gun show loophole rant
Quote: AZDuffmanConsidering guns have a low danger factor and high utility factor that should mean minimal new laws.
"Treat every gun like it's loaded." I doubt if the gun control people came up with that one. Also, doubt many people die cleaning the car.
Quote: rxwine"Treat every gun like it's loaded." I doubt if the gun control people came up with that one. Also, doubt many people die cleaning the car.
I doubt they did either, because gun control types rarely take time to learn anything about gun safety. As to dying while cleaning the car, perhaps the people who get hurt in car accidents don't make up a lame excuse about cleaning a car when something else happened. Or people are not as gullible about that as some are about "cleaning the gun and it went off" excuses.
Only a moronic conservatard would think that.Quote: Beethoven9thWhat if that same 9-year-old uses a 3d printer to make a long knife and kills someone with it? According to liberal logic, that's even more of an excuse to ban knives.
Everything is a conspiracy! Everything has an reason other than the one stated because guns a rilly rilly safe.Quote: AZDuffmanI doubt they did either, because gun control types rarely take time to learn anything about gun safety. As to dying while cleaning the car, perhaps the people who get hurt in car accidents don't make up a lame excuse about cleaning a car when something else happened. Or people are not as gullible about that as some are about "cleaning the gun and it went off" excuses.
Quote: s2dbakerEverything is a conspiracy! Everything has an reason other than the one stated because guns a rilly rilly safe.
Guns are safe, unless misused. Most things are like that.
Everything isn't a conspiracy, but I am just saying that people who believe "he was cleaning his gun and it went off" believe the CO who brings out a bloody convict and says, "the boy slipped on a bar of soap and I was just helping him get up."
Or also, "If you like your health insurance plan you can keep it!"
Everything is a conspiracy :)Quote: AZDuffman"the boy slipped on a bar of soap and I was just helping him get up."
Or also, "If you like your health insurance plan you can keep it!"
Quote: DC vs Heller
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
....Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Face, your argument is non-sequitor. It's widely known that gun ownership and gun crime are related to one another. That is, in country to country, the relative number of gun deaths and gun crimes are related to the percentage of the population who owns guns. That is, the more gun ownership, the more gun crime, and the more gun deaths. There are notable exceptions, such as Mexico and other South American countries.
Analogies of guns to other weapons, be it cars, knives, swimming pool is useless. The deadliness and immediacy of a gun makes it a special category of its own. The fact that guns are protected under 2nd Amendment rights yet swimming pools, cars, and knives are not is problematic and has led to the incredibly high ownership of guns and defense of its use that is like nowhere else in the world.
We can happily agree on laws that puts fences around swimming pools, laws that make responsible drivers, etc, because they all make common sense. Yet because "arms" are protected in the bill of rights, they fall into a category where laws defy common sense.
God bless America.
Quote: rxwineEverything's dangerous, but not equally dangerous, and not equally useful.
I totally agree. Guns are much more useful for self-defense than knives.
Quote: s2dbakerOnly a moronic conservatard would think that.Quote: Beethoven9thWhat if that same 9-year-old uses a 3d printer to make a long knife and kills someone with it? According to liberal logic, that's even more of an excuse to ban knives.
Exactly. That's why I made that statement.
...and libtards who want to ban guns because of 3d printers are equally moronic. ;)
I'm waiting to see what happens to s2dbaker for violating the name calling rule for calling Beethoven9th a "moronic conservatard". Rules are meaningless if they do not apply to everyone.
Quote: timberjim[q)
I'm waiting to see what happens to s2dbaker for violating the name calling rule for calling Beethoven9th a "moronic conservatard". Rules are meaningless if they do not apply to everyone.
S2 has run out of things to say. This is not uncommon when liberals debate. In this thread his point has been a form of "someone killed kids with guns, I <S2> hate guns, nobody should be allowed to own a gun." When several of us logicly debated and didn't accept his point he started just posting links of so-called "gun accidents" or "violence" with what could be called trolling comments attached. Now he has called a conservative a name as often seems to happen when the conservative will not accept the liberal's emotional argument in its entirety.
The whe discussion boils down to one of two sides. One side thinks guns kill and since you don't "need" one you should not be allowed to own it, or at least you should have draconian restrictions on keeping it disabled and locked up. The other side believes 99% of gun owners are law abiding and can be trusted. They believe we do not need ever more laws as criminals break laws anyways. They believe the NRA is not the criminal but the shooter is the criminal. And they beive the second amendment was made for protection from all kinds of tyranny and not for deer hunting only.
I'll let you all guess which group I am in.
AZDuffman has run out of defenses for his blood lust and has to project his failings onto liberals. This is not uncommon when conservatIves "debate". Another thing that Conservatives like to do is set up ridiculous straw men, call it a liberal position and then knock it down. It's weak but conservatives are weak minded. The staw man is their best hope of convincing other weak minded individuals to accept their pablum. Note the above quote. It's full of fabrications, projection and straw men. It's just sad really.Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: timberjim
I'm waiting to see what happen to s2dbaker for violating the name calling rule for calling Beethoven9th a "moronic conservatard". Rules are meaningless if they do not apply to everyone.
S2 has run out of things to say. This is not uncommon when liberals debate. In this thread his point has been a form of "someone killed kids with guns, I <S2> hate guns, nobody should be allowed to own a gun." When several of us logicly debated and didn't accept his point he started just posting links of so-called "gun accidents" or "violence" with what could be called trolling comments attached. Now he has called a conservative a name as often seems to happen when the conservative will not accept the liberal's emotional argument in its entirety.
The whe discussion boils down to one of two sides. One side thinks guns kill and since you don't "need" one you should not be allowed to own it, or at least you should have draconian restrictions on keeping it disabled and locked up. The other side believes 99% of gun owners are law abiding and can be trusted. They believe we do not need ever more laws as criminals break laws anyways. They believe the NRA is not the criminal but the shooter is the criminal. And they beive the second amendment was made for protection from all kinds of tyranny and not for deer hunting only.
I'll let you all guess which group I am in.
Quote: s2dbakerAZDuffman has run out of defenses for his blood lust and has to project his failings onto liberals. This is not uncommon when conservatIves "debate". Another thing that Conservatives like to do is set up ridiculous straw men, call it a liberal position and then knock it down. It's weak but conservatives are weak minded. The staw man is their best hope of convincing other weak minded individuals to accept their pablum. Note the above quote. It's full of fabrications, projection and straw men. It's just sad really.
Really? Blood lust?
Myself, Face, Beethoven, and a few others have made an array of logical arguments for our side. You have posted links to gun accidents with trolling comments. We gave tried to have a debate but that is hard to do with a person afraid he is going to shoot himself while cleaning his gun. Our logic will beat liberal emotion every time.
Blood lust. Har har har.
Quote: boymimboFace, your argument is non-sequitor. It's widely known that gun ownership and gun crime are related to one another. That is, in country to country, the relative number of gun deaths and gun crimes are related to the percentage of the population who owns guns. That is, the more gun ownership, the more gun crime, and the more gun deaths. There are notable exceptions, such as Mexico and other South American countries.
I’m not sure you’re not following me, or if I’m not understanding you. Let’s see if I can straighten this out.
I see the conflict in logic here. It stands to reason that the more guns that are available, the more opportunities there are for them to be used for ill. It’s the same as saying Australia leads the world in accidents involving Holdens. Like America’s guns, Australian’s Holdens exist in such a higher density there than the rest of the world that they must lead the charts. This concept is something I can understand and accept as obvious.
But what of the question I asked? It wasn’t rhetorical; it’s a genuine curiosity of mine. If it stands to reason that the more guns there are + the easier the access to them = the more violence/accidents/deaths occur, how come the stats I posted are the way they are?
There are only two options I can come up with. One involves bullshit stats. If someone enters your home in gun friendly Texas and you plunk him one, you’re a hero. In the exact same scenario in no tolerance D.C., that’s a homicide. Is it a case of the laws themselves “stacking the numbers” in this fashion? Or, is it a case of what we gunners would like to believe, that an armed society really is a polite society?
This is the point of my question. We can easily show that more guns (in this case, quantity available) = more gun violence. We can likewise easily show that more guns (in this case, ease of availability) = less violence. How do we reconcile these two opposing facts?
It's required to remove other factors to figure out the true trends. State gun laws are not meaningless but the data needs to be in context with a bunch of other things such as demographics, enforcement, and prior gun use.
I would agree, for example, that a wide gun ban increases gun CRIME at first. That just makes sense. I would agree that it's unconstitutional to remove your 2nd Amendment rights.
But there are also laws that do reduce gun violence despite high ownership rates. However, they fly in the face of your 2nd amendment rights. Therefore, there will always be high gun violence rates in the United States.
Quote: boymimboEasy. Research and empirical evidence that isn't doctored up by gun control lobbyists or the NRA.
It's required to remove other factors to figure out the true trends. State gun laws are not meaningless but the data needs to be in context with a bunch of other things such as demographics, enforcement, and prior gun use.
The elephant in the room seems to be, as always in the USA, racial demographics. At some point reality must be faced.
Now the NRA doesn't support universal background checks, leaving a nice hole, for people like gang associates to do straw purchases. In gunners terms they want an EASY GUN PURCHASE ZONE. Why should criminals risk purchasing in high risk ways when low risk options are available?
Quote: boymimboAnd what demographic is that? And what would you do about the reality?
Black and to a lesser extent other minorities. What to do about it? We need to find a way to reduce single-parenthood in the black community. At the same time most violence in that community is drug-related. I'm not sure what can be done there as the customers of the violent dealers span all of the lower-income races. Higher income folks likely send runners.
Until those two things are solved you can make all the laws you want but the violence will still be there. But it will have to come from within. As it is now these communities are in a spiral where they do not know what a functioning neighborhood with more regular families is like.
Quote: boymimboAnd what demographic is that? And what would you do about the reality?
Well, let’s take a look down that path.
D.C.’s demographic wasn’t broken down, so let’s drop it from conversation.
The top 3 Whitest states, in order from the most, are Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia. Using that same gun murders per 100k stat I used previously, they rank 44th, 50th, and 35th respectively.
The bottom 3 Whitest states, in order from the least, are Hawaii, California, and New Mexico. They rank 48th, 12th, and 13th.
The top 3 Hispanic-est (=p) states, in order, are New Mexico, California, and Texas. They rank 13th, 12th, and 15th.
The bottom 3 are again West Virginia, Maine and Vermont. See above.
The 3 Blackest states are Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia. They rank 7th, 1st (behind D.C.), and 9th.
The bottom 3 are Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. They rank 38th, 43rd, and 42nd.
Does this support the idea that the more minorities the state contains, the worse the gun crime? It seems to from where I’m sitting.
Now, before answering boyminbo’s question, I think we must first answer “why”? Is it a product of cultural influences i.e. rap music and wannabe ganstas? Is it a product of environmental influences i.e. low wealth and education brings about desperation? Is it a product of location i.e. city life is more rough and impersonal than rural? Is it a product of discrimination i.e. Blacks not getting a fair shake in court?
Not until you answer “why is this occurring” can you answer the “what to do about the reality”. And that’s been my bitch since even before this all started. Everyone wants to start at the end, The Gun, and work their way back. And for some reason, I seem to be one of the very few people who understands that nothing in the world works that way.
Tell me, how many gun debates have you seen that focus on the person and not the pistol? Go ahead, I’ll wait…
And while we wait, there are still head cases not getting treatments, ignorant gunners not getting educated, and politicians using our tax dollars to attack our freedoms. I simply cannot be the only one who sees this..
Quote: Face
Does this support the idea that the more minorities the state contains, the worse the gun crime? It seems to from where I’m sitting.
And I will wager it will more if you considered HI a sort of outlier that should not be compared with the mainland due to its special nature.
The Firearms death rate per 100,000K (not murders, death) goes like this:
DC 1 at 31.2/100
Wyoming #4 at 18.8/100K
Montana #13 at 14.5/100K
Idaho #19 at 12.3/100K
Hawaii #51 at 2.3/100K
California #30 at 9.8/100K
Texas #26 at 11/100K
New Mexico #8 at 16.6/100K
Mississippi #6 at 17.3/100K
Louisiana #4 at 19.5/100K
Georgia #16 at 13.4/100K
West Virginia #12 at 14.7/100K
Maine #43 at 6.5/100K
Vermont #34 at 9.6/100K
The top 16 in % of african american pop vs gun murders /100K and rank
#1 MS 37.3% / 4.0 #7
#2 LA 32.0% / 7.7 #1
#3 GA 30.0% / 3.8 #9
#4 MD 29.4% / 5.1 #3
#5 SC 28.5% / 4.5 #4
#6 AL 26.4% / 2.8 #22
#7 NC 21.6% / 3.0 #18
#8 DE 21.0% / 4.2 #5
#9 VA 19.9% / 3.1 #16
#10 TB 16.8% / 2.5 #28
But in the
#2 spot is MO 5.4 #19 11.5%
#6 MI 4.2 / #16 14.24%
#8 FL 3.9 / #11 15.9%
#10 PA 3.6 / #20 10.8%
Quote: boymimboInteresting.
So what does this all tell us?
Quote: boymimboInteresting.
The Firearms death rate per 100,000K (not murders, death) goes like this:
DC 1 at 31.2/100
Wyoming #4 at 18.8/100K
Montana #13 at 14.5/100K
Idaho #19 at 12.3/100K
Hawaii #51 at 2.3/100K
California #30 at 9.8/100K
Texas #26 at 11/100K
New Mexico #8 at 16.6/100K
Mississippi #6 at 17.3/100K
Louisiana #4 at 19.5/100K
Georgia #16 at 13.4/100K
West Virginia #12 at 14.7/100K
Maine #43 at 6.5/100K
Vermont #34 at 9.6/100K
The top 16 in % of african american pop vs gun murders /100K and rank
#1 MS 37.3% / 4.0 #7
#2 LA 32.0% / 7.7 #1
#3 GA 30.0% / 3.8 #9
#4 MD 29.4% / 5.1 #3
#5 SC 28.5% / 4.5 #4
#6 AL 26.4% / 2.8 #22
#7 NC 21.6% / 3.0 #18
#8 DE 21.0% / 4.2 #5
#9 VA 19.9% / 3.1 #16
#10 TB 16.8% / 2.5 #28
But in the
#2 spot is MO 5.4 #19 11.5%
#6 MI 4.2 / #16 14.24%
#8 FL 3.9 / #11 15.9%
#10 PA 3.6 / #20 10.8%
Including suicides makes these figures worthless.
?Quote: FarFromVegasQuote: Second Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
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.
I don't see the word "firearm"
Crossbows, slingshots, and spitwad-shooters would not be considered "Arms" at the time of the Constitutions first ratification. Since England, for one to own real property, he was required to own a sophisticated projectile weapon and a horse, so that the "hue and cry" (which evolved into what we now call the "amber alert") could readily be answered against sudden and fugitive crime, the muzzle-loaded musket being the weapon of choice by 1787. The continuation of this tradition - the initiative of good villagers to assist in the protection of private property and personhood in an emergency (as a "militia") - is a large part of the reason for the Second Amendment. Also, there were gentlemen's duels, something which we've been indoctrinated to find outrageous, but which at that time kept men respectful toward each other. "People" refers to private citizens (individually, according Justice Scalia), "keep" means own and maintain ready for use, and "bear" means carry on one's person. "Right" means "absolute natural entitlement", not just "privilege" or "permission".
Quote: FarFromVegasbut I see "well regulated."
"Well-regulated" does not necessarily mean "federally-" or "governmentally-regulated".
Quote: FarFromVegasI'll concede your right to the gun if you concede me my Constitutionally granted right to the regulation.
The best regulation is self-regulation, against which there is no law (Galatians 5:23) Can you maintain your self-regulation? If so, why can't you believe someone else nearby can maintain his, also?
Quote:But as men intent upon hostility have associated themselves in military corps, it becomes your duty to associate likewise-Arm and organize yourselves immediately
....Do you wish to preserve your rights? Arm yourselves-Do you desire to secure your dwellings? Arm yourselves-Do you wish your wives and daughters protected? Arm yourselves-Do you wish to be defended against assassins or the Bully Rocks of faction? Arm yourselves-Do you desire to assemble in security to consult for your own good or the good of your country? Arm yourselves.-To arms, to arms, and you may then sit down contented, each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree and have no one to make him afraid....
If you are desirous to counteract a design pregnant with misery and ruin, then arm yourselves; for in a firm, imposing and dignified attitude, will consist your own security and that of your families-To arms, then to arms.
-Tench Coxe, May 24, 1799.
Quote: s2dbakerOnly a moronic conservatard would think that.
Only the Sith speak in absolutes.
In all seriousness, though, this comment has gotten some recent attention. I'm going to state that this sort of comment has no place here on a discussion forum in which we are accustomed to presenting our arguments in a gentlemanly and/or ladylike manner, but I am not going to Suspend based on this comment given S2Dbaker's long posting history without any offenses.
Quote: Mission146Only the Sith speak in absolutes.
In all seriousness, though, this comment has gotten some recent attention. I'm going to state that this sort of comment has no place here on a discussion forum in which we are accustomed to presenting our arguments in a gentlemanly and/or ladylike manner, but I am not going to Suspend based on this comment given S2Dbaker's long posting history without any offenses.
To be fair, this thread has been much more emotional and passionate than most. I myself have come out of the “no cursing” standard I usually hold myself to and isn’t something I’m proud of. I’ll try to go back to intelligent vernacular and stash the trash.
In any case, it seems to be back on the upswing of good discussion and interesting material. Hopefully we can continue on in that manner and have good discussion. Not much a fan of the drive-by snark as it seems to be the source of a lot of the ill in this thread.
Me neither! Let's talk about the NRA safety instuctor who shot himself in the hand while showing his wife how to holster a gun. Just one more responsible gun owner® in a daily parade who never thought that they would hurt themselves or anyone else with a weapon.Quote: FaceIn any case, it seems to be back on the upswing of good discussion and interesting material. Hopefully we can continue on in that manner and have good discussion. Not much a fan of the drive-by snark as it seems to be the source of a lot of the ill in this thread.
Quote: s2dbakerMe neither! Let's talk about the NRA safety instuctor who shot himself in the hand while showing his wife how to holster a gun. Just one more responsible gun owner® in a daily parade who never thought that they would hurt themselves or anyone else with a weapon.
S2dbaker, I am disappoint.
The NRA 500 was at Texas a few weeks back and drew the ire of many an anti. The furor grew and grew, but Texas Motor Speedway and the NRA told them to stuff it. The race went on, the NRA got its (many) plug(s), and after the race, a fight erupted in the infield and a man shot and killed himself.
How could you resist the irony? =p
I'm not against gun ownership. I want the gun fetishists to have and clean as many guns as they can store in their bunkers. If a responsible gun owner® wishes to kill himself at a NASCAR event then that's his right. There's no irony in that at all, I totally encourage that. But if someone wants to say that guns are safe, then I'm going to point out that they are not because guns are dangerous. They are a danger to you, your child, your spouse and your friends. Of course, some people think that it's all a conspiracy and all of those accidents were really cover stories for what actually happened which may or may not involve space aliens.Quote: FaceHow could you resist the irony? =p
Do you think that the gun made this outcome better or worse? Discuss!
We need to ban hammers and knives NOW!!!
Why? No one is advocating banning guns. So why would we want to ban things that have actual useful purposes like hammers and knives?Quote: Beethoven9thWe need to ban hammers and knives NOW!!!
Quote: s2dbakerWhy? No one is advocating banning guns. So why would we want to ban things that have actual useful purposes like hammers and knives?
You seem to be. Along with plenty of elected liberal politicians.
Quote: Beethoven9thIf the anti-gun folks had their way, this 11-year-old boy could have died!
Fact of the matter is this:
A liberal (aka someone who is anti-gun) puts more value on the life of a kid in school who died or was injured as a result of a nutjob acting like a nutjob, than a kid who is killed or injured as a result of a parent or guardian not being responsible and properly protecting their family with guns, and the training needed to use those guns properly.
Get with the program. If you die tragically and your name ends up on TV, your life is worth more than someone who died just as tragically, but never had Piers Morgan say your name on CNN.
That's absolutely true. If the people who want all guns banned had their way then that boy would be dead. I don't think I've seen anyone advocate the banning of all guns, not here or anywhere. That guy should have had his guns registered as the law requires. He broke the law and now he has to pay a fine. Had he registered his guns as the law requires, he would be a hero without looking like a schmuck.Quote: Beethoven9thIf the anti-gun folks had their way, this 11-year-old boy could have died!
Of course, for every feel good story about how a gun saved the day, I could link to ten stories of how a gun didn't save the day.
Quote: s2dbakerThat's absolutely true. If the people who want all guns banned had their way then that boy would be dead. I don't think I've seen anyone advocate the banning of all guns, not here or anywhere. That guy should have had his guns registered as the law requires. He broke the law and now he has to pay a fine. Had he registered his guns as the law requires, he would be a hero without looking like a schmuck.Quote: Beethoven9thIf the anti-gun folks had their way, this 11-year-old boy could have died!
Of course, for every feel good story about how a gun saved the day, I could link to ten stories of how a gun didn't save the day.
Then the answer is simple, if you don't have a gun don't have one. No need for registration other than eventual confiscation. And we can't have registration as long as there is the insistence so many people do not have photo-ID to simply exercise their Constitutional Rights.
That's simply not true. Registration helps track lost or stolen weapons. No one has ever had a gun confiscated without just cause, with or without registration.Quote: AZDuffmanNo need for registration other than eventual confiscation.
Quote: s2dbakerThat's simply not true. Registration helps track lost or stolen weapons. No one has ever had a gun confiscated without just cause, with or without registration.
No one? I suppose you’ve somehow missed my many long rants on how it’s already happening and the NYSP are trying to cover it up?
Or do we simply have different definitions of "just cause"?
I guess we do. srsly, you linked to The Blaze? You may as well quote BatBoy from the Weekly World News.Quote: FaceNo one? I suppose you’ve somehow missed my many long rants on how it’s already happening and the NYSP are trying to cover it up?
Or do we simply have different definitions of "just cause"?
Quote: s2dbakerI guess we do. srsly, you linked to The Blaze? You may as well quote BatBoy from the Weekly World News.
/sigh. It was the first one that popped up. Google "NYS Xanex gun confiscation" and bathe in 100s of different sources for the exact same story. It's not more gunner paranoia, it’s not sensationalized.
Flat out, the NYSP somehow obtained the info that this man took Xanex and proceeded to take his guns and his license. The man cooperated but obtained an attorney. Once pressured, the NYSP relented, saying “they got the wrong guy”. That’s where things got shitty.
See, everyone turned on the NYSP. Even County Clerk Collins, whose responsibility is gun permits, stated “They didn’t get the wrong guy; they got exactly who they wanted”. Tresmond is now (last I heard, anyway) heading the fight against NYSAFE and is taking the state to court.
Do you see this? The new fangled laws that were passed here under the guise of keeping little Johnny and Sally Mae safe are doing little more than allowing the SS NYSP to backdoor HIPAA and come for your gear for little other reason than they can. In short, the only thing that has changed isn’t the level of safety, it isn’t a next step in a crime free utopia, it has only allowed arbitrary confiscation, confiscation that everyone said absolutely wouldn’t happen. And it only took 2 months to begin.
Don't quote BatBoy and you won't have to sigh.Quote: Face/sigh.
I hope he loses.Quote: FaceTresmond is now (last I heard, anyway) heading the fight against NYSAFE and is taking the state to court.
I guess we do.Quote: s2dbaker
Or do we simply have different definitions of "just cause"?
Probably. A liberal's definition of "just cause" in gun confiscation is "any gun or gun-owner the liberal doesn't like."
How long until the liberals decide we should simply let the IRS control gun "registration?"
Quote: s2dbakerDon't quote BatBoy and you won't have to sigh.
Mostly sighing over my own stupidity. I always assume the antis I battle with do the same due diligence as I do. I assume that those who want authoritarianism check the places where it exists and keep tabs on it. I assume they'd want to know how it's going and whether their beliefs hold true. Being so close to this issue, both in spirit and geographically, I thought you already knew about it.
Quote: s2dbakerI hope he loses.
Pfft. Probably will. This is NYS, remember. The entire state save for one county near albany and all of the rotting appendix is against NYSAFE, yet it still exists. You need not waste your hope here. All hope is already lost, common sense long since abandoned.
Sounds like a disgruntled ex-wife to me.
