jfields

I don't see any conflict at all. I'm not being sarcastic. I'll explain. It goes back to the wording of the Second Amendment. I see it as being a right to support the defense of the country by being in an organized defensive body. A militia then, the military or police now. Those organizations provide the weapons for the use of their members. Income plays no role in keeping someone from taking up arms in support of their country. Non-military, non-police civilians have no inalienable "right" to own firearms, much less at an arbitrarily affordable price point. So if they cost a bit more to make sure that only people get training before buying them, I don't think that is a problem. If cost were the issue, the Constitution or Amendments would state that everyone should be given a firearm. Aside from all the constitutional issues, don't you think a it ought to be the responsibility of a potential gun owner to get the training they need? The personal responsibility of the person wanting the weapon? Should we have to provide buses to take inner city buyers out to rural ranges at taxpayer expense? How about providing them with a monthly ammo allotment so they can keep their skills current? Ear protectors, hearing tests, liability insurance, renter's insurance for the guns, gun safes, holsters, etc. Those all cost money, so should we be obligated to pay for them too so as not to limit who can buy guns? No. It is the burden of the buyer. If you don't want to pay those costs, don't buy the weapon. It is simple.

I have a Sharpie 12-pack. A dozen glorious shades of Sharpie goodness. They are in their own Sharpie plastic case, and I don't have to share them with anyone else in the office. I am the only person here that has them. I feel special. I also have a color laser printer in my office. I can download pictures from the Internet... (like this one of Sebazz) and use my Sharpie pens to spiff it up a touch. See, look at those cool rabbit ears on him. I can also scan it and make color copies of my masterpiece without even leaving my office. I am the shit.

Give us some time. It might take awhile to wade through all the possibilities for just that perfect example. You've given us a plethora to choose from and be sickened by.

Kevin, As discussed in many, many...... many debates here on the subject, I'm not suggesting any blanket ban on ownership. I just think we can and must do a much better job in separating those that should and should not be able to own guns. (It is usually when I say that that I get slammed with the 2d Amendment argument.) This would be a great step. Sadly, many gun owners see it as big brother stepping in, when the real goal is weeding out the people that aren't capable of responsible ownership. Safety-minded gun owners shouldn't want those people having them either. If we could take a huge number of weapons from irresponsible and untrained people, it would do wonders for dropping the accidental firearm death rate you regularly hear me bitching about. Then there would be less backlash against the owners who have shown they are responsible. I also think we ought to be doing a far better job at fighting crime, which would also help lower gun deaths. I'd make the same arguments related to automobiles. A lot of drivers (Florida seniors come to mind) just shouldn't be driving. Rather than a minimal renewal fee and a rubber stamp, people ought to have to take a driving road test (like they did to get their license) every few years. Our streets would be a whole lot safer and responsible drivers wouldn't be penalized at all.

[sarcasm] I, like, did this really bitchin' xtreme double knot, complete with a blind-fold bunny-ear-strangle move. It was so kickin'! [/sarcasm]

And I don't disagree with the right to defend yourself, even if it means the attackers (however many) end up dying. I just disagree with the general assertions that have gaping flaws and tons of troubling exceptions. Gun ownership does not equal personal safety. Gun ownership does not equal responsible ownership. Gun ownership does not equal sufficient experience for safe ownership. Gun ownership does not equal sound judgement on the use of deadly force. If gun owners worked on all those things, people would have a lot less problem with general firearm ownership. A huge number of gun owners really aren't qualified to have them, by any reasonable assessment of their training or level of responsibility.

Throw ad agency executives out of the plane at 15,000 without a rig and watch them flap.

Undoubtedly. I know you love "leftie-bashing", but you might want to review those other threads us pinko commie lefties are referring to before you choose which "Rightous Righties" you closely align yourself with for the debate. Even a diehard conservative might find them a tad too disrespectful and ill-considered to make good company. Just a friendly, respectful suggestion, from leftie to rightie.

I didn't say shooting these particular people in self-defense would have made him the bad guy. Although perhaps it may have, depending on the exact circumstances. Accidently shooting someone or being careless enough to let your kid shoot someone does make you the bad guy. It happens a lot. Add in the sense of bravado a firearm can give someone and you have the recipe for people who try to "defend themselves" and end up dead, when they could have just walked away. Change the scenario. He had a gun. They all had guns. What is the probability that everyone walked away from the situation alive? Higher or lower than without guns?

No, "most people" don't, because you aren't making any sense. Aside from that, in numerous other threads, you have repeatedly made racist statements. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. People just get tired and offended having to deal with hate-filled filth.

And inadvertently becoming the bad guy would not sit well with my conscience. It happens with alarming regularity when firearms are in the picture. I'm glad everything in this case turned out well. Score Good Guy: 1 Bad Guys: 0 Firearms needed: 0

We aren't nearly old enough for that stuff. But since you are like 19, I'm sure I'll be a POP before you.

A good news organization can report the news, with proper attribution and still be wrong. Sources lie, and are sometimes wrong. Pick a major world event and you can find a "reliable" news report that made a goof covering it. The AP doesn't necessarily say that WMD were taken out of Iraq. They say that a source SAID WMD were taken out of Iraq. Like Kevin said, the media has been wrong on that one before. Let's just wait for some more verification on it before we start the parades.

No matter how bad they were, they couldn't have been as awful as his role as the president. Besides, I can always avoid bad movies.

As opposed to Ronald Reagan, who should have stuck with acting and stayed the hell out of politics.

Nah. Just all the cool OLD folks. I'm still just an ineligable babe.

Kevin, Slow today.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp Nope.

I agree with some of the ideals of the FSP, but disagree with others. I think some of them are a matter of experience and perspective. Seeing someone paralyzed after an auto accident that wasn't their fault could do it. Especially if the other driver had no insurance, causing the victim to end up jobless and unable to take care of their own bills. Is that really a triumph for freedom? There are examples of government regulation scattered around that really are good ideas. Granted, a huge majority are silly, but it isn't practical to ditch them all. I see a fine line of goals that are for both the common good and individual freedom, and those that ultimately sacrifice both for a short-sighted goal. From what I saw on the FSP website, and if some posts in this thread are representative, this project straddles that line, with some good and some negative. Perhaps I'm just not radical enough to fully buy in to the mindset. So, Narcimund, moving to New Hampshire?

Nope. Didn't call them races at all. I called them groups. Because they aren't races, does that mean it is okay to harass them based on something else?

Wendy, Bigotry is part of it, and close, but not quite it. I don't have just the right word. I agree that the focus on minute details of wording is a distraction. It is frustrating that rather than actually deal with the content, the bigotry is denied, defended and obfuscated through verbal games. I suppose it is a failing of mine that I try to respond and clarify, in order to get a common ground on which to base a rebuttal. Nobody seems willing to accept responsibility for what they are saying, however bigoted it may be. It is easier to deny their actions and faults, along with mocking those that disagree, than to actually take part in meaningful conversation.

The first employee benefit should be a spellchecker. Just teasing, because I am so guilty of that on a regular basis.

Actually, it doesn't. Pick some identifiable group of people. Based on ANYTHING. Pick any group. White, black, Jewish, Protestant, Southern, gay, straight, skydiver, whuffo, etc. Now, take a small non-representative subset of that group. If you take the actions of the subset to represent the whole and use it to promote strife and violence, it is discriminatory and malicious. If the group was based on race, it is racism. If it was based on something else, make up your own "-ism", but it still falls under discrimination. It doesn't have to do with "feel good" or "politically correct". The way you toss those out in parentheses as derrogatory terms is in itself a political subversion of the situation. Contrary to your statements, being "PC" often has nothing to do with refraining from discrimination. It is just common sense and refraining from being an ass.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98797,00.html Made into clickable URL. As an aside, Dr. Laura is an ass.

That only works if manifest can announce them in the correct voices.