Post #157,655
5/30/04 1:13:01 AM
|
Guns like computers are tools
it is the person using the tool that is dangerous. Misuse of the tool can cause problems too.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns, also knives, baseball bats, poison, automobiles, and other tools. Take away the guns and people will find something else to kill people with. In that case you are not solving the problem, and are blaming the tool for the actions of the user of said tool. My point is, I guess, is that we should place the responsibility of the death on the person who used the gun to shot the victim and not the gun itself. Take responsibility for one's own actions, what a concept, eh? ;)
Guns can be used for self-defense, hunting, sports, and other things.
This post brought to you by the NRA, no the other one, the Nuts for Rearming Anyone, we reserve the right to arm bears! :)
"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"
[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
|
Post #157,670
5/30/04 4:03:00 AM
|
Re: Guns like computers are tools
Heh.
The thing with a gun is that it's so damn easy to kill someone with one; all the other things you mention involve (a) some degree of physical strength and (b) the requirement to get really close to your intended murderee.
It has been noted that the gun's removal of the (a) and (b) requirements for topping one of your fellow humans means that guns level the playing field for those too weak and feeble to successfully kill otherwise.
It is left to the reader's conscience to decide whether this is a good or a bad thing.
There's little point talking about banning private handguns in the USA; there's so many of the things in circulation that it would take years to significantly reduce the number out there.
Regulating the ammunition may be a more fruitful route to take.
I think it should be more depressing for a law-abiding US citizen to consider that the murder rate is 10x that of, say, the UK, and that there's nothing you can do about it. It's the price of an armed populace.[0]
[0] Before anyone brings it up, I'm aware that Switzerland and Canada have guns too. First up, the good folk of both nations seem quite capable of restraining themselves from shooting each other with the alacrity that the Americans do. Secondly, they have rifles, not handguns; the Swiss requirement is to have the combat weapon that you will use, in the event of a conflict, in full working order. I believe it must be kept locked up and all ammunition accounted for.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #157,703
5/30/04 12:37:52 PM
|
You note the futility, but ...
Peter writes: There's little point talking about banning private handguns in the USA; there's so many of the things in circulation that it would take years to significantly reduce the number out there.
Regulating the ammunition may be a more fruitful route to take.
I think it should be more depressing for a law-abiding US citizen to consider that the murder rate is 10x that of, say, the UK, and that there's nothing you can do about it. 0) Where you stand depends on where you sit. 1) I don't have numbers handy, but IIRC, the murder rate in the US has long been higher than in other first-world countries. I think it goes back to the early colonial days. Similarly, the rate of voting has been lower in the US than in comparable countries for a very long time. There's something different about the US. 2) A study on crime, gun ownership, and concealed-carry laws using data from 1977 - 1992 is [link|http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Lott/lott.pdf|here]. Lots of numbers are there, whether one will agree with the conclusions is debatable. ;-) They argue that concealed-carry laws are a good thing (because, among other things, those who have such permits don't commit crimes). 3) There are [link|http://www.gunsandcrime.org/numbers.html|estimates] that about 5 million net new civilian guns are purchased in the US each year. But nobody really knows how many people have guns nor how many total are in curculation. I've seen estimates of up to ~200 million. 4) As Boxley points out, it's relatively easy to make one's own ammunition. 5) Many guns are used for suicide. Many guns are used for shootings involving other crimes among people who at least nominally know each other (drug turf wars, other gang activity, domestic violence, etc.). Totally random shootings are rare (which of course does not mean that they're less tragic). I think many in US regard gun violence as something that generally happens to "other people" (like horrific car accidents, tornadoes, forest fires and mud slides) so they don't feel that anything major needs to be done about it (especially anything that increases the perceived risk of government tyranny), or they feel that they can minimize the risk by staying out of "bad neighborhoods". Whether this argument makes sense has been subject of debate for a long time - there's no consensus on it. Guns are 2 things: a) a device that can kill people from a distance, and b) a political issue woven into the fabric of the US. A person can argue logically that if we require a license/permit/paperwork to operate a Ham radio, or drive a car on public roads, or build an addition on our house, or sell trinkets on a sidewalk in a major city, or travel outside the country, or park in a handicapped parking space, then requiring training and a permit before being able to purchase a short or long gun isn't unreasonable. I agree with that argument. The problem is, far too many people regard the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as meaning that they can have guns. It doesn't matter that the USSC has ruled that it applies to militias and not private parties - elected representatives listen to those who don't want licensing and registration of guns. (Just as elected representatives listen to those who do want more restrictions.) Guns work just as well after an under-the-table transfer as if the sale was public and registered. There's little hope in the government imposing effective licensing and training requirements on private sales. Gun violence is a problem in the US. Having tens or hundreds of millions of guns in circulation is at least a peripheral element in that problem. But the vast, vast majority of guns in the US will never be used in a crime. Just recently around Washington, D.C. there was gang violence which ended up with a 16-year old losing most of his hands in a [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30123-2004May15.html|machete attack], and a gruesome crime in Baltimore in which 3 children were murdered, allegedly by [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1281-2004May29.html|family members], with a machete. Gruesome violence can happen here even when guns aren't involved. Yes, it's futile to get rid of guns in the US. There are too many of them, they're too ingrained in US history, and too many people regard guns as the people's only protection from tyranny by the government for that to happen. Perhaps one day manufacture or import of new guns for private sale will be prohibited in the US, but I don't see that happening any time soon. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #157,729
5/30/04 2:59:14 PM
5/30/04 3:01:44 PM
|
Militias != army !=police
It IS a right of the people, not the only right in the Bill of Rights that is a right of the Government.
And I differ from my NRA compatriots in that I find registration not unreasonable; it should also be issued with a course that includes knowledge of gun safetey. Gun owners should be 'checked out' on thier weapons,as well.
The problem is that NOBODY believes the Gubbmint when they say they won't use the registration of guns as a simple tool to find them and take them away. States do this all the time with the added insult of not compensating the owners.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
May 30, 2004, 03:01:44 PM EDT
|
Post #157,866
5/31/04 3:50:47 PM
|
I can't help it.
The States and/or Federal government could pass legislation today that bans private ownership of firearms completely for all firearms that "do not have some reasonable relationship to a State's militia" and such laws would pass Constitutional muster. See USSC, Miller.
Get OVER it already. The Constitution is SILENT on the issue of private ownership of firearms. Private ownership of firearms in this country was not widespread until Colt made it so nearly a century AFTER the founding of the nation.
As long as private ownership advocates stick with this red herring, people of some learning will dismiss their arguments out of hand.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,869
5/31/04 4:35:51 PM
|
larn yersel history
private ownership of fire arms wasnt common? What did Crockett use at the alamo, cow flops? How did the settlers fight the indians? Did they call a cop? Private ownership of guns for anyone on the frontier which was dam near anywhere back then was mandatory not optional.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,893
5/31/04 8:04:31 PM
|
You want to check those dates again?
Look for dates involving:
1) Settlement of the Colonies
2) Declaration of Independence
3) Passage of "The Bill of Rights"
4) Battle of the Alamo
MOST colonists could not afford the expense of firearms. Private ownership was rare from the first colonists through the passage of the BoR.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.b
|
Post #157,918
5/31/04 11:27:57 PM
|
absolute bull puckey from a man who grew up in NC
did you ever as a kid BOTHER to check your local history? Did you ever hunt minnie balls on a revolutionary battlefield? Since the BRITISH were in charge prior to the REVOLUTION didf the BRITISH arm the fucking colonists, because according to you the populace didnt own firearms. Did you ever visit the Alamance battleground and museum? Your view of History is the same as your view of hockey all emotion and no reason what you wish to be history wasnt. You suffer from a severe case of black adderism.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,973
6/1/04 11:24:00 AM
|
That we would owe to...
the French! The new year, 1778, was a time of transition in the Revolutionary War because of Britain's inability to win in the northern colonies and because of the increasing part played by France. The French foreign minister, the Comte de Vergennes, eager to settle an old score with Britain, convinced his royal master Louis XVI to permit France to funnel secret aid to the patriots in 1776 and 1777. That aid took the form of the government's handing over munitions, arms, and clothing to the playwright Caron de Beaumarchais and his fake "Hortalez and Company," which in turn arranged with Benjamin Franklin and other patriot commissioners in Paris to have them shipped across the Atlantic. [link|http://www.americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/OTHER.HTM|http://www.americanr...m/files/OTHER.HTM] HTH. bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,974
6/1/04 11:44:32 AM
6/1/04 4:43:40 PM
|
Somewhat OT: a single Frenchman
More specifically, the successful prosecution of the American Revolution is owed to a single Frenchman, Lavoisier, who organized and modernized the French gunpowder industry to the extent that France's gunpowder became the best available, and France became a net exporter instead of an importer just in time to supply the Americans with the gunpowder they needed to win.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Edited by admin
June 1, 2004, 04:43:40 PM EDT
|
Post #157,887
5/31/04 7:36:51 PM
|
Sorry. Wrong.
It is a right of the people, not the State.
Now, the Militias can and should be well-regulated, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms is clear.
Get over it already - the amendment was NOT to grant the State the right to be armed. That would be silly and redundant.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #157,894
5/31/04 8:09:23 PM
|
Guess again.
And please, read the USSC decisions on the subject (somewhere in the archives here are links I've posted on other occasions when Constutional Law has been mirepresented). The debate about whether Amendment 2 concerns private ownership exists only in the uninformed public. As a matter of law, it is well decided and has been for some time. Even the Rehnquist Five have not reversed the precedents set concerning that amendment.
As a legal matter, there is no dispute about this. Amendment 2 grants the States the right to arm their own militias, period.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,896
5/31/04 8:47:29 PM
|
Yeah, and what other 'perversions' have occured via SC?
Oh. Sorry. Interpretations.
Tell me that you believe that the amendment was created to give a right to bear arms to the Army.
Bullshit.
And you KNOW it. What was the Bill for - to protect the rights of Government, or the People?
mi\ufffdli\ufffdtia ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #157,912
5/31/04 11:11:32 PM
|
Who said anything about the Army?
The amendment was added so that the States could protect themselves, hence the conditional, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." (you know the rest because that's the only part the NRA prints - which is, of course, taking the statement out of context). It is not the responsibility of the Army to defend a state.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #157,919
5/31/04 11:29:04 PM
|
Compare 2nd Amendment to VA Bill of Rights from 6/12/1776
[link|http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/va_const_1776.html|Here]: SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. [link|http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/history/fatherbill.html|George Mason], of Virginia, was greatly responsible for the VA and US Bills of Rights. I don't know enough about the documents to say why the text was changed, but it seems clear that the 2nd Amendment comes from a document that was concerned with state militias. Perhaps someone can find the time to dig through [link|http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed46.htm|Federalist 46] and related documents to shed some light on this. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #157,986
6/1/04 1:20:17 PM
|
interesting
that sounds like the practical history of the Canadian armed forces... we tend to build them quick when we need them, and shrink and starve 'em the rest of the time. This helps to mitigate against foreign adventurism; a factor in the decision not to go in with you guys on Iraq is because our commitment to Afghanistan pretty much used up any slack we had in the system, and then some. Of course, the fact that it was very much not supported by the Canadian public (who did, after all, widely support the decision to invade Afghanistan), that it would give Harper (leader of the opposition) fits, and that Chretien by this point had made his opinion of GWB pretty clear (can you say epais?) as was his opinion of the quality of the information that the US was attempting to present to tie Saddam to 9/11.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #157,920
5/31/04 11:29:53 PM
|
So according to you the supreme court is never wrong?
So the Bush decision was as correct as the Miller decision which was as correct as dred scott.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #157,921
5/31/04 11:30:25 PM
|
Militia
Did you miss the definition? It is not a state run organization. (read army). It is private citizens.
Which is why, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you try and interpret it differently, the 2nd amendment affords me the right to own a firearm.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,947
6/1/04 4:31:57 AM
|
Did *you* understand the *original* definition?
BeeP wonders: Did you miss the definition? It is not a state run organization. (read army). It is private citizens. As is easily deduced from [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=157919|the Other Scott's post on the Virginia Bill of Rights], it is "a state-run organisation"; it's what the individual states' have in stead of a standing army, consisting of its private citizens. But, what something is, is not the same as what it consists of. Which is why, no matter how you slice it, no matter how you try and interpret it differently, the 2nd amendment affords me the right to own a firearm. Yeah, sure -- as long as you belong to " the Militia" of your state. As many have pointed out, that means, in one sense of the word, "all able-bodied males of military age". But, that is only what the word "means", in the one specific sense of "what is 'a militia' made up of". Some other meanings would be, "the organisation as an organ of the state, as opposed to being a federal organ", or "the populace of a state, organised as a (para-)military unit for the defense of that state", and whatever else you can come up with. It can of course also, at least nowadays, mean "any bunch of kooks that gangs up in the mountains and declares itself to be a 'militia'..." So which meaning do you really think was the intended one in those Bills of Rights? You aren't seriously arguing that they specifically intended this to apply to fuckwits that want to usher in The Kingdom Of The White Aryan Male God On Earth, are you? (Naah, didn't think so.) But -- isn't it almost as silly to assume that they were using the word "militia" in the (for this usage, over-specific as well as over-inclusive! :-) sense of its recruiting base? If they'd meant "absolutely everybody at all", why wouldn't they just have said (i.e, written) "everybody", or something such -- without having to mention the word "militia" at all? So AFAICS, the only logical interpretation leads one to ask: Do you belong to "The Militia" of your state? Then you can whine about how your private "right" to own a firearm is logically supported by the "Militia" statute. Does your state (New Jersey, right?) even have "a militia"? I suppose the closest it gets is the National Guard... Which you'll probably protest is not a "militia" in the sense of the Bill of Rights. (Right?) But, then the problem is (probably, from your point of view) that your "state militia" is too federally-run -- not that you, Bill "Hasn't-enrolled-in-any-State-Militia" Patient, are being robbed of anything the Bill of Rights has promised you.
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #157,948
6/1/04 6:03:54 AM
|
Nice try, but..
Reason on this topic was Out to Launch billions of lines of bafflegab ago. Even her autistic-child, logic cannot withstand the temperature of flambunctiousness of an NRA Preacher at his Gunstock-walnut pulpit. When Charlatan Heston gets that throb in his voice, you'll have to pry it outta my cold dead fingers cha cha cha - well, all phrase-parsing or faux-sincerity re What They Really Meant\ufffd, goes the way of Our Special Relationship sociopathy.
(Now in MIB, Mr. Militia-of-One tried that line on Mr. visiting Bugman; 112 mSec later he WAS Mr. Bugman (well, sorta, physiognomically speaking))
By now, of course, here -- where Every problem launches a (War on (Wars on (Wars))) -- it's a sub-Religion just below Unrestrained Capitali$m. The myth of the Free Market cha cha, despite where all the loot ends up - now more than ever - is sustained via recitation of the daily mantra never Mind looking at Those results. Ditto re the carnage with the kiddies + their AK-47s in matching gang-Colors plastic stocks.
Both of these National Religions are vastly more popular than that other one that gets so much lip service and lip-trembling for an hour a week, and helps launch all those ((Wars On)) Crusades n'stuff. Impermeable; both fantasies.
I suppose these derive from the criminal nature of the Yahoo-entrepreneurs who came, saw, snuffed and then became instantly sanctimonious about their Gawd-given Right to Snuff [any old previous owners] because .. well, Gawd Said they Could because They Did It for <--- Gawd.
Confucius warned what happens when language itself becomes fucked through disregard (and then for profit): "justice" will go astray. QED in Chinese -
(Would that be a pictogram of a dictionary burning?)
I suppose that when you expand the hubris a few orders of magnitude, create a whole plurality of folks claiming the personal Ear of the One True Gawd (in Whose Name you can do any piece-of-shit sophistry you can say) ~~ entoned, with Hammond organ music in background: who needs digital logic to fuck it up even more.
Have a case of Scotch, a carton of Camels; but no pot - that can get you 40 yrs-to-life.
Ashton - who heard a discussion t'other night re "Is, 'One Nation Under God\ufffd' a religious statement?" Yes, they were all wearing suits..
c/o Bedlam, USA
..whenever I hear a logo beginning with Compassionate ___, I go buy more guns.
|
Post #157,949
6/1/04 6:27:08 AM
|
No.
It was specifically because the people wanted the right to defend themselves; they specifically did NOT want to be disarmed by the new government - they did not want to be like the bulk of european nations - whose governments could not trust an armed populace not to revolt. We were supposed to be a government of the people.
Then, like now, the people did not want to give up thier guns to any government.
The militias of the time fought BEFORE there was an army; they were groups of unpaid citizens. THAT was the definition they used - or do you think they changed the definition of militia that they used at the time specifically for the Bill?
As far as individal States definitions go, States had FAR more power, then - the Bill was intended to trump any State law. Once again, it is not the 'Militia' part of the amendment which should be looked at, but the "well regulated" part. Well regulated militias would provide training with the weapons, some discipline, and also preclude your "bunch of kooks" argument.
Even if one were to accept your arguments, we would STILL have the right to keep guns after we left the armed forces, for at least as long as we could be called to serve again.
THe whole point of the Bill was CITIZENS rights, not government privelege, no matter what gun control nuts say.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #157,960
6/1/04 9:50:31 AM
|
that is a very good point
THe whole point of the Bill was CITIZENS rights, not government privelege, no matter what gun control nuts say. Wonder why we don't hear it more often? Darrell Spice, Jr. [link|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #158,005
6/1/04 2:24:35 PM
|
Wanna read what started it?
[link|http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC2|I. Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions]
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2
Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4
North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8
Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9
Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11 It doesn't look like Ct, Ky, Pa and a load of others were talking about well regulated militia. They were pretty specific about protection of self as part of the right to keep and bear arms. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #157,895
5/31/04 8:14:34 PM
|
Then.. in a Document renowned for its blinding clarity,
admired everywhere in the world - and even for its prescience in leaving 'room' for modifications to accommodate future circumstances incomprehensiible to the founders:
One must (always) ask WHY - that very clear conditional clause was deemed Necessary.
You can't blow it off with cute oblique M$-'thesaurus'-like' upgrades.
Then again.. no one could expect the Founders to imagineer a country as wealthy, as violent and often uncivilized - as has managed to corral big slices of the entire Planet's 'net worth'.. but with a mere 5% of the planet's population.
We may have to deal with this exigency - without seeking guidance from the mouldering corpses. Maybe after the gun-kill numbers approach 100K/yr.. Naaah - God Wants US to have lots of guns; maybe by vending machine? - efficient, that. And we know how prized is efficiency, in bizness.
Uh.. BANG! BANG!
the sounds of communities from Oakland to NYC,
except behind the gated communities: there.. pharm-chem may take care of business
|
