Hi Michamus, I've been better and I've been worse, thanks for asking. I hope you are well and keeping safe.
Let me pull a few of your comments together:
OOC RAZD, what would be effective gun controls that would have prevented this event from occurring? ... Seems you have dug to the core of the issue. It isn't that Cho was armed with a gun that caused the problem. Any old tree branch, or shard of glass would have done well for him to kill a few students before he was "taken out".
It is clear the gun was merely an extension of his mind's effort in alleviating the stress of what it perceived reality should be, and what it was. Obviously a psychological/psychiatric effort could have done him some good, and saved some people's lives.
So how do we solve this social malaise? ... Yes, that is a true example of why not everyone should be allowed to possess the power and authority of a firearm.
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? We both agree that there are people who should NOT be allowed to possess the power of life and death by firearms, and the question is how do we establish this in an equitable way.
Studies show that the part of the brain associated with making decisions involving consequences don't fully form until early 20's in most people, never for some people that qualify as psychopaths:
quote:Psychopathy (pronounced /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a psychological construct that describes chronic immoral and antisocial behavior.[3][4]... The psychopath is defined by an uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes.[11][12][13]
So if I were to advocate some basic gun controls, completely ignoring (for now) the issues of existing laws, enforcement problems and constitutional rights, I would start with an age limit, and criminal background check (with fingerprints) and a psychological evaluation. The decision cannot be made by the person, as a psychopath or an idiot (your friend with the shotgun) is incapable of seeing that they are not qualified (just as incompetent people are incompetent at determining that they are incompetent). The criminal background check should include reference to drunken and abusive behavior, not convictions for things like traffic violations. It is a basic problem of societies that half of the population is less competent at any single task than the other half, and are unable to recognize it. The social problem is defining\setting the level/s of competence that best suits society as a whole for things with major consequences.
No offense intended, but I find it interesting that militaries seem to like to recruit people under this age limit, perhaps because they are easier to train to kill other people as a result. On the other hand, I also find people with military training (and especially those that have experienced actual combat) to be much less cavalier about the idea of shooting someone for some imagined infraction, such as the lady with the gun.
The argument that Legend provided for Switzerland and Israel also does not address the fact that almost all of these people received proper training through the military on the use and misuse of such weapons, as well as a very restrictive licensing program.
So I would also include a good training program, which could involve the use of a gun club to provide opportunities to learn how to use, handle, store and care for a gun in a safe manner, and where the prospective gun owner demonstrates ability, care, and responsibility. Kind of like driver's education and the driver's exam.
As a society we see the need for driver training (particularly for young people), testing, and periodic checks to ensure that the drivers on the road know, and are able, to behave in a safe manner. This also includes the loss of a license for inappropriate (drunken, repeated violations, etc) behavior or for those who are no longer able to drive in a safe manner.
Driving a vehicle has the potential of causing severe bodily harm, but it is not something intended for causing severe bodily harm to people.
Guns are a tool, rarely are they treated as such.
Designed with the purpose of causing severe bodily harm to those on the other end of the gun, and with a potential for deadly results in the wrong hands, just as cars, and even hammers, can be deadly in the wrong (which includes careless) hands.
But the psychological check is the best idea I can see at this time, with the potential to separate the Cho/s from the average chump/s that want a gun.
It isn't that Cho was armed with a gun that caused the problem.
Agreed, he fell through the cracks in the social network, in spite of many warning signs. Part of the problem is that psychological disorders are frequently ignored and stigmatized, thus interfering with treatment. In a more perfect society those signs would have been recognized and Cho could have been treated to relieve the condition/s that drove him, and in such a society gun controls would not be necessary, as he would not have "needed" to buy guns or any other weapons of distruction. So it's kind of a Catch-22 situation: people who have a "need" to carry\have a gun may not be able to pass the psych-eval, and those able to pass the psych-eval may not "need" to carry\have a gun.
Likewise solving the problem of poverty and crime will cause Legend's "need" to protect his property evaporate.
In this regard, the best gun control would be solving the social problems that lead to improper use of guns, which is why I say that guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.
"Guns don't cause problems, people cause problems"
Of course, but the solution is not spreading more guns around, it is dealing with the problems face-on and trying to solve them for the benefit of all.
Guns are a tool, rarely are they treated as such.
And when the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.
I actually think that we, here in the US, in Canada, in England, and other civilized societies - societies not directly involved in war/s on home turf - are well on the way to reaching this ideal state at a practical level, a level that makes the occurrences of incidents like Cho and Columbine very rare and unusual, and where the level of damage they cause is very small compared to the numbers of deaths due to accidents.
As a result, I personally see no need to have\carry a gun in my neck of the woods. I have seen no argument on this thread that would persuade me otherwise. I also expect that soldiers returning from war-zones will be happy to put their guns away, and be able to enjoy the well earned freedom to walk down a street unarmed. Certainly, when you get to go home to stay, I hope that this is something that you will ...
That already is a law. Only an adult can purchase a firearm.
and criminal background check (with fingerprints)
This already is a law as well.
and a psychological evaluation.
This could get tricky, because so much is subjective and a misdiagnosis might be very common. I fully agree that if someone already has a known pre-condition that they should be barred from legally purchasing a firearm. But compulsory pychological screening? That sounds very questionable several reasons.
Is there a specific guideline? Who conducts the screening? What are the professional requirements to conduct said screenings, who pays for said screenings, etc, etc?
No offense intended, but I find it interesting that militaries seem to like to recruit people under this age limit, perhaps because they are easier to train to kill other people as a result.
There are several factors why recruiters target youngsters. The greatest factor is that they are young and able-bodied. Another obvious factor is the older one gets, the more set in their ways they become. The whole premise with boot camp is to tear down so they can build you back up. Another obvious factor is that while young men and women may be very bright, they are not all that experienced in the ways of social affairs. They are easily duped for (ca-ching!$$$ sign-on bonuses$$$!!!) which are, monetarily speaking, a joke. I know of many people that sign on for 2 extra years for a ridiculous sum like $2k. 2 years for 2 thousand dollars??? What a rip-off...
The argument that Legend provided for Switzerland and Israel also does not address the fact that almost all of these people received proper training through the military on the use and misuse of such weapons, as well as a very restrictive licensing program.
That's only out of necessity for those small nations.
So I would also include a good training program, which could involve the use of a gun club to provide opportunities to learn how to use, handle, store and care for a gun in a safe manner, and where the prospective gun owner demonstrates ability, care, and responsibility. Kind of like driver's education and the driver's exam.
I agree with a mandatory safety program, because nothing pisses me off more than poor muzzle control. Makes me want to karate chop them in the carotid artery.
Agreed, he fell through the cracks in the social network, in spite of many warning signs. Part of the problem is that psychological disorders are frequently ignored and stigmatized, thus interfering with treatment. In a more perfect society those signs would have been recognized and Cho could have been treated to relieve the condition/s that drove him, and in such a society gun controls would not be necessary, as he would not have "needed" to buy guns or any other weapons of distruction. So it's kind of a Catch-22 situation
I agree. There were many professionals who knew and documented that he made had made several homicidal ideations and still allowed him to walk the streets and to attend school. At what point do you institutionalize the mentally ill to rehabilitate them and at what point do you allow them to medicate themselves to allow them the chance to function in every day society?
It's not always an easy question. But from what I gather in Cho's case, they knew he was a ticking time bomb. That no one paid some kind of penalty for such a lapse in professional judgment, where so many people died in as a direct result of their inaction seems inexcusable. But in their defense, I have the luxury of hindsight whereas, at the time, they didn't.
In this regard, the best gun control would be solving the social problems that lead to improper use of guns, which is why I say that guns don't solve problems, people solve problems.
Agreed. Societal influences, for sure, is the root of the problem. The only thing is that attempting to pinpoint the exact problem is a bit subjective as there are likely multiple factors at play.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle
Hi again Legend, my internet was down for two days, or I would have replied earlier.
I'm not advocating freely arming students in the classroom but if there ever was an argument for this position then the Virginia Tech massacre is surely it. Please explain how am I equivocating? ... I agree in that it won't stop the problem from manifesting again. But the benefit of saved lives surely makes a case for people carrying guns, doesn't it?
It should be obvious, that if you think the students would have been better off if they had carried guns, and that you have continued talking about how they would have been better off if they had carried guns, or of how many lives would have (theoretically) been saved if they had carried guns, that you are clearly advocating that it would have been better if they had been allowed to carry guns.
Then you're letting your anti-gun zeal take over your good judgement.
Except that I don't have an anti-gun zeal: I just see no need to have\carry a gun, and I don't find a single one of your arguments to be persuasive in that regard.
My position in this thread has always been supporting the right of ordinary citizens to have guns at home and to shoot any intruders.
In other words, you want to be able to engage in cowboy vigilante justice, just as I originally pointed out, just like the woman did.
Are you seriously suggesting that this woman was a paranoid, prejudiced sociopath because she was carrying a gun?!? Or is it that this woman was a paranoid, prejudiced sociopath who happened to be carrying a gun? Pleeeasee....what is the point of even mentioning this?
Again, this is something that should be obvious to anyone with a responsible attitude towards the use of guns: she was not capable of making a proper evaluation of the situation, but someone who instead operated on their fears and their biases, not rational behavior.
You've asked for a reason to carry a gun and I presented you with one.
No, you presented me with a hypothetical situation, which simply is not persuasive, (a) given the extremely small chances of actually having gun in hand in a situation where it would actually be useful, and (b) given that the probability is less than my chances of accidental injury or being assaulted with my own gun, as the statistics say, while (c) not guaranteeing that my actually having gun in hand in a situation where it would be useful, would necessarily result in my continued health and happiness: having A gun does not guarantee having superior fire-power nor ability.
The possibility of such an occurrence also pales to insignificance compared to other dangers of accidental death that I face every day from driving or bicycle riding, or the danger of being killed by a disease, like cancer.
I'm 62 years old, and in 62 years of living, I have not encountered a single incident where having\carrying a gun would have made a difference, nor do I know of anybody who has.
I don't know where you live but it appears to be a crime-less, perfect place. Unfortunately the rest of us don't inhabit the same world as you.
Interestingly, I have lived in many places, from Maine to British Columbia and from Ontario to Mississippi, and many places in between. I've been to most Canadian Provinces, all but 4 states, parts of Mexico, France, England, Russia and some other countries as well - obviously not hiding from society at large. I have traveled simply, and I have always found people friendly and helpful, perhaps because I expect people to be friendly and helpful, rather than people intent on doing me harm. Perhaps because I live simply, without need of a "Plasma TV" and other "conspicuous consumption" items.
"A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone."
"With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor. The ancient philosophers, Chinese, Hindoo, Persian, and Greek, were a class than which none has been poorer in outward riches, none so rich in inward."
- Henry David Thoreau, an enlightened individual, in my humble opinion.
I never claimed that guns will solve the problem, I've claimed that guns will alleviate the symptoms. Owning guns isn't about ignoring the problem it's about dealing with the symptoms.
Curiously, treating the symptoms has never solved a single problem.
Now, now, suggesting this is bordering on disingenuity. The Israeli state wouldn't even exist without its armed deterrent. Enough said.
Really? You have actual evidence of this? My personal opinion is that the mid-east war is self-perpetuated by Israel -- do you know of any similar situation where some other solutions have been attempted, and have been overwhelmed?
Perhaps the English and Irish problem with IRA terrorism? Ooops, that was solved by going away from the guns and bombs "armed deterrent" approach to one treating people as (gasp) people.
Once again, the answer to the problem is to solve the cause/s of the problem, not the symptoms.
So yes, in my opinion, trying to solve social problems with guns is like trying to install lightbulbs with hammers: you can hammer the lightbulbs into place, but you don't end up with working lights.
quote:Yet their crime rate is among the lowest in the world.
Yes I did. And in Message 274 I conceded, admitting that -although fairly low- it wasn't among the lowest in the world. Well done.
The point however was about how a country like Switzerland with loads of guns around had lower crime rates than countries with few guns around, like the UK, *NOT* whether Switzerland sits at #54 or #55 in the crime rate table.
So you managed to point out a slight exaggeration in my statement but have failed to advance your own argument or contradict mine.
Theodoric writes:
Is this what we call moving the goal posts?
The goal posts were always there. You just failed to put the ball between them.
Theodoric writes:
First you say they have among the lowest crime rate in the world. Now when that is proven wrong, you change the argument and say well compared to UK they do.
My argument has always been that gun controls don't work and I've been using the crime rate in the UK as evidence of that. I've been doing that as far back as Message 42 in this thread. So your statement is plainly false.
Theodoric writes:
It helps to know facts before you pull them out of your ass.
LOL! I actually used the NationMaster link that YOU posted to get my facts! Go ahead and check, the source is linked in my posts.
It's quite ironic that I used data from the resource that YOU provided to destroy YOUR argument, don't you think?
Theodoric writes:
How about Murder by Firearm (per capita)? Do you ignore anything that doesn't support you?
What does that show? that when more guns are around more people will be killed by guns? Yet *as I've already shown you* more people get killed in the UK than Switzerland even though there are fewer guns around. So what's your point? Nothing? I thought so.
Theodoric writes:
Comparing UK and Switzerland is a bogus comparison in many ways. Switzerland is a much more homogeneous society then UK.
Oh hold on!! Back in Message 261 YOU were quite happy to use Switzerland stats to make YOUR point. Now, when the stats are turned against your argument then suddenly you remember that "Switzerland is a much more homogeneous society" ??
How disingenuous!
Theodoric writes:
Do you think poverty might be affecting these figures more than gun ownership?
Do you think poverty might be affecting those Murder by Firearm figures that you happily throw around?
Do you think any other factors might be affecting those Murder by Firearm figures that you happily throw around?
I'm just asking because that didn't appear to be a concern when YOU presented those figures!
How disingenuous!
Theodoric writes:
Or do you throw out everything that doesn't not support your views?
You're the one who wanted facts. You're the one who re-hashed meaningless figures out of their rightful context. When I provide you relevant stats in an appropriate context you start throwing your toys out of the pram. Maybe you should be looking to change your signature!
Theodoric writes:
The argument by Legend has been that guns discourage crime. I think that has been totally debunked.
Yet I've shown you that it hasn't.
Theodoric writes:
Also there does not seem to be a substantial decrease in things like burglaries in countries with lax gun laws as Legend proposed.
Yet I've shown you that there is.
All YOU've shown is that you support gun-controls because "guns kill people".
"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Use them, or lose them. Your choice. If Big Brother decides enough of us aren't using a certain right, they take it away. All the while, the hapless sheep don't bat an eyelash because they weren't using those freedoms anyways. Patriot Act anyone?
Do you know why that is in the Bill of Rights? It is so we have arms to bear in the face of a tyrannical government, should one take power. Ours is a government for the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE. What gives anyone the right to take away my, or anyone else's, rights?
LOL. It is funny now how RAZD is trying to pretend like pro-rightsists think he should be packing. I have no guns, want no guns, like no guns. You are do not need to have a gun if you do not want to; I could care less. However, why should you sit here and belch about taking away other folk's rights merely 'cause you see no need for them? Even I am far from sinking so low...
Jon
[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
YOU were quite happy to use Switzerland stats to make YOUR point. Now, when the stats are turned against your argument then suddenly you remember that "Switzerland is a much more homogeneous society" ??
You brought up Switzerland, with claims of one of lowest crime rates in the world and I brought up the figures to show you were not correct.
The point however was about how a country like Switzerland with loads of guns around had lower crime rates than countries with few guns around, like the UK, *NOT* whether Switzerland sits at #54 or #55 in the crime rate table.
I believe they were only in the 50's on one category. So again here you make another statement that stretches reality. As for you argument of a comparison to UK, that is all well and good, but my response was to the fact that you have stated that Switzerland had "one" of the lowest crime rates in the world. This is patently false and the evidence shows it.
Theodoric writes:
It helps to know facts before you pull them out of your ass.
LOL! I actually used the NationMaster link that YOU posted to get my facts! Go ahead and check, the source is linked in my posts.
Again, misrepresenting what I said. The context of what I said was in relation to your assertion that "Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the world". There was nothing at all in the post that could be interpreted that I disagreed with the NationMaster data. I disagreed with your assertion about Switzerland crime rates being among lowest in the world. Again, I ask do not misrepresent what I say.
Theodoric writes:
Comparing UK and Switzerland is a bogus comparison in many ways. Switzerland is a much more homogeneous society then UK.
Oh hold on!! Back in Message 261 YOU were quite happy to use Switzerland stats to make YOUR point. Now, when the stats are turned against your argument then suddenly you remember that "Switzerland is a much more homogeneous society" ??
Boy you sure like top twist things around in order to make yourself feel better don't you.
Lets start from the beginning.
1) You make a statement claiming Switzerland has among lowest crime rates in the world. 2) I respond with data(facts) showing you are wrong. 3) You then decide to change your argument saying they have lower crime rate than UK. I never disagreed with that assertion. 4)You make the assertion that the cause of the lower crime rate is guns in Switzerland 5) I point out that there are other factors in the society that need to be addressed. 6)You claim I am being disingenuous.
Nice debating there bud.
You're the one who wanted facts. You're the one who re-hashed meaningless figures out of their rightful context. When I provide you relevant stats in an appropriate context you start throwing your toys out of the pram. Maybe you should be looking to change your signature!
Show me how they were taken out of context. The context was debunking your claim that Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This has been shown to be not even close. It isn't conceivable on any measure to be true.
Theodoric writes:
The argument by Legend has been that guns discourage crime. I think that has been totally debunked.
Yet I've shown you that it hasn't.
How? By showing UK has a higher crime rate than Switzerland? As I have tried to show, which you refer to as disingenuous, is that there are other factors involved. You refuse to even consider any other factor than guns.
All YOU've shown is that you support gun-controls because "guns kill people".
Again this is a statement that is bs rhetoric. Doesn't really say anything, but it misrepresents what I have said. I guess you need to say it in order for you to try to get some sort of "debate points".
Now to reiterate my stand on gun control. I own guns. I have no problem registering every gun I own. Be that rifle, shotgun or handgun. I do not own any handguns and never will. I do not see a need for them in my life.
Handguns should be heavily regulated and should have a registration like a car(funny how people use the car comparison, but fail to acknowledge how heavily regulated cars are). When it is sold the gun must be legally transferred to the new owner. If the gun is used in a crime, the owner of record must explain why they were not in possession of the gun.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
That was, at the time, the problem. Anything less would have been discrimination against him. But if we append to this law, something like that could be prevented in the future.
And that, my friend, is in the spirit of tighter gun control. I for one am all for it, I'm sure you will agree.
I agree. Great post.
But it would also require the consesus of every state. As of now, certain states, like Texas, have very laxed gun laws. In Texas a 12 year old can legally purchase a hunting rifle or shotgun, no parent needed (I'll find you a link if you need it). Some states don't require a background check nor that the weapon be registered. The problem then, as I see it, is that individuals who would normally not be allowed to purchase a gun in certain states, can either by a gun from someone who purchased it for them or go to that state and buy it there.
Overall, I think there should be a basic, universal standard for purchasing a gun that all states must meet, because we have no borders and can freely travel throughout the country.
Then one has to ask why not just do away with states altogether?
I don't think that's needed. We have many "rules" that apply to all states but that are still governed by the individual state, such as a license to drive a vehicle. The same can be applied to guns. There should be a minimum standard that applies to all states, then any stricter laws can be added and voted on by the people within the state as they see fit.
But I think for the most part we agree.
Hope all is well with you, dude. Btw, I have a friend that works for Customs here in Miami and also taught in Columbus, Georga, maybe you know her... first name Karla? (I won't give out her last name)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Hmmm, well regulated militia. This does not mean the private militia groups that have appeared in last few decades.
So that means people in the National Guard should have guns. But I do not see anything that says everyone has the right to any gun they want without regulation.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
So let me ask, would you be against states that have lesser gun laws and demand from them that they raise to that basic standard that you list above?
Yes, I suppose I would.
onifre writes:
If you would... then guess what, you're on the wrong side of the debate, because that's what most gun control advocates in the US are arguing for. Many states in the US don't meet that basic standard that you mentioned. And the criminals know exactly which states those are and purchase their guns legally there. Then those guns get brought back to states that have a stricter gun law and gets sold illegally there.
It's my impression (maybe wrongly) that ALL US states where guns are legally sold have some kind of background checking in place, some stricter than others. Maybe the problem is with the definition of 'gun control'. To me, 'gun control' is a policy based on the default position that people shouldn't have guns unless they can show they're responsible enough and have a 'valid' reason to need one. This is the current state in the UK. What I'd like to see is a policy based on the default position that everyone is entitled to own guns unless there's a reason that they shouldn't. The onus should be mainly on the state to prove the citizen's unsuitability, not wholly on the citizen to prove their worthiness. This, I believe, is what's happening in most US states. It's all about enabling individual liberty, accepting personal responsibility and treating citizens like responsible adults entitled to defend themselves in the way they see best, not in the way the state prescribes to them.
onifre writes:
Had ALL the states carried certain laws, neither legally bought guns that are then sold illegally in other states occurs, nor mentally ill people (with a violent past and addiction) get their hands on a weapon. .
I think that's a bit unrealistic. In Britain, where gun prevalence is very low and ant-gun laws are strict, determined people still can and do get their hands on guns. I don't think any sets of laws will stop people like Cho doing what he did.
onifre writes:
That's all that (at least IMO) is being advocated for. Like I originally stated: "a universal gun control standard for all of the US."
I'm not so sure . Certainly people like Straggler and RAZD are against gun availability for ordinary citizens.
"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
What would you define as an assault weapon? Would a Semi-Automatic AR-15 qualify as an Assault Rifle? I certainly would hope you would think so... and most would agree that it is one.
The next question would be where is the defining line that divides an AR-15 from a Bolt Action Hunting Rifle (The two polar examples)?
I think large cartridges, for any weapon, is where I would draw the line. I don't necessarily consider automatic/semi automatic a defining line, it's more about the amount of bullets the weapon can hold. But I'm not well educated in weapons so this would be something that people with knowledge on the subject can debate amoungst themselves.
However, in the article I linked for you, clearly one can see that had these weapons been baned the casualty numbers would have been significantly less.
In creating new regulations and laws, you are really only preventing law-abiding citizens from owning those certain firearms.
And that's the crux of the debate. Gun laws are for the LEGAL purchase of weapons. Also, it's important to note that, at least in the US, no weapon is made illegally, so somewhere between the manufacturer and the dealers there is a problem with the guns reaching the wrong hands. Thus I feel gun control laws should also apply to manufacturers and certain conditions should be applied to them as far as who they distribute the weapons to.
What preventive measures would you implant to prevent criminals from purchasing guns in such a manner that circumvents laws?
Criminals will always find a way, unless guns don't exist, which is impossible. But if laws are applied to the manufacturers and dealers, and there is a good system of making sure they adhere to the law, plus law enforcment doing more in this area (not that I know what "more" would be), I think it can greatly reduce the ease by which these guns can be purchased illegally.
Do you know why that is in the Bill of Rights? It is so we have arms to bear in the face of a tyrannical government, should one take power. Ours is a government for the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE. What gives anyone the right to take away my, or anyone else's, rights?
Hear, hear! Well said.
"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle
Hmmm, well regulated militia. This does not mean the private militia groups that have appeared in last few decades.
So that means people in the National Guard should have guns. But I do not see anything that says everyone has the right to any gun they want without regulation.
Please don't misinterpret the 2nd Amendment.
The Amendments are changeable, as the very word "amend" means to change. If you feel so strongly about getting rid of guns, write to your Congressman, start or join a lobby, etc.
But just be aware that this nation and guns are too enmeshed with one another at this point. You have to know and expect that a very serious backlash will occur should the government try and take away the rights of the People. The consequences will be dire, and there will be bloodshed should anything like that ever happen in this country. I guarantee it.
My argument in a nutshell:
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Edit to add link
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Not embedding link properly. Grrrrrrr.....
"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle
™ Version 4.2
