Gun control-- White man's law

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[acmejack]

As to tell us the leading cause of death of young Black Men?

In this need to arm yourself against the depredations of a Government that spends over a Half a Trillion Dollars annually to ensure their fire[power is superior to yours, what level of "Collateral" damage is acceptable? Why, even the person you choose to quote in your signature line fell victim to this scourge. Carrying a firearm does not render one bulletproof, it often leads to a person placing themselves in the tactical position and making poor choices. Possessing a firearm is one's right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights at this time. I am totally unconvinced that Messieurs Madison, Mason and Jefferson had in mind with the Second Amendment. If they had known that the prohibition against a standing Army was to be disregarded I daresay the Second Amendment would have been likewise diluted.

http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/14106/thumb_198980504540.jpg
snip>
Gun carnage on the homefront has killed 206,306 of our citizens in firearms homicides and 253,666 in firearms suicides from 1983 to 1996.

Among those 25 years or older, black men are 7.8 times more likely than white men to ... males to die in gun violence.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:aeXlKhkGoa0J:www.cctpp.org/documents/GunViolencebyWilliamFrench.pdf+number+of+black+men+who+die+from+gun+violence&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9&client=opera

Firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for American Black men ages 15-34 and the leading cause of death for all Black Americans 15-24 year olds.

600,000 Americans are victimized in handgun crimes each year. In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S.

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War.

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/13203/index.php



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that 2,827 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2003—one child or teen about every three hours, nearly eight every day, 54 children and teens every week.
1,822 were homicide victims
810 committed suicide
195 died in accidental or undetermined circumstances
2,502 were boys
325 were girls
1,554 were White
1,172 were Black
553 were Latino
51 were Asian or Pacific Islander
50 were American Indian or Alaska Native
378 were under age 15
119 were under age 10
56 were under age 5

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:O2aD6VqFgCAJ:www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/

If everything in the Bill of Rights is so inviolate why have all of the following intentions been disregarded? Thomas Jefferson expressly conveyed his wishes concerning; "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies."

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill/
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/violence/

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[DB_Cooper]

WHY and HOW exactly?

Are you suggesting that the main problem is the presence of guns? Are you suggesting tighter regulation of civilian gun ownership by the police-state is the best solution to the problem?

You care to explain how making it harder for responsible, peaceful people to own guns (or making it up to the discretion of the racist, classist, corrupt and violent police) is going to solve the problem of criminal violence?

Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?

And don't even bother posting this stuff from Philly. I lived there during the height of the most recent murder waves. And quit with the "violence in inner-cities" crap. I've lived in the ghetto most of my life and I still do. Care to explain to me why I shouldn't be able to pack heat and defend myself from criminals? Why should the cops be able to have discretion over that?

Of the 380 murders in Philly last year, you care to tell me how many were committed by people carrying concealed legally? Permits for CCW are easy to get in PA and I rarely hear of people carrying legally committing crimes, yet every fuckin year the Philly gun control crowd wants to give sole discretion for issuing concealed carry permits to the same fuckin cops who framed Mumia, firebombed 6 city blocks and have killed over a dozen unarmed Black men in the last two years.

Why don't you gun control advocates ever try to control the government's guns? Why is it always us ordinary citizens you want to disarm and make into sitting ducks for crooks and cops alike?

Why? Cause it's an easy band-aid solution for the very deep and long-festering wound of violence in our country. It's a cultural problem and an economic problem and it needs to be addressed on that level. Sure that's a lot tougher to accomplish than some draconian gun laws, or adding more cops or building more jails, handing down tougher sentences-- but in the long-run it'll be a lot more effective.

Israel has higher gun-ownership rates than the US. Venezuela and Canada are about equal. Yet gun violence in those countries is much, much lower than here*. Vermont has probably the least restrictive gun laws in the country and also one of the lowest murder rates. Why? Maybe cause gun violence is not about the availability of guns-- it's about a deeply fucked-up society.

*Obviously I'm referring to civilian gun violence in Israel, not violence by the state itself.

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[acmejack]

long before they have the chance to taste life. Collateral damage as I said, apparently that's all good.

If you want to "pack heat" so badly and have the opportunity to kill, go enlist and do so to your stone cold hearts content. It is obvious from all the "fucks" that you feel compelled to throw around that you fancy yourself a bad, bad man.

There is no point in attempting to carry on a rational dialog with a gun person such as yourself because as soon as a word or fact that the pistol person doesn't like is brought to light, the discussion immediately goes to baseless accusations and insults. I didn't read your link, I support the police, I don't know what the inner city's like, I'm against "ordinary" citizens, etc, etc...

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[DB_Cooper]

I was not intending to insult you. My use of the word "fuck", as many of the old hands here will tell you, is due entirely to my tendency to curse like a drunken sailor with Tourettes.

I did not say you were pro-cop, nor did I say you weren't from the inner city (I have absolutely no knowledge of your background, but I was trying to enlighten you as to mine), and I didn't say you were against ordinary citizens.

I simply raised some questions to get you to think of the impact of the gun-control you are advocating. Now, I'll cop to not responding in the most polite manner, but, in point of fact, I'm not a polite guy. I'm pretty crude, but I didn't mean to insult you even though I might have done so in any event.

I still have questions outstanding that you have not answered. I would hope you choose to answer them and perhaps reconsider your position. If you pegged me for a stubborn gun-nut, you probably pegged me right. However, I still stand by the objective validilty of my arguments against gun-control schemes as oppressive, statist social control, regardless of my subjective (and admittedly reactive) tendencies.

ON EDIT: I may not have meant to insult you, but I probably was acting in a snide, knee-jerk manner and didn't care if I did insult you or not. I apologize, but that being said, regardless of the tone of my questions, I believe them to still be legitimate queries.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[meganmonkey]

Criminals and Cops (who are often one and the same) are the people who will ALWAYS have guns, no matter what the gun control laws are.

So how is anyone supposed to defend themselves from them?

For me, it is that simple. I used to be waaaaaaay anti-gun until I learned to look at it from a different angle.

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[DB_Cooper]

and not be pro-gun control, if you catch my drift. I mean it would be logically consistent to say "I don't like guns, but I'm opposed to government restrictions which effectively allow guns to be concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals".

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

but this country is full of nuts with very deep grudges towards other groups. There are too many problems we need to fix before doing away with gun control. Of course the paradox is that many believe these problems can't be fixed without an armed struggle, and revolutions are a bloody, bloody business. I lived through one as a young kid and hope to never, ever see one again. There's nothing romantic about them. All blood and people disappearing in the middle of the night, throats slit to include children, property destroyed. And always, always, the poor are as badly, if not worse, off than before because greed and the 'laziness' to exploit the sweat from someone else's brow haven't been eradicated.

Take Haiti as an example. They had a very successful revolution before the American one. A bunch of slaves with machetes kicked the French out on their ass (who then travelled to New Orleans with all their slaves creating the delightful flavor of that beloved city before Hurricane Dubya destroyed it) but what happened next? Were the self-freed slaves allowed to remain 'free'?

No, the mulattoes moved in and exploited them in a kinder gentler way but exploitation nonetheless. Under Duvalier, who exploited classicism and racism, the exploited 'Blacks' finally got the upper hand and slaughtered the mulattoes and anyone, regardless of class, race, economic status, standing in their way.

Every single one of these groups, when in power, turned into something vicious towards the other. Man is going to exploit man. It's been that way, with few exceptions, since the beginning.

I'm sure my friend Chlamor will pop up and tell me about an indigenous group somewhere that doesn't, that knows how to live in peace. But for every indigenous group that did, there are several that couldn't.

Check out the island of Hispaniola before Columbus arrived. There were 2 main tribes, the Taino/Arawak Indians and the Caribs. The Tainos who were peaceful and shared were constantly being invaded by the war-like cannibal Caribs who would kill off the men, exploit the women for breeding, and fatten the children to eat.

My point is that there's always one group exploiting the other and that leads to justified resentment.

Rather than constantly arming the under group that will then become the power group, wouldn't it be wisest to stabilize the groups? To get to a point where we see each other as equal humans?

In reference to the Black Panthers, who were cointelproed to death, I don't think you have any idea how much smoldering resentment there still is, to this day, in the Black community about how exploited it's been. There's still a lot of justifiable resentment. Not so much at what was done but at how no effort has ever been made to attone and repair. While entirely justified in their rage, I don't think most white people would have liked to see the expression of that rage and it wouldn't have gotten any of us anywhere, except more rage and resentment.

There are a lot of people out there in whose hands I hope to never see a gun.

And I type this knowing full well that you know I sleep with a Walther PPK under the pillow- something I never ever felt a need to do while living all over Europe where they managed to have a more educated, unarmed, citizenry that keeps its government in check.

You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo.


//end of stream//

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[Tinoire]

what is also logically consistent "I'm opposed to guns being concentrated in the hands of the state and criminals" and work towards disarmament?

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<

[soulstice]

Also, you need unity. A million dissatisfied people pushing in different directions results in a total force of zero magnitude. How to achieve it, that is the problem, and part of why places such as PI are important, I think (and also, why they may be considered potentially dangerous to the status quo).

>>You don't need guns to keep governments in check. You need THINK. It's the "think" we need to get to first imo. <<