No, men who can't make up cartoon-quality villains they like to complain about. You know, sort of like you just did. Badly. So, I guess that makes you a man who can't, right?

So what you're taking great pains to say is that guns aren't inherently dangerous, people are. Because they kill themselves and each other all the time through careless acts. You've done nothing to show inherent danger in that hunk of metal, but you have shown an odd desire to absolve people of their own stupidity, shifting the blame to inanimate objects than cannot, by themselves, hurt you. It's a fundamentally irrational view of reality. Or, more likely, it's a thinly veiled agenda trying to hide behind a bit of fear mongering.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

But it sure does make you sound like an eager moral relativist.

How? Be specific. If I put a gun on a table in front of you, it will sit there for a thousand years without hurting either one of us. Are you concerned it will spontaneously explode, or grow some sort of nerve tentacles that will intrude into your brain and make you do something awful? Why aren't you worried about kitchen knives, or hammers? More people are killed in the US with pipes and baseball bats than with any kind of rifle (semi-auto or otherwise) - are all cylindrical club-like objects inherently dangerous? How so?

Yes, it's a good habit to treat every gun as if it might go off when you handle it. So you always handle them as if they will, and control that muzzle's direction at all times. Just like you always have to think about where you're swinging an axe, or pointing the front end of a moving car.

Really? His nice, lazy, all-afternoon hunting down of young people on that island couldn't have ended with fewer deaths if someone on that island had shot him down in self defense before he committed such methodical, unopposed slaughter?

They establishment Republicans have already rolled over with the passing of Cromnibus. I expect that if the push Jeb Bush to the front there will be record apathy among conservatives in the 2016 election.

To amplify on that point, never underestimate the ability of the Republican Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. :-P

the composition and political thrust of the parties changed dramatically with the Republican southern strategy of the 60s

Let me put you some f'in knowledge.

And more.

And even more.

On top of that, how do you explain the Democrats' only really starting to lose their stranglehold on southern-state governorships and legislatures in the '90s and later?

Ah, another person who never went to school, or certainly wasn't paying attention.

Your rights are not defined in the constitution. The constitution exists to limit the government's power to interfere with your liberty. Some of those liberties are so important that they are also mentioned by name (the right to liberty that by definition includes the right to speak, assemble, protect yourself, etc). Only leftist idiots think that it's the government that grants you your rights. That's 100% Nanny State backwards. Please do not vote.

Yeah, just like a brick thrown from an overpass or a 40th-floor window - and that costs a fraction of the price of a single UAV battery. Why aren't you in favor of banning bricks? Or would you be happy with simply registering, with photo ID and fingerprints on file, the ownership of all objects that have enough mass to be dangerous?

Not really. Ask any of the dead people in Chicago, where despite very (and even unconstitutionally) severe restrictions, the local thuggery manages to shoot itself up quite regularly. On the other hand, you've got places where guns are readily available (legally) and routinely carried in cars and on person, and which have very low violent crime rates. It's not about guns, and it's never been about guns. It's about culture and law enforcement. Chicago has a violent subculture and no interest in dealing with it. The results are self-evident.

While it's tempting to assume you have a reading comprehension problem, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume instead you're confused about who said what. A previous poster asserts that Obama (the man, the one person) is responsible for the good things listed. Never mind that those things didn't actually happen (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, have NOT ended, etc), the point is that he/she is saying that they did and that Obama did it. You should be making your Superhero Worship complaint to people who make claims like that, not picking on me for pointing out exactly the opposite. You're very confused, here. Not that that stops you from making a lazy "you Americans" jab. I suppose I should say "you Europeans/Asians/Whatever are so stunningly unable to follow a conversation" ... ? No, because that would be silly, ad hominem attack without any useful context? Yeah.

What are you talking about? I said that Bin Laden was killed by a large team of people working years to make it happen. That was in response to the idiot who said that "Obama" got him. Nice straw man attack, though. Well, not really. Pretty lame, actually.

You forgot to mention that a month before your trousers disappear, every 10 minutes they shout YOUR SUBSCRIPTION IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE and you have to slap your leg to get them to shut up.

And would you point out, like I just did, that the Republican president was preventing oil companies from using their gulf wells? Or from being allowed to use new leases on fields? If a Republican president actually DID those things, you'd be able to. Is that what you're saying, that a Republican would be - as it relates to energy policy - exactly like Obama, and that his party would be giving him full credit for that? What ARE you saying?

Yeah, I know, it's frustrating, isn't it? Do a little homework yourself. You'll see that definitions for stillbirth, miscarriage, and neonatal death vary tremendously by country, and are famously all of the map in poorer countries.

The US counts every birth that shows any sign of life - regardless of size or weight - as a live birth. Most European countries, though, don't consider any birth before 26 weeks to be "live births." A fetus needs to be at least 30cm in Switzerland before it's considered a live birth. Has to be at least a pound in Canada, Germany, and Austria. Those don't survive, and aren't considered live births. But in the US, they are (and then are promptly considered cases of infant mortality). About half of infant deaths in the US occur within moments and well within 24 hours of birth, but countries like Japan (with their excellent stats!) don't count them as deaths unless they occur AFTER 24 hours of birth. See how this works? By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks’ gestation are not considered “live births.” Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/111...