Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: When The Big Lie Runs Out Of Gas 110
White House spokesman Josh Earnest was asked several questions about gun control during his press briefing today. Breitbart summarizes his responses, which were more of the same: endless references to "common sense" reforms which are never specified. Earnest wants to keep firearms out of the hands of "criminals and others who shouldn't have them"; so do we all, but how?
To state the blindingly obvious, mass murder is, and always has been, illegal. All mass shooters violate any number of laws, including, by definition, laws relating to firearms. The burden is on anyone who proposes adding new laws to the many that already exist to show why they would be any more effective than the laws already in place.
It may be the case that Earnest is in earnest and not lying per se. But gun control is part of the overall Lefty platform of collapse. What non-gibbering idiot remains who believes this noise?
Should America survive the current Commie infestation and recover (which I think likely, as an affirmed optimist), such an exceptional recovery shall have been partially predicated upon rejecting just this sort of dedication to failure.
It's not as though people who're paying attention don't know precisely why #OccupyResoluteDesk is flogging this particular dead horse.
Let's presume you're being honest for a moment (Score:2)
The burden is on anyone who proposes adding new laws to the many that already exist to show why they would be any more effective than the laws already in place.
By that logic, we can then say that leaving the laws alone is guaranteed recipe for failure as they are not working. For that matter, by that logic our country - "The Great Experiment" - should have never started as there was no precedent for a democracy of this size and style to have ever worked for long.
Even if we set aside the failures of your "logic", the reality is that the most common reform suggestion is to require meaningful background checks for all gun purchases. No person with the ability
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, by that logic our country - "The Great Experiment" - should have never started as there was no precedent for a democracy of this size and style to have ever worked for long.
It's really been The Great Hijacking, over the last century, by many measures. [shadowstats.com]
Maybe, as with so many experiments, it's time to admit that the current crop of nitwits [pjmedia.com] are just false and need to be ignored. We need a Convention of States, and a more Federalist course, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you accidentally agreeing that less regulation might be better?
I'd love to know how you came up with that from what I wrote. I'm asking, but not holding my breath for you to answer.
For that matter, by that logic our country - "The Great Experiment" - should have never started as there was no precedent for a democracy of this size and style to have ever worked for long.
It's really been The Great Hijacking, over the last century, by many measures.
You can keep harping on the 17th amendment all you want right now. I'll bet in a few more years, when more governors' mansions are turned blue, you'll be trying to backtrack on it.
We need a Convention of States, and a more Federalist course,
There are more "federalist" countries out there, you know. Why does the rest of the country need to be subjected to your "federalist" fantasy against their will? You have previously advocated for other peopl
Re: (Score:2)
You can keep harping on the 17th amendment all you want right now.
And you can continue the partial analysis and wonder at the lack of improvement.
There are more "federalist" countries out there, you know. Why does the rest of the country need to be subjected to your "federalist" fantasy against their will?
Hahahahahahahahaha! You seem to fancy the hijacking, the slow collapse into autocracy we've seen over the last century. But it's not viewed as legitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
You can keep harping on the 17th amendment all you want right now.
And you can continue the partial analysis and wonder at the lack of improvement.
I see the 17th amendment itself to be an improvement. You happen to dislike it because you see its repeal as an opportunity to get rid of some of the elected senators that you don't like.
There are more "federalist" countries out there, you know. Why does the rest of the country need to be subjected to your "federalist" fantasy against their will?
the slow collapse into autocracy we've seen over the last century.
Funny how you didn't mind it when your guy was in office. Now there is a different guy on office - and nothing changed - but you can't stand it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...And you keep presenting it the same way. And it keeps falling apart the same way, for the same reasons. Funny how reality doesn't just bend to your will.
So, that was me. And then I say
Maybe your replies are feckless.
And then you say
I think there was a topic, but you again turned it to be about me. If I had more of an ego to me I'd probably be honored in how quickly you abandoned the topic to talk about me instead, but that's not how I roll.
So you make it about me, and I push back, and then you get all hair-shirt about the topic. Or your coolness, there just is no end. None.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
*cough* too funny! The projector shines bright!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We need a Convention of States, and a more Federalist course, in my opinion.
Pre or post civil war? I can't remember which time frame you wish to regress to... and with the current high level of general antipathy and fear present in your *primitive and paranoid culture*, a "convention of states" doesn't sound like a very good idea right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Pre or post civil war?
You actually think the contemporary human wreckage of our youth capable of sustaining a civil war? I guess if it's run as a social media app on smart phones, it could have some legs.
a "convention of states" doesn't sound like a very good idea right now
I should think that the godless Commie sodomite infestation should *jump* at the chance to codify gay marriage, pederasty, bestiality, abortion, the entitlement plantation, anthropogenic global variable weather alteration, affirmative racism action, and every other wretched anti-intellectual bit of cognitive dissonance with whic
Re: (Score:1)
You're revealing your bigotry again. Just another troll I assume. Anyway, the bill of rights and various other important amendments like the 14th and all the other civil rights gains will be put to risk to institute your "christian" sharia law that you people want.
cognitive dissonance with which it has bathed this country these last decades.
Thank your Ronnie Reagan for that. That administration and your continued support defines it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
#Derp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Depends where you apply the bigotry. If this were the 40s or 50s you would be on the same bandwagon against interracial marriage too, just because that what your friends would be doing, and racism was cool and popular back then, so naturally you are going to follow along, exactly like you do now. And then there's your ongoing denial that racism is still widespread. You are just unaware of the bugs under your feet. And your cries of "demographic cratering" when the vote doesn't go your way. I see that fear w
Re: (Score:2)
If this were the 40s or 50s you would be on the same bandwagon against interracial marriage too
Please insert your bogus counterfactual in your orifice of choice. You soil yourself with such.
And then there's your ongoing denial that racism is still widespread.
I have never denied that Affirmative Action is widespread and, in coordination with the media, fanning the flames of racism.
You should come to my totally rainbow church and disabuse yourself of some of your own wrongheadedness.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) There ya go! It's true! Your reaction confirms it, thankyouverymuch. What you are doing now with the gays and women is no different from those same events in the past, without the fire hoses and police dogs though. Everything you say here is identical to what was said then. You claim they're not for real, unworthy of the same rights and privileges as everyone else. You're just a regular guy enjoying and more recently fearing for his overwhelming demographic supremacy. And your little rant against affirm
Re: (Score:2)
You're just a regular guy enjoying and more recently fearing for his overwhelming demographic supremacy.
Working hard, trying to find a shred of validity to your godless Commie sodomite droolings, one enjoys a tacit genomic supremacy. Homo sapiens enjoys a pride of place amidst the animals. Can't seriously argue there. But the laughable "overwhelming demographic supremacy" hogwash--are you trolling, projecting, simple, or what? If one understands the meaning of Christ crucified, your O
Re: (Score:1)
My reaction is a straight up, accurate representation of reality.
Yes! The reality of your denials... Precisely what I said.
Commie sodomite droolings...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Objective" requires evidence. You have none...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is the part where I feed you the "lay off the koolaid" schtick. You are merely superstitious.
Re: (Score:2)
Firearms must be inconvenient. (Score:2)
Firearms must be inconvenient to keep them out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them.
Few people needs pistols and revolvers. They are usually only needed for law enforcement.
Hunting weapons rarely need more than a few rounds. You are a bad hunter if you can't bring down your prey on the first shot, additional shots shall be enough to finish the prey in case something went wrong with the first shot. If you need more than 4 shots for a single prey you should sell your gun and take up some other hobby
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Few people needs pistols and revolvers.
Few people need you. Therefore by that same logic you should be banned.
You don't need a house. You could live in a tent. Therefore hand over your house to me.
I can always spot Leftie-concocted "arguments" by their off-the-charts asininity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How nice that you're such a good stooge for the Left.
Wow, you trolled that hard. The point I was making is that the arguments proffered, as arguments, are not evil. One must judge the tree by the fruit. At that point, one understands the dodginess of the arguments.
So nice that you're tacitly okay with deception
Yeah, I don't think you're being fair there. Your reply gives me pause to consider how much I've become like damn_registrars and fustakrakich as a result of arguing with them for years. For the most part, I try to confine the snippy mode to them specifically.
The missing link is mental illness (Score:2)
We're great at having laws that punish criminal gun use. We're somewhat ok at criminal background checks. We suck at mental illness background checks, and we suck at keeping guns we own away from the mentally ill.
Re: (Score:1)
You know, if we are to carry on with this 'mental illness' angle when a white guy does this, then we will have to admit that everybody is mentally ill.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean when a white guy does it?
Adam Lanza was white. Most of the mass shooters in my lifetime have been white.
What is unusual is a black man doing it.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the only time 'mental illness' is brought up. Non-white shooters are 'terrorists and thugs'. White boys are given an excuse...
Re: (Score:2)
Chris Mercer was nonwhite. So was Seung-Hoi Cho. Both were obviously mentally ill; in fact Cho was on antidepressants.
Re: (Score:2)
Grr...Seung-Hui Cho.. fat fingered that one. Virginia Tech shooting.
Re: (Score:1)
The antidepressants are what make them ill. I'm surprised the damn things are still legal... And also, I don't consider murderers of any kind particularly 'sane', just differently motivated.
Re: (Score:2)
The antidepressants is what made them suicidal and violent. The reason they took the antidepressants to begin with was mental illness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And America, land of the "free", is very, very, very good at creating spiritual woes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we still encourage repentance. Far too often in America, we'd rather celebrate the sin. But not apparently, as much as Germany. Or Bulgaria.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a lot of hypochondria and even more misdiagnosis surrounding mental illness. Antidepressants are being pushed like heroin. They are dangerous drugs. But they are profitable. Most mental illness can be traced to physical and environmental causes, in other words, it too, is a symptom.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same breath, I wouldn't go jacking around with my body chemistry until all diet (including fasting), exercise, and prayer had failed. And I'd encourage others to be sparing in that regard, too. Wait: does that kind of heavy-handedne
Re: (Score:1)
I don't get it. A terminally ill patient can't get prescribed heroin for pain relief, something which is truly and proven effective. So why is this crap any better? It's fucking snake oil. And since you brought it up, why aren't you speaking up against prohibition with the same gusto you use on Obamacare and Benghazi? Prohibition has killed a lot more than four Americans, and is indeed very racist in its implementation and enforcement, and from you, not a peep. Go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
why aren't you speaking up against prohibition with the same gusto you use on Obamacare and Benghazi
Given finite resources, strangely, I prioritize my concerns in a subjective way? I mean, can we get you to run for office, so you can set the agenda more effectively, if you're so driven?
Re: (Score:1)
Given finite resources, strangely, I prioritize my concerns in a subjective way?
You do claim to be pro-life, right? Obviously your stated priorities here belie that notion. Sorry, you're only serving your cultural superstitions that you grew up with. It's purely an effort in distraction from real issues, like medicare for all, and recovering the stolen pensions and property that remains unprosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
You do claim to be pro-life, right? Obviously your stated priorities here belie that notion.
Wow, you get the non-sequitur of the day here. Let's differentiate between
(a) advocating the obviousness of life starting when one's information is complete (it's an uber-#Derp to say otherwise, but you seem enamored of such) and
(b) insisting, as a policy matter, that my tax dollars not fund something I find morally equivalent to the Holocaust.
I'm guessing you may be trying to go for some hypocrisy play here, as though one cannot hold position (a) while halting at (b) and striving to improve the situatio
Re: (Score:1)
The bible says, with breath comes life. And besides that, you simply have absolutely no standing on women's medical issues and decisions. If you want to reduce abortions, increase the education and available medical care. Treat sex as a healthy activity. Keep your superstitions out of it. They are a principle reason there are so many abortions.
"The bible says, with breath comes life" (Score:2)
I'm the first to agree that, while the Bible is truth, that truth has an interpretation spectrum ranging from literal to figurative. The exegetical task is to (prayerfully) take the Bible as a whole, and not just run around proof-texting. Perhaps you prefer Psalm 139 [blueletterbible.org]?:
13. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
The abortion conversation is really about whether you respect humanity in both the unborn and adult phases. Men have no business (
Re: (Score:1)
No, the entire abortion debate is about your desire to control and subjugate women. Your religion is merely the hammer. And the massive hypocrisy sends mixed messages to say the least. You have no trouble killing pregnant women in your wars, so please, save it. Rationalizing murder is your department. If men could get pregnant, you wouldn't hear a damn thing about it. And the people preaching the loudest against it are sending their daughters off to have the procedure done secretly. I could almost take you
Re: (Score:2)
No, the entire abortion debate is about your desire to control and subjugate women.
I don't even subjugate my wife, much less women beyond my own roof. If your task is to keep me laughing, you're winning #BigTime.
It is the birthday that people celebrate.
So you're not alive, not even human, prior to then? I remain fascinated the desperate mental gymnastic routines of those fiendishly trying to justify murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A tool for crowd control.
The crowd control people were the Herod/Roman/Sanhedrin axis, not the diety personified whom they crucified. I encourage you to see past your cynicism and go for the existential truth here.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right. Sitting there at the corner of Dada and Derp.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but a symptom that is comorbid enough with mass random shootings that I believe a medical records and prescriptions check should be a basic part of buying a gun from a licensed dealer.
You will still get idiots like Adam Lanza though, who obtain their weapons from family members. But maybe you'll at least notice the occasional guy living alone who tries to buy a gun legally, before he obtains one illegally, and goes to Forest Park in Portland, OR to take pot shots with a sniper rifle at Big Pink.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but a symptom that is comorbid enough with mass random shootings...
That is just not so [washington.edu] sir. It is a convenient scapegoat, no different than Mr. Smith scapegoating the poor for the national 'debt'. The most common cause of these mass shootings, by far, is plain old hatred. And the shootings really aren't 'random', other than the stray bullet missing its intended target.
Re: (Score:2)
Your article failed to address side effects from antidepressant medication, which is the *specific* co-morbidity. Yes, general mental illness does not necessarily create violence, but it is specifically listed in the potential side effects of drugs like Zoloft and Lithium.
Suicide is also a danger with these drugs (which makes me think anti-depressants are rather, well, misnamed).
Suicide by cop even more so. And for that you need, gasp, potential or real random victims.
Re: (Score:1)
Your article failed to address side effects from antidepressant medication...
Yeah, and [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's just it. Much of this is motivated by racism. There's not so much illness as there is antipathy, but your politicians don't want to admit as much. But hey! *Shit happens*
Holy Poe's Law, Batman! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Is it? I don't remember a time they put up any resistance. Like the other Times and the Post, they basically just print official press releases.
This is sad. Your trolling is losing its endearing subtlety... Maybe it's familiarity with the part.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it?
Was there another reasonable conclusion?
Re: (Score:1)
Of course! I already spelled it out #Derrrp
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming the tool is not the problem (Score:2)
*Anything* can be used as a weapon.
We don't ban cars for having more deaths then guns.
People who use guns to injure / kill another human obviously have no respect for others. Fix the *cause* instead of treating the symptom and the problem will change.
Re: (Score:1)
...and the problem will change.
A thought: "and the problem will change" implies that "the problem", or maybe, the results, will just "change" location. Or more colloquially, "move somewhere else".
Not trying to be obtuse, just a bit far into the nearest bottle...
As an aside
People who use guns to injure / kill another human obviously have no respect for others.
I won't use my gun to kill you, as long as you don't break into my house (obviously, at this point I no longer have any respect for you). Or try to carjack me (ditto). I know it is not simple, but sometimes it is.
Troll! (Score:1)
Should get lots of response. Let's see if you can break 200 posts....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What fault are you finding, exactly?
Only your assertion that things are different from previous administrations. d_r has you pegged on that one also. You're just babbling the same crap about this one as your favorite pundits do. You hopped on a bandwagon, that's all. Plain old trolling, keeping the distractions on the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the need to make "them all the same" as a means of short-circuiting actual analysis, and I don't expect you to awake and engage in such. But intellectual integrity demands one p
Re: (Score:2)
Note, for example that Bush wanted to do *something* to un-jack Social Security, and was destroyed for the trouble
Really? Destroyed in what way? He was still "re-elected" in 2004, and you're here singing his praises. I could only be so lucky as to be "destroyed" in such a way at my own job.
Did the same level of willingness to heed the will of the people apply in the case of the Affordable Care Act?
You already showed with your own links that indeed the mandate was not only what your candidates wanted, but also what the Heritage Foundation wanted as well. Every "alternative" proposed so far by anyone with the ability to propose such a thing to congress has been the same bill with a different last name on it.
intellectual integrity demands one put it out there.
You might want
Re: (Score:2)
Note, for example that Bush wanted to do *something* to un-jack Social Security, and was destroyed for the trouble
Really? Destroyed in what way? He was still "re-elected" in 2004, and you're here singing his praises. I could only be so lucky as to be "destroyed" in such a way at my own job.
Allow me to be sporting and just put this here [brookings.edu].
Did the same level of willingness to heed the will of the people apply in the case of the Affordable Care Act?
You already showed with your own links that indeed the mandate was not only what your candidates wanted, but also what the Heritage Foundation wanted as well. Every "alternative" proposed so far by anyone with the ability to propose such a thing to congress has been the same bill with a different last name on it.
Now *there* is a lie you just can't seem to dislodge from your throat [prospect.org].
intellectual integrity demands one put it out there.
You might want to try finding and applying some of that yourself.
One does far more than "try" in that regard. But you know that, too. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Note, for example that Bush wanted to do *something* to un-jack Social Security, and was destroyed for the trouble
Really? Destroyed in what way? He was still "re-elected" in 2004, and you're here singing his praises. I could only be so lucky as to be "destroyed" in such a way at my own job.
Allow me to be sporting and just put this here.
So I had the time line slightly off, but the rest remains.
You already showed with your own links that indeed the mandate was not only what your candidates wanted, but also what the Heritage Foundation wanted as well. Every "alternative" proposed so far by anyone with the ability to propose such a thing to congress has been the same bill with a different last name on it.
Now *there* is a lie
You are trying to lie about what you yourself have written about before. Don't be ridiculous. Your own JE some time ago linked to the Heritage Foundation saying that a mandate would be needed. You have repeatedly shown admiration for proposed "alternatives" that are the same damned bill with someone else's name on it. You are lying when you accuse me of lying.
intellectual integrity demands one put it out there.
You might want to try finding and applying some of that yourself.
One does far more than "try" in that regard.
I have seen nothing from you lately that resembles even "try". Now granted, "try" rh
Re: (Score:2)
So I had the time line slightly off
In fairness, your argument is only as bollocky as the rest of your arguments, so, sure.
You are trying to lie about what you yourself have written about before. Don't be ridiculous. Your own JE some time ago linked to the Heritage Foundation saying that a mandate would be needed.
Wait: what, specifically, am I lying about? You say "your candidates" as though it were meaningful. I guess it is, if you're building another of your Towers of Babel of something. It's as though you may get the same sexual release from the word "lying" that the blow-dried nitwits in the newsroom seem to get out of saying "lockdown".
You have repeatedly shown admiration for proposed "alternatives" that are the same damned bill
Can you please be specific about what piece of legislation you're talking about? As long as
Re: (Score:2)
You are trying to lie about what you yourself have written about before. Don't be ridiculous. Your own JE some time ago linked to the Heritage Foundation saying that a mandate would be needed.
Wait: what, specifically, am I lying about?
One of your lies is laid out in the very section you just quoted. Try reading before replying.
You say "your candidates" as though it were meaningful.
More than one candidate and/or politician you have praised has proposed replacing HIIBA with HIIBA.
You have repeatedly shown admiration for proposed "alternatives" that are the same damned bill
Can you please be specific about what piece of legislation you're talking about? As long as I am "lying" about something, it would be kinda helpful to know what it is.
Go back through your own comments and show any "alternative" that you have praised that has actually been proposed by a politician or political candidate. Seriously, any of them. They are all interchangeable and they are all >>90% the same as HIIBA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, what is "HIIBA"?
Same thing it's been for about 5 years - Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act [wikipedia.org]. I've used it more regularly and consistently - and with more support of others - than you and the silly hashtag you like to use to describe one of your favorite conspiracies about President Lawnchair.
To get back to the point, you keep lying when you claim that your favorite congressional critters are proposing HIIBA replacements that somehow significantly differ from HIIBA. You are also lying when you claim that the manda
Re: (Score:2)
To get back to the point, you keep lying when you claim that your favorite congressional critters are proposing HIIBA replacements that somehow significantly differ from HIIBA.
Serious question: how do you argue one can "keep lying" when you haven't even defined "somehow significantly differ"?
To the extent that this is all politics, and it's really all one Progressive Party with Demmican and Republocrat wings, there is some basis to reject the noise and call for actual Federalist reform, stripping power from Leviathan.
As I have argued, and you seem to crave pretending it's all a 17th Amendment quibble.
I speculate that the need to say other people are "lying" is an effort to sti
Re: (Score:2)
you haven't even defined "somehow significantly differ"?
It's pretty simple. A bill significantly differs if the policy - and not just the name - is substantially different. HIIBA is the bill that the conservatives and the Heritage Foundation wanted. It also ensures that the insurance industry will remain strong for a long time to come. It doesn't involve the government in the administration or practice of health care any more so than the pre-HIIBA situation did.
Yet everything that has been proposed by any of your elected or campaigning politi-critters t
Re: (Score:2)
HIIBA is the bill that the conservatives and the Heritage Foundation wanted.
Trivially disproven by the manner of passage. You're gonna need a bigger pile o' hooey.
Re: (Score:2)
HIIBA is the bill that the conservatives and the Heritage Foundation wanted.
Trivially disproven by the manner of passage.
We've covered this before [slashdot.org], I don't know why you are lying about it now. The facts are plainly displayed and they support my statement. The fact that conservatives keep trying to replace HIIBA with HIIBA further supports the existing facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Heritage and ObamaCare are as logically related by the fact that both employ the Roman alphabet as anything else.
It is certainly your right to accuse me of "lying" when, other than acknowledgin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
the plans are different not in degree but in kind.
It is exactly the opposite. It could be said that ACA is slightly less corrupt, but only slightly, being that there is no real opposition amongst any of these people, democrat, republican, Soros, and Adelson, all the same shit.
And we all thank dog that Social Security wasn't just handed off to Wall Street to be sent overseas in a tax dodge the way your idol wanted, confirming again that you worship these people and you are blinded by it. It would actually b
Re: (Score:2)
And we all thank dog that Social Security wasn't just handed off to Wall Street
There are those who'd prefer just to walk away. You know it's a scam when you can't, no?
Re: (Score:1)
Your desires are very unchristian. To "walk away", you are more than welcome to shed your citizenship if it is such a heavy burden. Don't let the door hit ya...
Oh. Really. (Score:2)
Your desires are very unchristian.
I'm deeply fascinating as to how you would broad-jump to this completely novel conclusion. Please. By all means. Do share the development of your thought in arriving at this conclusion. As a life-long student of the Bible, I crave the enlightenment that must surely follow.
To "walk away", you are more than welcome to shed your citizenship if it is such a heavy burden.
So, might one say you're somewhat in favor of obviating a Convention of States [conventionofstates.com] to allow a peaceful harmonization of all the disparate political expressions of our day?
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of the UCC shooter I do not believe so. I believe it is far more likely that autistic mom and autistic son shared an autistic obsession about guns. Autistic son had headbanging stim. Autistic Mom who was studying to be a nurse went crazy with the perscription meds to control the headbanging. One day, kid loses control, takes 6 guns out of the collection of more than 20, goes and shoots up the nearest gun-free zone he knows about, which happens to be the college he's enrolled in.
Seems very st