly. I want these guys to put up or shut up. If the NRA's servants in Congress don't take their arguments seriously enough to apply them to their own lives, maybe the rest of us should do more to stop them from imposing their nonsense on our country.

[fangz1956]

The former director of the Virginia Tech college counseling center took the mental health records of Seung Hui Cho from his office accidentally when he changed jobs more than a year before the university massacre and reported them promptly when he located them in his home last week, his attorney said Thursday.

I know the RT also did a piece about this week but i didn't have time to read it all. I think this is the most appropriate forum for this issue since this was (and still is) the worst shooting in American history. A total whack job who was allowed, somehow and someway, to purchase guns and then go on a maniacal rampage killing 32 people. It just boggles the mind how this "esteemed professional" boxed up this guy's mental health file (along with the files of a couple of other students) and carried them home when he changed jobs prior to the massacre. More interesting still (according to other news sources) is the fact that the committee appointed by Governor Kaine to investigate this slaughter, failed (yes, failed) to interview Dr. Miller.

This opens up the question as to the actual thoroughness of the investigation. A confidential mental health file of a deranged gunman is missing and apparently nobody had the brains to dig further to find it? Something is really rotten in Denmark! How much State money was spent to investigate this tragedy? Obviously, too much was spent on the wrong appointees. Hmmmmm................and now everybody wants to argue over public disclosure of said record. For the past two years, this "confidential record" has been sitting inside the "esteemed professional's" home......but it's suddenly too confidential for public disclosure. Common sense is dead both in Richmond and on the Virginia Tech campus. Virginia Tech and its administration and campus health services dropped the ball in more ways than one on this one.

Now, if they had misplaced a football player, that would be a whole different ballgame.

[fangz1956]

[youtube]icHGSiT1jEw[/youtube]

[Uji]

The wife and I were getting cabin fever last winter and decided to go take a walk at Crabtree Falls; we'd never been there in the winter. But, being slugs, we decided to drive to the top of the falls to walk. There's a nice, scenic dirt road that take you up there from 56. So, we hop in the truck, drive down 56 and start up that dirt road.

Well, it's a National Forest so, even though it was deer season, we figured we'd be safe. As soon as we got into the forest, we found armed men, women, and children quite literally every 10 yards or so, apparently waiting for some truly stupid deer to go for a walk down below. We traveled for close to 10 miles up that road and saw dozens of hunters just sitting there, leaning against "No hunting or fishing" signs, waiting for something to move. We got up toward the falls and one of them flaged us down and said, in essence, "Cheese-it, the cops!" Next thing we encountered was a loan Ranger working his way down the road, sending all the hunters home. We stopped and talked to this guy for awhile and, after he was convinced we weren't armed, he told us that this is a regular occurence -- that, alone, he had to roust hundreds of armed citizens from their illegal sniper's nests every day during hunting season. Though he didn't say it, it was clear he was terrified, too; all these armed dolts, every day, waiting for him to come spoil their god-given-second-amendment-right-to-blow-anything-that-moves-to-kingdom-come...

Needless to say, we felt it better not to take a walk that day.

I tell you, these guys are NUTS!

[Truckie]

Hummm... dozens of NUTS!, armed dolts literally every 10 yards for 10 miles, carrying powerful hunting rifles... and yet, you didn't find a lone Ranger murdered ?! Say it ain't so Uji !

And if you had come upon a shot Ranger, I can confidently guess that you'd have found two bleeding people on that mountain top, the Ranger, and the one whom shot him.

BTW, I know a lot of dolt NUTS! who don't own firearms. And even many more responsible, hard working sensible people that do own them.

[Truckie]

Hello again Wise,

Each of us have our firm beliefs on this subject. I understand that debating you over this matter is futile. Neither of us is going to alter our stance.

Your citations are emotionally charged to be sure. And your efforts to amass and post them are notable. However, I could cite as many, and more, instances when a firearm has been utilized for defensive purposes and saved lives, and you know this.

There are prime examples of defensive uses of firearms in our area, thankfully they are rare. The recent protection of a Botetourt man’s family was well publicized. Most of your citations can be rebutted on the hypothetical. “What if” the victims had a firearm for protection? Would they still have become victims or would they be victors? Some surely would remain victim, and that mostly from the element of surprise by their attacker. Many others would likely not, and you know this too.

Please don’t say, “well then, let’s just arm every man, woman and child! That should fix it all.” That’s not going to happen. Although I don’t think such would be a bad thing, we both know it impractical upon application.

I will concede that when one has evil intentions in mind and heart, that a firearm may facilitate demonic deeds. I’ll cede that it easier for the evildoer to pull a trigger than to knife or stone another to death. But, I shall never agree to the suggestion that the ills reside in the implement as opposed to inside the mind and actions of the crazed.

My chief distaste over the Left’s position on this issue is “choice.” This is about choice Wise. A tenet our country was founded upon, a Right of free people. I have a choice whether to carry a firearm for the protection of self and family. Likewise, you have a choice to not. I will never politically impose that you must carry a firearm to defend yourself or otherwise, unless your job requires such as does mine. I despise the Left imposing “victim” status upon me and mine, and saying that I cannot.

[Wise One]

Thanks for the input, Truckie ... it's always a treat to battle with you.

... I could cite as many, and more, instances when a firearm has been utilized for defensive purposes and saved lives ...“What if” the victims had a firearm for protection? Would they still have become victims or would they be victors? ... This is about choice ...whether to carry a firearm for the protection of self and family.

You've put your finger on a crux of the argument, swirling as it does around rights, hazards of having or not having a gun at hand. And you are surely correct when you say that guns have sometimes reduced hazard in particular situations.

What your tribe ignores, I think willfully so, is balanced assessment of positives and negatives ... boiling down to public health results as they pertain to firearms. Sure, a gun can save you but it can also kill you. Which is more likely?

Cut through the blizzard of soft anecdotes published by the NRA about how a gun saved the day. Go directly to overall statistics on deaths and the prevalence of guns in the US populace vs. other countries. The actual data scream a truth that no trumpeting of "but it's my right!" can suppress. Putting out guns in large numbers is more likely to injure and kill people than not doing so. This has nothing whatever to do with right, wrong, crime, values, or rights. It is cold epidemiology.

Guns are infectious agents that carry the probability, not the certainty, of injury and death. Releasing a gram of H1N1 flu virus above town at night would elevate flu incidence but would not doom all to death. Responsible citizens may wash their hands, avoid contact, take gun courses, do all the right things, but they still face elevated risk from both guns and flu.

If the ubiquity of guns were a net safety factor, we would have lower injury and death statistics than other countries. But we have hugely higher numbers, and it is obvious to all but the ideologue that the benefit is not worth the cost.

[coondog]

If the ubiquity of guns were a net safety factor, we would have lower injury and death statistics than other countries. But we have hugely higher numbers, and it is obvious to all but the ideologue that the benefit is not worth the cost.

It's not the guns! If all we had were sheets of paper, there would be thousands of deaths every year in this country from malicious paper cuts......far more than the paper cut mortality rate in other countries.

Why? Because there is something inherently wrong with Americans. Not all Americans, but a large and growing number of them. They're just not wired right and they seem, of late, to be ever increasingly visible, vocal and proud about it.

Prior to this posting, I surfed a number of conservative (make that ultra-conservative right wing radical) websites.....initially looking for information about the upcoming March on Washington sponsored by Freedom Works and a number of "grass roots" type corporate pirates. If you follow enough links, you will eventually come across some truely demented blogs....too creepy and unsettling to even think of posting a link to lest hearts stop and brains explode.

There are a lot of sick people out there with some really sick ideas. They are being riled up and encouraged to violence and insanity by well organized and well funded right wing interests who provide a forum and opportunity (like tea parties, 9/12 marches, etc) to band together in dangerous mobs of uninformed, misinformed, ignorant and malicious thugs.

These people not only have guns and ammo.....they have stockpiled them. There is no way the government or anyone else has the capability to control that sort of behavior. Ban guns all you want. It won't make a bit of difference. The threat in this country to safety and freedom is significantly larger from domestic, citizen terrorists riding a wave of fabricated anger and stupidity than that from any foreign influence from beyond our borders.

And....as long as they have their guns, I feel a little better about having mine.

Coondog

[notwaldo]

It really is scary, Coondog. When crackpotism becomes mainstream, we're all in trouble.

[Truckie]

amy probenski:
As to your cartoon. Pictured are propaganda statements of the Left. I am surprised that they didn't use an illustration of a Glock handgun as it's touted the evilest of the evil. As with most statistics, and especially Left stats, each of those claims can be rebutted with logic. Some of that logic even being a plain, "duh."

Hello fangz:
Firearms are not a public health issue. Firearms are a tool as any tool. Used for good and good be done. The toilet of society is the public heath issue, not the guns. This health issue angle was not contemplated or popularized until the Clinton spin machine directed the CDC to make one of it. Which btw, the CDC could not, even post trying every conceivable angle to make it so.

The Left has not let go even though the CDC could not substantiate or validate its desires. Through lying repetition, the Left now claims fact. And "why," because the premise gained a following. An uninformed following but, one none the less. The Germans perfected this form of propaganda, repeat a lie enough and it will become a mainstream belief.

resigned:
Guns are not the problem. As coondog reminds, society and its degradation is the issue. Firearms are solely and sorrowfully an implement utilized in this downfall.

Please remind your husband. The Left is well organized. Each of them hold to the same ill conceived thoughts. The Left is working day and night to strip our Rights. And given the slightest opportunity, the Left will do so in a NY second. Make no mistake about those words.

Pro 2A folks are not so banded. There is a diversity of thought as evidenced by your husband’s concerns. There also exists complacency within our "tribe" (thanks for the tag Wise). The hunters, defensive owners, competition shooters and pleasure plinkers must meld to fight the attacks upon our Right to arm. There is no difference in the basic principles for which firearm owners’ stand, only a difference for which we use our tools.

There are vicious attacks being waged against hunting by the Left and its tree huggers. There are strong attacks being waged against shooting ranges used by most gun enthusiasts. And we know how the Left feels about self-defense. If any one of the shooting sectors fall, the road is short for all to succumb. Each gun owner and every supporter of the Constitution must stand up and bring this fight against the Left.

Coondog:

It's not the guns!

Hear Hear! Now, why couldn’t I simply get to the guts as you always seem to?

…Because there is something inherently wrong with Americans. Not all Americans, but a large and growing number of them. They're just not wired right and they seem, of late, to be ever increasingly visible, vocal and proud about it.

I again agree. However, I cannot limit this statement to the Right Wing extremists you’re speaking of. I am compelled to broad brush this into a global issue. Americans, nor our Right Wing, own the “extremism” badge.

The groups you –finger- are well armed, and we’re talking military armament. Wise once asked (paraphrased) if I opine that anyone should be able to own grenades, tanks, RPGs, nuclear warheads and the like. The groups you speak of own such things, maybe, “maybe,” less the nukes.

They think of you and your “near sighted” view of moderation just as you think of their extremism. To them, we are the kooks for not preparing self for Armageddon or, at least, the impending Civil War.

And again you’re correct with regard to this issue. Nothing we debate about Joe Smoe carrying a handgun even compares to what waits in the wings. And again, I’m not only speaking to “our” extremeism.

And....as long as they have their guns, I feel a little better about having mine.

Amen… (and my "they" receiving wider definition from your here intended)

Notwaldo:
When I take a look around, I’m unsure crackpotism has not become mainstream!

[Truckie]

... it's always a treat to battle with you.

Wise, I wish I could say the same about battling with you. Meaning that not as an insult but, strongly to the contrary. I would love for us to lounge over a glass of Merlot. Reading your vast posts reveals that we do share common ground among some issues, albeit firearms obviously not one of them. And I like opposing viewpoints, they make me grind even if not improving my intellectual ability. I feel positively assured that I would sunder from the table being the benefactor of our gathering… if not from the conversation (unlikely), then certainly from the wine.

What your tribe ignores, I think willfully so, is balanced assessment of positives and negatives... boiling down to public health results… a gun can save you but it can also kill you. Which is more likely?

What your gaggle ignores, and I am sure willfully so, is that the positives do outweigh the negatives. And I find it humorous you speaking of the Left trying to strike a balanced assessment of anything.

As we well know, benefits and drawbacks can be calculated with every action, item, decision etc. Why are firearms and their use expected to deviate from this fact of life? They don’t. And because they don’t, the Left spins and whirls on the negatives.

Truth too is the skewed data concerning firearms. The negatives are well documented. The police are called, the data recorded (such data is also debatable at times). The positive uses of arms, however, are chiefly undocumented; on a guess ratio of at least 1:500 reported to beneficial occurrences.

Reiterated from my post to fangz, there is no public health issue in relation to firearms. You and I debated this about page 5. This is an unsubstantiated claim of the Left; a repetitive lie. A claim, which lays blame upon a tool and the subsequent action taken utilizing it. The likes of such, blaming an implement, are unheard of in the health community, until this spin that is.

To as which is more likely, being saved by a firearm or killed by one? I am fairly well trained in the use of firearms for combat. I certainly cannot predict if one would save or kill me. However, if faced with that predicament, I think my chances are better when armed. A footnote, the Left would have only the military and police armed if their Utopia existed. Under this, I will remain armed by decree. I have a problem with this elitist stance… yet a debate for another time.

…soft anecdotes published by the NRA about how a gun saved the day. Go directly to overall statistics on deaths and the prevalence of guns in the US populace vs. other countries …trumpeting of "but it's my right!" Putting out guns in large numbers is more likely to injure and kill people than not doing so.

First, “it’s my Right!” We cannot just throw out Rights Wise, keeping the ones that suit us and discarding the ones that do not. Doesn’t work that way, I’ve said this to you before. The government does not grant us Rights.

Go directly to the overall stats on deaths and the prevalence of automobiles in the US vs. other countries. Go to the stats of corn chopper deaths in the US vs. other countries. Go to the stats of children poisoned by household chemicals in the US vs. other countries. Go to the stats of poisoning or child abuse in the US vs. firearm deaths of children. Putting out cars, farm equipment, chemicals and miscreants in large numbers is more likely to injure and kill people than not doing so… and these are statistical “duh” moments Wise. All of this argument is subjective.

Your contempt for the NRA is baffling. Why lay blame upon an organization? Because its “contrary to your agenda talk” is unsettling? The “soft anecdotes” published by the NRA are to substantiate its cause, yes. How does such tactic differ from any other organization? The NRA obtains factual data without the need to spin. At least the res ipsa loquitur approach of the NRA is in stark contrast to the “spin it all” tactic of the Brady Bunch.

Guns are infectious agents that carry the probability, not the certainty, of injury and death. Releasing a gram of H1N1 flu virus above town at night would elevate flu incidence but would not doom all to death.

I liked it Wise. Nice try. This bucket doesn’t hold a bit of water but, I thought it innovative thinking.

If the ubiquity of guns were a net safety factor, we would have lower injury and death statistics than other countries. But we have hugely higher numbers, and it is obvious to all but the ideologue that the benefit is not worth the cost.

Again, I must call statistical “duh.” However, I believe that this issue goes much deeper in society and psychology than simply a surface finding and claim.

If you remove the thug / drug / gang homicides and injuries from the recent stats, this country has a relative good record with firearms. The vast majority of firearm owners are fine and lawful folks. The 2% whom are the scourge of our society get all the attention.

Firearms are a part of our short history. Guns have been present within our society from the first day of John Smith and his blunderbuss. Another factor of this country and society is that we were founded upon violence. From the first days spent defending against those whom did not welcome our intrusion to the present days of self-preservation, firearms are a part of “us.” Marry this to the fact that we cannot raise our children and teach them right from wrong, and the stage is set for the problems we have.

You compare us to other societies Wise. They are not we, none of them, not one… only in the aspect that we are all humans. Just as you, I too hate what transpires in our country. Unlike you, I will not hate the game, I will hate the player. The benefit of arms in our society is certainly worth the cost.
As defined by Wise: Truckie = ideologue.

[Wise One]

Oh my.

The prior reply is a sad example of what is so very wrong with the state of public discourse. Teabaggers, deathers, birthers, town hall goons and, yes, even you seem all to have missed out on essential lessons in manners, respect for truth, and reasoning.

Except for the nice wine part, it's mostly insult, labeling, and contemptuous dismissal. The lazy declare rock hard opinion and pull baseless numbers out of thin air. The effective back opinion with fact and analysis.

I feel like Barney. It's like talking to the kitchen table.

[Truckie]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Perfectly as anticipated. Thank you Sir.
Truckie < a kitchen table

[Wise One]

The NRA wants you dead.

But please pay first.

[youtube]YQEDvqmAfqg[/youtube]

[Uji]

Great clip, WiseOne. (Great that I can finally watch these, too!)

So, what possible objection could there be to requiring background checks with ALL firearm sales?

Truckie?

[Wise One]

Silly Uji ... we need gun show loophole so every crazy coot in America can arm himself agin' the gummint!

Ain't you got no commonsense a-tall?