Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 514
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The words had different definitions than normal on my comment. For example, deciding the way to deal with a small band of clever radical whack-jobs is to transform the culture of the ME is the dead-nu

I truly admire your courage, in being so candid. Deep down, I may agree, but I have taken the diplomatic tack to scratch now, and amend (if necessary) later. Meanwhile, the gun problem is snowballing

Posted Images

 

"Good folks." Dabs? Probably not. This group is up to mischief.

Our fine forum contributor AGIC joined them this week. He likes straight body work, pure metal without body fillers.

But let's probe the metal of their uniquely rotten chassis.

I can endlessly cite both credibility slippage and moral slippage here. It is the corruption of our society. They have no morals, or poor morals, and leave a trail of dishonest, ignorant presentations.

Their best rep on Political Anarchy is Tom Ray (who has shown a trail of sourcable credibility screwups).

 

I'm pretty proud of my record here. Judging by this thread, I seem to have impressed Moe, Cruisin' Loser, and a few others who I respect.

 

I seem to have irritated jocal, Sol, and other trolls for whom I have no respect.

 

Go me! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is how I see it.

 

 

 

 

so_i_became_a_doberman-262506_zpscqfq1qt

Wiener dogs get no respect.

 

 

Those short legs are jim dandy for chasing rabbits into the brush.

 

As for Normy, he's one of the few people here who appreciates a good kayakin' story, so he's okay in my book. However, that "ps: tools" thing is so somewhat more annoying than a 16 year old master of anagrams at the kitchen in his parent's catering hall.

 

Yes, than annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Good folks." Dabs? Probably not. This group is up to mischief.

Our fine forum contributor AGIC joined them this week. He likes straight body work, pure metal without body fillers.

But let's probe the metal of their uniquely rotten chassis.

I can endlessly cite both credibility slippage and moral slippage here. It is the corruption of our society. They have no morals, or poor morals, and leave a trail of dishonest, ignorant presentations.

Their best rep on Political Anarchy is Tom Ray (who has shown a trail of sourcable credibility screwups).

 

I'm pretty proud of my record here. Judging by this thread, I seem to have impressed Moe, Cruisin' Loser, and a few others who I respect.

 

I seem to have irritated jocal, Sol, and other trolls for whom I have no respect.

 

Go me! :P

 

 

If you think Jocal and Sol are trolls, you haven't been paying sufficient attention. A troll doesn't stand for much other than provocation. Both of their views are worn on their sleeves, that's not the calling card of a troll.

 

Just disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"Good folks." Dabs? Probably not. This group is up to mischief.

Our fine forum contributor AGIC joined them this week. He likes straight body work, pure metal without body fillers.

But let's probe the metal of their uniquely rotten chassis.

I can endlessly cite both credibility slippage and moral slippage here. It is the corruption of our society. They have no morals, or poor morals, and leave a trail of dishonest, ignorant presentations.

Their best rep on Political Anarchy is Tom Ray (who has shown a trail of sourcable credibility screwups).

 

I'm pretty proud of my record here. Judging by this thread, I seem to have impressed Moe, Cruisin' Loser, and a few others who I respect.

 

I seem to have irritated jocal, Sol, and other trolls for whom I have no respect.

 

Go me! :P

 

 

If you think Jocal and Sol are trolls, you haven't been paying sufficient attention. A troll doesn't stand for much other than provocation. Both of their views are worn on their sleeves, that's not the calling card of a troll.

 

Just disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a troll.

 

 

When I have called someone a murderer more than once and someone comes along and asks me whether I think that person did anything wrong, that person is trolling.

 

That's the way I see it. Feel free to explain if you think that is not trolling.

 

 

BTW, that ps: tools thing was just mocking another troll tactic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom has plenty to offer. Seriously.

So my disappointment is compounded with him when he departs from veracity.

It's a frequent pattern, on Political Anarchy.

 

It's fascinating. Not one of the following statements is true. Each is a dangerous homily.Badgeless%20Boy%20Suicide%20Cheerleader_

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty proud of my record here. Judging by this thread, I seem to have impressed Moe, Cruisin' Loser, and a few others who I respect.

 

I seem to have irritated jocal, Sol, and other trolls for whom I have no respect.

 

Go me! :P

 

 

Proud of ourselves, are we?

You show a curious pattern of behavior. Many grandpas know better than to entertain certain memes.

 

You mention others as trolls? I think that race-baiting is trollish behavior, of the lowbrow variety.

But we are not here to engage in name-calling, are we?

 

I'd like our readers to have a glimpse into your race-relations thread.

 

 

 

 

Post 661 This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5008086>

Tom Ray, on 14 Jul 2015 - 08:21 AM, said:

I heard somewhere that this thread died. (Note: this is a month after the Charleston church shootings, after which, yes, Tom had STFU... for ten days.)

Guess I heard wrong.

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

Jocal505 Posted 14 July 2015 - 08:40 AM

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5008086>

Hi Tom. "Terrible racist?" I doubt that. But you have nothing to offer on this subject (i.e. race relations), except misunderstanding.

You are a petty sort, not man enough to read MLK. He could easily set you right.

Short of that, the Dylann Roofs will relish, and thrive on, the present-tenseTom Ray approach:

Quote

Tom Ray, on 25 Mar 2015 - 2:44 PM, said:

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

(…)

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

In Post 378 Tom had begun to quote Jocal from Post 127, which displayed NIJ stats showing a horrifying, disproportionate gun violence bloodbath... among blacks.

Example 1. Post 385 , May 4 Tom quotes Joe (the red ink), from some other thread.

Tom Ray Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:05 PM

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

How does that black gun violence amplifier work, anyway?

2.Post 390 May 5

Tom Ray, on 02 Apr 2015 - 1:26 PM, said:

Quote:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

A twit like me can't see how the amplified and volatile desire for gunpower is working to create the problems you noted.

3.Post 400 May 7

Tom Ray Posted 07 May 2015 - 04:27 AM

My guess: it has something to do with the hope that ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower penispower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

<http://forums.sailin...=4#entry4938209>

4.Post 415, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 01:38 AM

I'm here to learn. Specifically, I'm eager to learn how the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns? Was it wise to deny MLK his permit because his melanin-rich skin made him more volatile than white people? You seem determined to preserve the ability to cops to engage in that kind of discrmination, so I want to learn why blacks are so darn dangerous in your view.

http://forums.sailin...57817&p=4944332

5. Post 417, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 02:10 AM

(To anarchist random) I'm just trying to learn more about black people from local expert Jocal. Obviously, there's nothing racist about this statement he made: the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

So I'm asking about it. Why is that bad? And by the way, what actions have you taken so far to eliminate Aussie Apartheid? Or are you all complaints about other countries, no action in your own?

http://forums.sailin...57817&p=4944344

That was in May, folks. Tom must lack pertinent content for Political Anarchy; because he has reverted to this questionable stuff THIS WEEK (three hundred posts later):

6. Post 732 TR Race-baiting (summer repeat)

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=5043622

Tom Ray, on 20 Aug 2015 - 05:05 AM, said:

Quote:

jocal505, on 04 May 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

(Tom Ray:) I don't have to call you names or snip part of that sentence. Anyone can see it for what it is.

Post 733 Jocal Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:46 AM

We could be having an intelligent conversation, Tom. Instead, you present dimestore innuendo.

And more race-baiting, eh?

The red words are a pretty candid assessment of the problem, made by someone who has unshakably warm feelings towards the black community.

It is not unlike the two different stats I posted: each was solid and unequivocal, but quite unflattering to gun behavior among certain blacks.

You re-posted each stat multiple times, while drooling...and while claiming the figures disproved the danger of the high rates of white gun ownership.

You feel some need to smear me with racial poo slinging.

It won't work, bro. I risked my life following the non-violence of my mentor, MLK, into problem areas. The experience was definitive.

I saw what I saw...and Tom Ray, you lack enough understanding to discuss it with me.

7.Tom Ray Posted 21 August 2015 - 08:59 AM

Why do you suppose MLK owned guns and applied for a concealed weapons permit?

Do you think his immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower was amplified, and more volatile, than that of whites?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty proud of my record here. Judging by this thread, I seem to have impressed Moe, Cruisin' Loser, and a few others who I respect.

 

I seem to have irritated jocal, Sol, and other trolls for whom I have no respect.

 

Go me! :P

Proud of ourselves, are we?

You show a curious pattern of behavior. Many grandpas know better than to entertain certain memes.

 

You mention others as trolls? I think that race-baiting is trollish behavior, of the lowbrow variety.

But we are not here to engage in name-calling, are we?

 

You forgot to call me a name. I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm pretty proud of my record here. Judging by this thread, I seem to have impressed Moe, Cruisin' Loser, and a few others who I respect.

 

I seem to have irritated jocal, Sol, and other trolls for whom I have no respect.

 

Go me! :P

Proud of ourselves, are we?

You show a curious pattern of behavior. Many grandpas know better than to entertain certain memes.

 

You mention others as trolls? I think that race-baiting is trollish behavior, of the lowbrow variety.

But we are not here to engage in name-calling, are we?

 

You forgot to call me a name. I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

 

 

I let your words speak for you. You have a lot to say, and it leaves a trail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't have anything to say, but wanted to post something here just so Tom can dig up something I said previously.

Me either, but I haven't been obliquely called a gun grabber for awhile, so maybe I should give Tom a chance.

 

I don't have an issue with France's gun laws. Does that make me a cunt?

 

 

 

Was I oblique? I meant to be more direct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No - you are anything but direct.

 

I got the best insight on this bit from you, OR. In effect, you said that Tom is against many things, and for very little.

(Very little must mean libertarianism.)

Woofsey has articulated Tom's pattern of "Guess what I am thinking."

Random suggests that Tom is like others: if they say something false often enough, they feel it will be accepted as, or will become, true.

My $.02: he exudes an air of superiority, while quoting himself constantly, and while demonstrating some scary-ass ignorance wrt gun mayhem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK. You're a gungrabber.

 

Happy now?

Since JBSF holds the same position re tools as I do. Does that make human grabber too?

 

 

Same? As in, he believes companies should be sued for the illegal use of their products like you do?

 

I haven't seen him post any such thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

same, as we both believe in the individual right to own guns

that self defense is a right

that we should figure out a way to fix the mental health system to get the true crazies off the street (sorry JBSF if I paraphrased your post from awhile back)

Link to post
Share on other sites

JBSF never said we should not be able to carry guns concealed. You did.

 

JBSF never approvingly posted Brady Center press releases. You did.

 

Didn't take him any time at all to figure out that militias generally operate outdoors and the second should apply outside the home. Why was that a hard question for you?

 

I could go on and on, but first I want to know why we are discussing guns and JBSF in a thread about me? Neither seems on topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you accuse me of being a gun grabber. Since I have the same basic positions as JBSF, you must think he's also a grabber.

 

shit, suckered into a Tom debate again....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of people claim to believe in a right to own guns. In fact, around here, only Olsonist says we should repeal the second amendment, so I'd say it's nearly unanimous. You and I and jocal all have the same position.

 

I believe no registry has ever done anything good, but they have been used to ban and confiscate firearms and all should be eliminated. Yes, I mean the machine gun registry too.

 

I believe we should not have to show a reason before exercising our second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

 

I believe mean-looking weapons should be protected under the second amendment, not banned and/or confiscated.

 

I think New York's law banning more than seven rounds in a magazine is an unjustified infringement.

 

I don't think gun manufacturers should be sued for illegal uses of their products.

 

I don't think individuals whose guns are stolen and then used in crimes should be sued either.

 

Glad we're all on the same page on those things. Now, can we get back to discussing me personally, not my political beliefs? There are plenty of threads for those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OR, I will take you at your word that you believe in the same things I do as you posted. However Tom seems to make a good point that we disagree in other ways.

 

I don't know that it makes you a bona fide "gun grabber". But I would say you're a mixed bag of ideas about the RKBA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

comment away, but no need to make it political.

 

I'm thinking this thread could be an homage to Sol's "unfortunate" victims.

They are not unfortunate, they are inconvenient. People get so worked up about the victims' rights that they forget about Tom's First Amendment right to spin a straw man to argue against, in defense of everyone's Second Amendment rights (except, presumably, those inconvenient victims who no longer have Second Amendment rights).

 

 

I'm thinking I should start opposing second amendment rights just to see Troll Rosenberg support them. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey. Crack on Tom all you want--I don't like guns either--but consider this: The real fake libertarians here, which includes just about everyone who claims to be one, are all for the Constitution until it keeps the State from silencing, jailing, deporting, expropriating, spying on, torturing, or killing someone they hate. Our Tom, by contrast, seeks to extend constitutional rights to everyone including dangerous criminals, suspected terrorists, illegal aliens, rioting negroes, the mentally ill, who knows whom, because the guy knows that no one is safe from the abuse of state force when anyone is subject to it. I really encourage people to look at his Are Illegal Aliens Also The People thread. What a nutty idea, recognizing the constitutional rights of illegal aliens, including the right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, what a magnificent and uniquely American one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey. Crack on Tom all you want--I don't like guns either--but consider this: The real fake libertarians here, which includes just about everyone who claims to be one, are all for the Constitution until it keeps the State from silencing, jailing, deporting, expropriating, spying on, torturing, or killing someone they hate. Our Tom, by contrast, seeks to extend constitutional rights to everyone including dangerous criminals, suspected terrorists, illegal aliens, rioting negroes, the mentally ill, who knows whom, because the guy knows that no one is safe from the abuse of state force when anyone is subject to it. I really encourage people to look at his Are Illegal Aliens Also The People thread. What a nutty idea, recognizing the constitutional rights of illegal aliens, including the right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, what a magnificent and uniquely American one.

 

I'm actually with you both on MOST of this, but, I'm still noodling over the right to vote. I would suggest that anyone participating in our political process ought to have skin in the game by at least being legally bound by the decisions that they're voting upon. Rights of repatriation to their home country kinda seem like an "out" that might incent some to vote for an issue, cause a massive change, and then leave before the change has a chance to impact them.

 

I haven't finished thinking it thru, but, it's where I am on the subject right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey. Crack on Tom all you want--I don't like guns either--but consider this: The real fake libertarians here, which includes just about everyone who claims to be one, are all for the Constitution until it keeps the State from silencing, jailing, deporting, expropriating, spying on, torturing, or killing someone they hate. Our Tom, by contrast, seeks to extend constitutional rights to everyone including dangerous criminals, suspected terrorists, illegal aliens, rioting negroes, the mentally ill, who knows whom, because the guy knows that no one is safe from the abuse of state force when anyone is subject to it. I really encourage people to look at his Are Illegal Aliens Also The People thread. What a nutty idea, recognizing the constitutional rights of illegal aliens, including the right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, what a magnificent and uniquely American one.

I'm actually with you both on MOST of this, but, I'm still noodling over the right to vote. I would suggest that anyone participating in our political process ought to have skin in the game by at least being legally bound by the decisions that they're voting upon. Rights of repatriation to their home country kinda seem like an "out" that might incent some to vote for an issue, cause a massive change, and then leave before the change has a chance to impact them.

 

I haven't finished thinking it thru, but, it's where I am on the subject right now.

I'm not a libertarian. It's too hard and can get you In all sorts of trouble, like being a pacifist, but I admire people who can take and hold principled positions like that and acknowledge the logical implications and real world consequences, good and bad. I'm also a little sensitive on the illegal alien round up issue, my Dad and his family having been duly and legally designated aliens in their home country and marked for deportation to a ditch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm a small-cee conservative. Liberals frighten me and Libertarians do too. Too much ignoring of reality. Nevertheless I think them essential gadflies. Have to have some crazy people in the blue-sky research and grand-strategerizing depts. It's from those who had their eyeballs super-glued to Utopia that most of our societal evolution's ideas came from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey. Crack on Tom all you want--I don't like guns either--but consider this: The real fake libertarians here, which includes just about everyone who claims to be one, are all for the Constitution until it keeps the State from silencing, jailing, deporting, expropriating, spying on, torturing, or killing someone they hate. Our Tom, by contrast, seeks to extend constitutional rights to everyone including dangerous criminals, suspected terrorists, illegal aliens, rioting negroes, the mentally ill, who knows whom, because the guy knows that no one is safe from the abuse of state force when anyone is subject to it. I really encourage people to look at his Are Illegal Aliens Also The People thread. What a nutty idea, recognizing the constitutional rights of illegal aliens, including the right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, what a magnificent and uniquely American one.

I'm actually with you both on MOST of this, but, I'm still noodling over the right to vote. I would suggest that anyone participating in our political process ought to have skin in the game by at least being legally bound by the decisions that they're voting upon. Rights of repatriation to their home country kinda seem like an "out" that might incent some to vote for an issue, cause a massive change, and then leave before the change has a chance to impact them.

 

I haven't finished thinking it thru, but, it's where I am on the subject right now.

I'm not a libertarian. It's too hard and can get you In all sorts of trouble...

 

 

 

 

I found the solution to that problem. Just don't be a very good libertarian. Real ones would mostly consider me too much of a big government guy. That's probably because on some issues, I share Mark's view of them. Particularly with respect to rules about common property resources. Markets can't allocate those efficiently, no matter how libertarians may wish they could. And markets can't prevent the fights that will result when one person fucks with another person's water. Governments can do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a small p progressive. I think most of our evolution has come from progressives. Lincoln. FDR. Still, Democrats *are* responsible for some massive mistakes like Vietnam. That was Johnson. Yeah, Nixon made it even worse but he inherited something that was already stupid bad. But conservatives are responsible for our epic mistakes, the colossally big ones (although Vietnam was pretty big) and they have nothing on balance.

 

But I can't think of any conservative accomplishments and modern conservatives are just plain nuts. They have this mythology like winning the Cold War etc. Yawn. I think a lot of people (present company included) are aspirational conservatives. They don't necessarily agree with conservative principles (sic) but then they would like to be the sort of person who is a conservative. Kinda reminds me of Joyceans who can't scratch together two interesting sentences about Saint James but still list Ulysses as their Book.

 

I've got nothing for libertarians. Harmless for the most part.

OBL is case in point. A conservative said Mission Accomplished.

A liberal made it a priority to get the bastard.

And a libertarian said he would not have ordered the raid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The words had different definitions than normal on my comment. For example, deciding the way to deal with a small band of clever radical whack-jobs is to transform the culture of the ME is the dead-nuts opposite of conservative. All the "transform the world" stuff is radical progressiveness, whether or not Progressives or Conservatives are doing it. I understand it's pointless to try to buck the tide of common usage and I don't normally, but the old original definitions of the words have to be used in describing my own mindset.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the point that you're making. And you have a point.

But I also think that the words apply domestically more or less unchanged.

Heck, I don't think applying progressive or conservative to foreign policy actually means anything or has ever meant anything.

Our foreign policy has been pretty nutty pretty much since the Cold War.

With some exceptions. But on balance, nutty.

 

Your point about the RTP is well founded. The same point about Neocons doesn't even need to be made.

Still H was supposed to be this 'realist' and Somalia was completely nutty.

 

If I'm going to talk about conservatives vs progressives I'd rather talk domestically.

There's just too much stupidity in our foreign policy to even have that discussion there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RTP is easier to keep straight, actually. I fully believe in it as a concept but utterly disagree with the attempting to use it as a rational to conduct wars in places Powers feels we need to bring about regime change.

 

One of the old cold warrior theorists, I think it was Lind, once said that the US should beat the crap out of some third world shit hole once or twice a decade, whether it needed it or not, just to keep the "others" in line. I have no objections to doing the same thing but to the nations that are indulging in a bit of genocide. The trick is in picking the doable ones, not necessarily the worst and almost certainly not all that might crop up. "R2P" would make us hypocrites, so it must be abandoned.

 

We must start acknowledging out limitations and I think this would be a good baby-steps exercise in gently suggesting to our politicians that we do indeed have some. It also re-introduces the old idea of "foolish consistency".

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

But I can't think of any conservative accomplishments ...

 

I've got nothing but namecalling for libertarians fakebertarians.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fixed.

 

I can think of a couple of conservative accomplishments. Bonzo and conservatives in Congress got rid of the ridiculously high tax rates. When conservatives finally started being forced to listen to libertarians on the gun issue, we got the Supreme Court to recognize the right ot the people to keep and bear arms.

 

I know you would like to repeal the second amendment so that second one probably doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment to you, but some of us like it.

 

How is any of this about me personally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you are not a "messenger," as such.

mes·sen·ger

[ˈmesənjər]

NOUN

  1. a person who carries a message or is employed to carry messages.

 

For some reason, you are a dynamic weaver of lies. (Link goes to The Tom Whoppers.)

Any fabric woven of lies is rotten, and unstable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Hey. Crack on Tom all you want--I don't like guns either--but consider this: The real fake libertarians here, which includes just about everyone who claims to be one, are all for the Constitution until it keeps the State from silencing, jailing, deporting, expropriating, spying on, torturing, or killing someone they hate. Our Tom, by contrast, seeks to extend constitutional rights to everyone including dangerous criminals, suspected terrorists, illegal aliens, rioting negroes, the mentally ill, who knows whom, because the guy knows that no one is safe from the abuse of state force when anyone is subject to it. I really encourage people to look at his Are Illegal Aliens Also The People thread. What a nutty idea, recognizing the constitutional rights of illegal aliens, including the right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, what a magnificent and uniquely American one.

 

I'm actually with you both on MOST of this, but, I'm still noodling over the right to vote. I would suggest that anyone participating in our political process ought to have skin in the game by at least being legally bound by the decisions that they're voting upon. Rights of repatriation to their home country kinda seem like an "out" that might incent some to vote for an issue, cause a massive change, and then leave before the change has a chance to impact them.

 

I haven't finished thinking it thru, but, it's where I am on the subject right now.

I'm not a libertarian. It's too hard and can get you In all sorts of trouble...

 

I found the solution to that problem. Just don't be a very good libertarian. Real ones would mostly consider me too much of a big government guy. That's probably because on some issues, I share Mark's view of them. Particularly with respect to rules about common property resources. Markets can't allocate those efficiently, no matter how libertarians may wish they could. And markets can't prevent the fights that will result when one person fucks with another person's water. Governments can do that.

It's impossible for anyone to live an absolutist philosophy. Most libertarians I know, and even their Austrian heroes, carve out exceptions for stuff that markets, logically and demonstrably, can't do. It's the out and out hypocrites with zero insight that piss me off.
Link to post
Share on other sites

RTP is easier to keep straight, actually. I fully believe in it as a concept but utterly disagree with the attempting to use it as a rational to conduct wars in places Powers feels we need to bring about regime change.

 

One of the old cold warrior theorists, I think it was Lind, once said that the US should beat the crap out of some third world shit hole once or twice a decade, whether it needed it or not, just to keep the "others" in line. I have no objections to doing the same thing but to the nations that are indulging in a bit of genocide. The trick is in picking the doable ones, not necessarily the worst and almost certainly not all that might crop up. "R2P" would make us hypocrites, so it must be abandoned.

 

We must start acknowledging out limitations and I think this would be a good baby-steps exercise in gently suggesting to our politicians that we do indeed have some. It also re-introduces the old idea of "foolish consistency".

Yes, I remember reading about Lind's theory in junior high school. Myself, I believe in the transformative power of trade. We don't live in fear of Red China because of trade. We are beginning to fear the NeoSovs because they undervalue trade. We are having a rapprochement with Iran which will allow trade.

 

If you look at our post-1945 wars:

 

Korean War

Intervention in Lebanon

Bay of Pigs

Dominican Civil War

Vietnam

Shaba II (I've never heard of this).

Lebanon (again)

Grenada

Panama

Gulf War

Somalia

Haiti

Bosnia

Kosovo

Afghanistan

Iraq

Libya

Obama's Don't Do Stupid Stuff doctrine begins to make sense. It's the opposite of Lind's Do Regularly Scheduled Stupid Stuff

or this year's improvement Do Regularly Scheduled Stupid Stuff Now With Enhanced Genocide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's the strange disconnect in Obama's foreign policy. He says "don't do stupid stuff" but then let's Hillary's people try to do stupid stuff all over the place. However, when they cause enough trouble that it comes to his desk, he has checked them and frustrated the hell out of them most of the time.

 

They thought they had him trapped into intervention in Syria, but then he goes for the Russian proposal to remove the CW. He crafts and obvious silliness of training Freedom Fighters in Turkey with standards so high that years in there were only a few dozen guys accepted and most of them were predictably wiped out a few weeks ago when they finally tried to do something. That program is a sop to no only guys like Graham and McCain, but his "own" people, Powers and Rice!

 

They have been attempting to get us into the Ukraine too, but what has Obama done? He has the Army publicly saying only stuff that makes that hard to do. Odierno's frustration with that was shown by the first thing he said when he had officially retired. "Russia is our biggest threat!" I'll bet he was under orders to keep that shit stowed away when he was in.

 

Afghanistan was stupid stuff they sought to coerce Obama into as well. However the fact we still hadn't gotten Bin Laden weighed in. Obama's instincts were good, he made them spend a few months creating "other options" before he green lighted it, but in the end we have probably done something useless and stupid and expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with ALL that.

 

I would add as an explanation that I think Obama has learned from Afghanistan not to trust or defer to his military advisors. Total rookie mistake. I think if Obama had a mulligan, that 2015 Obama would tell 2008 Obama to keep a lid on that shit. There was/is no way to "win" Afghanistan.

 

Still three things have to be factored in though.

  1. OBL
  2. economy in shambles
  3. rookie

By comparison, H was definitely not a rookie. So instead we got the Persian Gulf War (entirely avoidable), Panama (say what?) and Somalia (WTF!?). On the other hand, as you've pointed out, his people handled the wind down of the Cold War well with the scraping up of Eastern European nukes.

 

I think Obama has learned a lot and gotten a lot of things right. I don't know when he said Don't Do Stupid Shit. I might track that down. But you don't make four stars with a resume of Don't Do Stupid Shit. That's why we have civilian control of the military.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this thread is going to become the "how to be a proper interventionist" thread, it should at least have a shitfight. Let's see...

 

 

 


Still H was supposed to be this 'realist' and Somalia was completely nutty.

 

 

 

Ummm....

 

 

... GHWB was ok but Somalia was really stupid.


No it wasn't.

 

 

It's been a few years. You guys ready for round two?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with ALL that.

 

I would add as an explanation that I think Obama has learned from Afghanistan not to trust or defer to his military advisors. Total rookie mistake. I think if Obama had a mulligan, that 2015 Obama would tell 2008 Obama to keep a lid on that shit. There was/is no way to "win" Afghanistan.

 

Still three things have to be factored in though.

  1. OBL
  2. economy in shambles
  3. rookie

By comparison, H was definitely not a rookie. So instead we got the Persian Gulf War (entirely avoidable), Panama (say what?) and Somalia (WTF!?). On the other hand, as you've pointed out, his people handled the wind down of the Cold War well with the scraping up of Eastern European nukes.

 

I think Obama has learned a lot and gotten a lot of things right. I don't know when he said Don't Do Stupid Shit. I might track that down. But you don't make four stars with a resume of Don't Do Stupid Shit. That's why we have civilian control of the military.

 

Gulf War one was potentially avoidable, but it wasn't. Automatically accepting responsibility for the actions of other nations reflects "American rules the world" thinking, which I'm not sure you wish to subscribe to.

 

Panama was a clean up of cold war dictatorship supporting. It wasn't technically legal but it wasn't simply us throwing our weight around just for the hell of it. A hostile regime in the worlds most critical canal could easily result in a vastly more expensive and bloody invasion down the road. We shouldn't kid ourselves that we would tolerate its closure or destruction.

 

The reason we went into Somalia has been forgotten. We have become unable to accept anything but the events in Mogadishu at the end all be all story, which utterly misses the point. Such is the power of political gamesmanship and Hollywood working effectively (if accidentally) in concert. So it goes...

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Somalia, the Cold War was over and the Russkis pulled out (they'd been kind of a satellite) leaving a power vacuum. Yeah, so then it was on The News Hour every night and Charlayne Hunter Gault made it her mission that we hear about it every night. Not a good enough reason to send in the Marines. At least, Clinton learned from that and avoided sending the Marines into Rwanda.

 

I don't get the Cold War angle on Panama. But I'll read up on that.

 

The Gulf War could have been avoided. H + Gillespie were fucking tone deaf idiots. Saddam asked ever so politely. And we should have said loudly, ABSOLUTELY FUCK NO. And then sent the rest of the fleet in. Saber rattling works. The chess maxim is the threat is more powerful than the execution. Worked with Assad. And saber rattling is cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plywood sheets around the world scream in terror at the mere mention of Tom "The Butcher of Fir" Ray.

 

ply-table-14.jpg

 

It has deteriorated significantly since that photo was taken, but I did use it the other day when changing out that valve just above the right end.

 

It is still strong enough to hold small pieces of PVC pipe. Barely. I took a pic but have been saving it for the right moment in the HR thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wa...wa...wait a minute. Changing out the valve? Are you suggesting that the PVC "piping" in that picture is somehow a functional element of your home plumbing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Plywood sheets around the world scream in terror at the mere mention of Tom "The Butcher of Fir" Ray.

 

ply-table-14.jpg

 

It has deteriorated significantly since that photo was taken, but I did use it the other day when changing out that valve just above the right end.

 

It is still strong enough to hold small pieces of PVC pipe. Barely. I took a pic but have been saving it for the right moment in the HR thread.

Tom maybe the next tool you buy should be a whipper snipper. Or what ever they are called in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom maybe the next tool you buy should be a whipper snipper. Or what ever they are called in the US.

 

They're called Illegal Immigrates. They come with an add-on accessory called a Weed Whacker.

 

 

[/stereotype]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm a small-cee conservative. Liberals frighten me and Libertarians do too. Too much ignoring of reality. Nevertheless I think them essential gadflies. Have to have some crazy people in the blue-sky research and grand-strategerizing depts. It's from those who had their eyeballs super-glued to Utopia that most of our societal evolution's ideas came from.

 

Different segments of our political spectrum ignore/discount different realities.

 

I see various versions of "nobody wants to take your guns" on this forum from the left-leaning posters. I generally respond with the reality that powerful people like Governor Cuomo think of confiscation first when asked for a solution on the gun issue. The response is ignored and soon enough another soothing voice comes along to say nobody wants to take your guns.

 

I see various versions of "Democrats respect second amendment rights" too, but our most partisan Dem, Olsonist, has said he wants to repeal the second amendment.

 

 

...I'd rather scratch the Second Amendment and allow guns to be registered and regulated in the same way we register and regulate cars. I'm not opposed to guns in general; I just don't see their ownership as a fundamental freedom.

...

 

 

Here's another reality: we've never closed a car registry nor used one to take away previously-legal cars simply because the owner died.

 

Libertarians are not the ones denying those realities. Democrats are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see various versions of "Democrats respect second amendment rights" too, but our most partisan Dem, Olsonist, has said he wants to repeal the second amendment.

 

 

...I'd rather scratch the Second Amendment and allow guns to be registered and regulated in the same way we register and regulate cars. I'm not opposed to guns in general; I just don't see their ownership as a fundamental freedom.

...

 

 

 

This bolded statement is hyperbole. It's more dishonesty, too.

To "scratch" the Second Amendment is not to "repeal" the Second Amendment.

 

Tom Ray Posted 29 January 2015 - 06:48 PM

 

I'll teach you how to quote what I actually say instead of making it up if you like.

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163210&page=5#entry4827120>
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, I appreciate the thought but yes, I would like to repeal the Second Amendment.

We regulate lotsa tools. Guns be no different. Nothing special about the guns.

For example, I don't think a wife beater is protecting my freedom with his guns. Tom thinks differently.

 

As for being the most partisan Dem, dunno. I am a partisan liberal/Democrat/progressive but I've never measured off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, I appreciate the thought but yes, I would like to repeal the Second Amendment.

We regulate lotsa tools. Guns be no different. Nothing special about the guns.

For example, I don't think a wife beater is protecting my freedom with his guns. Tom thinks differently.

 

As for being the most partisan Dem, dunno. I am a partisan liberal/Democrat/progressive but I've never measured off.

 

I truly admire your courage, in being so candid. Deep down, I may agree, but I have taken the diplomatic tack to scratch now, and amend (if necessary) later.

Meanwhile, the gun problem is snowballing.

 

I'm a gunowner ashamed of (and horrified by) the present gun culture.

If the monster snowball wipes out the NRA and SAF, and moderate gunowners use damage control, the Second might be okay, long-term.

But I doubt it, because of the absolutist roots of Larry Pratt and the GOA.

The 2nd never did sound right to me, as presented. And its 23 words do not support gun fever or gun casualty epidemics.

Those words speak to an outdated militia function. And tyrant-fighting is the opposite of nation building.

 

The basis of the SAFseems rotten. It is NOT supported by the Federalist Papers, or by true historians, or by true constitutional scholars.

Alan Gottlieb says the SAF is supported by John R. Lott first and foremost, which is inherently scary. Likewise, Scalia's product seems half-baked to me.

 

 

 

This week, I'm counting more than a half dozen well-spoken anarchists who are intelligently posting thoughts about managing guns better.

It wasn't like that before Adam Lanza et al. The guns in the USA are speaking out.

Heller fever and Heller logic is rapidly destroying the gun community, IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Plywood sheets around the world scream in terror at the mere mention of Tom "The Butcher of Fir" Ray.

 

ply-table-14.jpg

It has deteriorated significantly since that photo was taken, but I did use it the other day when changing out that valve just above the right end.

 

It is still strong enough to hold small pieces of PVC pipe. Barely. I took a pic but have been saving it for the right moment in the HR thread.

 

Tom maybe the next tool you buy should be a whipper snipper. Or what ever they are called in the US.

 

A real (non-hobbyist) Freedom Fighter discovers right quick what tool he actually has to spend the most time using...

 

gerber-22-01945-etool-pick-lg.jpg

 

 

The e-tool. A large step towards acquiring proficiency might be made by getting those pipes where a casual government agent couldn't access them with his NSA surveillance equipment or much much worse...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the plumbing is really just an elaborate decoy. Tom wants the NSA/ATF to see this stuff to better distract them while he exercises some freedom on their asses.

Advantage: Tom Ray!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, I appreciate the thought but yes, I would like to repeal the Second Amendment.

We regulate lotsa tools. Guns be no different. Nothing special about the guns.

For example, I don't think a wife beater is protecting my freedom with his guns. Tom thinks differently.

 

As for being the most partisan Dem, dunno. I am a partisan liberal/Democrat/progressive but I've never measured off.

 

I appreciate your honesty. I think you are not a danger to our other rights, only the one you dislike.

 

I have mentioned that depriving those under a domestic violence restraining order of guns is one of very few gun control measures that has been shown to do any good, so your characterization of my views is completely wrong on that point.

 

People like jocal, who want to pretend that "scratch" doesn't obviously mean "repeal" and who want to damage our second amendment rights while pretending to preserve them, actually put OTHER rights in danger, as shown in my thread about whether illegal immigrants are "the people."

 

"Most partisan" is my perception and you only win because badlat went away. Again, at least you are honest about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I see various versions of "Democrats respect second amendment rights" too, but our most partisan Dem, Olsonist, has said he wants to repeal the second amendment.

 

 

...I'd rather scratch the Second Amendment and allow guns to be registered and regulated in the same way we register and regulate cars. I'm not opposed to guns in general; I just don't see their ownership as a fundamental freedom.

...

 

 

 

This bolded statement is hyperbole. It's more dishonesty, too.

To "scratch" the Second Amendment is not to "repeal" the Second Amendment.

 

 

Turns out my perception was correct, as verified by Olsonist himself.

 

So who is being dishonest about what he meant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The broken pipe was under the concrete slab underneath a house on concrete pilings that I use for my office. Digging it up with a shovel would be a process taking years. Doing it with an excavator of some kind might have been possible, but would have been very stupid. So I didn't.

 

So now that plumbing problems are solved, who is a "real" Freedom Fighter in your book?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, you worry about, and talk about, confiscation quite a bit.

It occupies a large part of your consciousness.

And ah, you worry about Cuomo this month, big-time, but worried about Bloomberg for months before that.

You tell lots of fibs for guns, and claim that many hold beliefs which they disavow.

You think the government barbequed David Koresh and his group, and prefer AW's for confronting tyrants (and for impending post-hurricane breakdowns).

You are loud, effusive, uninformed, and dishonest in supporting the high rate of gun suicides in the USA.

You don't mind repeatedly presenting confusion with unacceptable, amateurish, meaningless gun stats.

You are in the loop about black activists with guns...and I have found that you are not above extended race-baiting.

You seem to be a quaint little fellow, Tom.

 

 

 

Yeah, I know. Quite possibly the worst messenger ever.

 

But at least I can tell at a glance WTF Olsonist is talking about.

 

I don't want our second amendment repealed, nor even scratched and dented prior to repeal as you want. Sorry you find this attitude inconvenient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I call you out on your non stop bullshit because you are a liar who is incapable of making an argument without some kind of distortion or bogus assumption, not because I am a troll. You have no idea what I think, but that won't stop you from making it up and arguing against it. I am content to leave you alone and let you spew your lies to anyone who wants to listen to them, but if you spew shit about me, I will confront you about it, and I will confront you about this until you retract your statement and apologize for lying about me.

 

 

I asked about what you thought of Dylan Roof's actions because I really can't tell whether or not you think he did anything wrong. Even in this thread, you seem more sympathetic to the guy who shot the two journalists than to the people he killed.

 

 

Fuck off, troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The broken pipe was under the concrete slab underneath a house on concrete pilings that I use for my office. Digging it up with a shovel would be a process taking years. Doing it with an excavator of some kind might have been possible, but would have been very stupid. So I didn't.

 

So now that plumbing problems are solved, who is a "real" Freedom Fighter in your book?

 

 

Leaving the old pipes be doesn't preclude installing a new underground system. The mini excavators run about $280 a day. In a day and a day is a loooonnnngggg ditch when you only have to go a couple feet deep. Fill-back is a hell of a lot easier and and excavator is sorta clumsy with that (one of the reasons they make "backhoes") so you only really want it for one day. Unlikely you will be able to dig it, install it, and backfill in one day yourself and unlikely you will need more than four hours to dig the ditch so I'd check around with some neighbors and see if they have any small projects and maybe split the cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I faired a big boat keel once. Laser cut my templates straight from NACA airfoil templates. Boy, I thought the world of myself going in.

The lesson I learned coming out the other side was that there's no tool too expensive that I wouldn't buy to shorten that time.

 

ps: tools.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The broken pipe was under the concrete slab underneath a house on concrete pilings that I use for my office. Digging it up with a shovel would be a process taking years. Doing it with an excavator of some kind might have been possible, but would have been very stupid. So I didn't.

 

So now that plumbing problems are solved, who is a "real" Freedom Fighter in your book?

 

 

Leaving the old pipes be doesn't preclude installing a new underground system. ...

 

 

Leaving the concrete slab be does.

 

Who is a "real" Freedom Fighter in your book?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I call you out on your non stop bullshit because you are a liar who is incapable of making an argument without some kind of distortion or bogus assumption, not because I am a troll. You have no idea what I think, but that won't stop you from making it up and arguing against it. I am content to leave you alone and let you spew your lies to anyone who wants to listen to them, but if you spew shit about me, I will confront you about it, and I will confront you about this until you retract your statement and apologize for lying about me.

 

 

I asked about what you thought of Dylan Roof's actions because I really can't tell whether or not you think he did anything wrong. Even in this thread, you seem more sympathetic to the guy who shot the two journalists than to the people he killed.

 

 

Fuck off, troll.

 

 

Wow, Sol not being cryptic and Tom swearing. We should bookmark this one.

 

Good call Sol.

 

From now on ... "Better call Sol"

 

 

I think he's a funny troll.

 

I have no idea what he thinks, but he can tell that I support murderers.

 

If someone like Moe who I respect despite our differences on tools said such a thing, I'd reconsider my actions. But I doubt Moe shares Troll's belief that I support murderers just because I support second amendment rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My list of detractors grows. Jocal, random, Troll Rosenberg, Hiney...

 

I'm pretty proud of the list.

 

 

 

We kicked the English out. And by "we" I mean in part the great body of yeomanry, which is the meaning of militia here.

Deflection and refusal to answer = no answer. There's a lot of rightwing bully boy fuckwits on here but I really thought Tommy Boy had an essence of decency and honesty despite his warped view of humanity. Seems I'm wrong and he's just another ignorant arsehole.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I call you out on your non stop bullshit because you are a liar who is incapable of making an argument without some kind of distortion or bogus assumption, not because I am a troll. You have no idea what I think, but that won't stop you from making it up and arguing against it. I am content to leave you alone and let you spew your lies to anyone who wants to listen to them, but if you spew shit about me, I will confront you about it, and I will confront you about this until you retract your statement and apologize for lying about me.

 

 

I asked about what you thought of Dylan Roof's actions because I really can't tell whether or not you think he did anything wrong. Even in this thread, you seem more sympathetic to the guy who shot the two journalists than to the people he killed.

 

 

Fuck off, troll.

 

 

He's making a good point, Tom. Actually, several of them. However, IMO Sol overlooked your narcissist motives.

 

Your position on suicide is so outlandish, I noted no "sarcasm" as you recently seemed

 

 

more sympathetic to the guy who shot the two journalists than to the people he killed.

Separate from that, to find "convenience" in one's consideration of gun suicides as part of the gun problem is over the top.

It's sociopathic.

 

I think of you as a third grade female, in a dress, twirling about in giddiness, while saying fooling nonsense.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I see various versions of "Democrats respect second amendment rights" too, but our most partisan Dem, Olsonist, has said he wants to repeal the second amendment.

 

 

...I'd rather scratch the Second Amendment and allow guns to be registered and regulated in the same way we register and regulate cars. I'm not opposed to guns in general; I just don't see their ownership as a fundamental freedom.

...

 

 

 

This bolded statement is hyperbole. It's more dishonesty, too.

To "scratch" the Second Amendment is not to "repeal" the Second Amendment.

 

 

Turns out my perception was correct, as verified by Olsonist himself.

 

So who is being dishonest about what he meant?

 

 

I'm not going to presume what Olsonist "meant." I'll just go with what he said in the quote (which you chose).

 

And Tom, you have misquoted me recently on the Second, possibly by not reading my posts. I've been asked if I wanted the Second gone. My words were "I'm afraid so," followed by my reasoning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Delete this? I think it's funny. And if it went away, where would I drop this?

 

 

you-can-tell-more-about-a-person-by-what

 

 

 

I try to be selective, and descriptive, and on-point with any name-calling.

(Why did JFK call the steel barons "SOB's"? "Because it felt so good.")

 

What I "have to say" about Tom Ray is best expressed by contrasting the words of Tom Ray.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The broken pipe was under the concrete slab underneath a house on concrete pilings that I use for my office. Digging it up with a shovel would be a process taking years. Doing it with an excavator of some kind might have been possible, but would have been very stupid. So I didn't.

 

So now that plumbing problems are solved, who is a "real" Freedom Fighter in your book?

 

 

Leaving the old pipes be doesn't preclude installing a new underground system. ...

 

 

Leaving the concrete slab be does.

 

Who is a "real" Freedom Fighter in your book?

 

 

 

Nonsense. All that green stuff isn't growing out of concrete, and....

 

Tools!

 

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Evolution-Power-Tools-12-in-Corded-Portable-Concrete-Saw-DISCCUT1/203661799?cm_mmc=Shopping%7cBase&gclid=CN_P7rem28cCFZKGfgodnKAM2w&gclsrc=aw.ds

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I call you out on your non stop bullshit because you are a liar who is incapable of making an argument without some kind of distortion or bogus assumption, not because I am a troll. You have no idea what I think, but that won't stop you from making it up and arguing against it. I am content to leave you alone and let you spew your lies to anyone who wants to listen to them, but if you spew shit about me, I will confront you about it, and I will confront you about this until you retract your statement and apologize for lying about me.

 

 

I asked about what you thought of Dylan Roof's actions because I really can't tell whether or not you think he did anything wrong. Even in this thread, you seem more sympathetic to the guy who shot the two journalists than to the people he killed.

 

 

Fuck off, troll.

 

 

Wow, Sol not being cryptic and Tom swearing. We should bookmark this one.

 

Good call Sol.

 

From now on ... "Better call Sol"

 

 

I think he's a funny troll.

 

I have no idea what he thinks, but he can tell that I support murderers.

 

If someone like Moe who I respect despite our differences on tools said such a thing, I'd reconsider my actions. But I doubt Moe shares Troll's belief that I support murderers just because I support second amendment rights.

 

 

 

Set the murderous support, if any, aside, Tom.

You are indifferent to the high rates of gun suicide in the USA. (Ovah and ovah, shamelessly.)

You marginalize the teen suicide spike by concluding "the problem doesn't apply to adults." WTF?

You can be quoted that 700 gun accidents per year are "a handful".

You claim the violent crime problem is "abating", but gun deaths per 100k suggest a straw man trick there.

You deny that gun control decreases homicides.

You have a one-limit shootah fistfight attack threshold (after that you would fire your precious).

Tyrants need AW bullet holes in them, not just six shooter bullet holes.

Private gun transfers are okay; and cgun show loopholes don't exist, already.

Asked to comment on our high gun violence rates, you kinda said "Some are this, some are that. Ho hum."

 

Of course, none of these statements supports murder. IMO we don't need to discuss imagined slights or murderous twisted panties here. Not at all.

Because each example above seems to show a consistent indifference to gun deaths and gun injuries.

Put together, these behaviors may confirm that indifference.

 

What's up with indifference to our gun violence epidemic?

Link to post
Share on other sites