Gun ownership

[crazyhorse1]

I ... don't particularly want my kids gunned down by some juvenile yahoo.

So you support Democratic policies, which arm the criminals and unarm citizens and that makes you feel safer about your kids? OK.

Check the stats. Once of the most dangerous things you can do for your family is bring a gun in the house-- much more dangerous than not having one.

Check the real stats, not the left spin. You only make that work by ONLY counting actual shootings and ignoring situations where no shots are fired and crimes are prevented, which massively tilts the favor toward guns.

Or are you saying your daughter being raped in her bed is OK with you as long as no one is shot?

Where can I get a copy of these real stats?

[crazyhorse1]

So, you believe private citizens should be able to own nucluear arms and fighter planes. How about tanks? Cluster bombs?

Good question. This is why you are more fun to debate then most of your liberal brethren. Do I WANT people to own those things? No.

But your phrasing isn't right, my position is I don't believe it's governments role to stop them. Government in no way needs to enable them to do so, so I'm not clear how they will accomplish those things.

I also am more afraid of giving government the power to restrict our rights then I am of people figuring out how to own things I don't want them to own. As someone who lives in hysterical fear you cannot call Yemen and discuss bomb making without potential NSA attention I would think you would understand that fear.

On the flip side, do you believe a woman should be able to murder a viable 9 month old baby as long as she hasn't delivered yet by sucking it's brains out as the Democratic party does? Do you believe a child, who can't get an aspirin from a school nurse without their parents approval should be able to get an abortion without their parents permission or even knowledge as the Democratic party does?

Partial birth abortion is not advocated by the Democratic Party. Nor do most democratics or republicans support it. As for me and my liberal friends, we support adoption as an alternative to abortion, as well as universal health care that will facilitate it. Also, very few of my liberal friends want to destroy the constitutional right to bear arms, but do support legistlation that will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and children. For instance, we have the technology now to create weapons that can only be fired by their legal owners: thumb print locks, etc.
There are many traditional problems that in the past were divisive that don't have to be now, such as the two above. That is why many of us feel that the word "progressive" defines our position. Unfortunately, present day liberals are much more open to "progressive" ideas than are present day conservatives. This Bush administration is more or less the heart of darkness. Not only is it anti-progressive, it is committed to rolling back basic human rights. Virtually all of domestic policies have the effect of returning the US to the days of the robber barons, when government colluded openly with the rich to economically enslave ninety percent of the population.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I ... don't particularly want my kids gunned down by some juvenile yahoo.

So you support Democratic policies, which arm the criminals and unarm citizens and that makes you feel safer about your kids? OK.

Check the stats. Once of the most dangerous things you can do for your family is bring a gun in the house-- much more dangerous than not having one.

Check the real stats, not the left spin. You only make that work by ONLY counting actual shootings and ignoring situations where no shots are fired and crimes are prevented, which massively tilts the favor toward guns.

Or are you saying your daughter being raped in her bed is OK with you as long as no one is shot?

Where can I get a copy of these real stats?

I will provide, but since you're interested in reviewing sources can you show me your's first since you provided the first stat? What did you base "Check the stats. Once of the most dangerous things you can do for your family is bring a gun in the house-- much more dangerous than not having one" on? And I will provide mine. I already have some bookmarked, just want to do this in order.

[KazooSkinsFan]

On the flip side, do you believe a woman should be able to murder a viable 9 month old baby as long as she hasn't delivered yet by sucking it's brains out as the Democratic party does? Do you believe a child, who can't get an aspirin from a school nurse without their parents approval should be able to get an abortion without their parents permission or even knowledge as the Democratic party does?

Partial birth abortion is not advocated by the Democratic Party. Nor do most democratics or republicans support it. As for me and my liberal friends, we support adoption as an alternative to abortion, as well as universal health care that will facilitate it. Also, very few of my liberal friends want to destroy the constitutional right to bear arms, but do support legistlation that will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and children. For instance, we have the technology now to create weapons that can only be fired by their legal owners: thumb print locks, etc.
There are many traditional problems that in the past were divisive that don't have to be now, such as the two above. That is why many of us feel that the word "progressive" defines our position. Unfortunately, present day liberals are much more open to "progressive" ideas than are present day conservatives. This Bush administration is more or less the heart of darkness. Not only is it anti-progressive, it is committed to rolling back basic human rights. Virtually all of domestic policies have the effect of returning the US to the days of the robber barons, when government colluded openly with the rich to economically enslave ninety percent of the population.

This is a bunch of left spin. Democrats oppose ANY restriction on abortion. I am pro-choice with two exceptions, I oppose partial birth abortion of a viable baby and believe in parental concent, not just notification. Liberals always talk about "what about incest" and stuff like that, which is a non-answer because we have the police and courts for that, we're talking pregnant teen here where stupidity and not a crime occured.

You argue Democrats don't WANT people to get partial birth abortions. Dude, my point is they oppose all restrictions including murdering a viable baby and you just spun that away rather then addressing it.

[1niksder]

So, you believe private citizens should be able to own nucluear arms and fighter planes. How about tanks? Cluster bombs?

Good question. This is why you are more fun to debate then most of your liberal brethren. Do I WANT people to own those things? No.

But your phrasing isn't right, my position is I don't believe it's governments role to stop them. Government in no way needs to enable them to do so, so I'm not clear how they will accomplish those things.

I tried to buy a Styker and all kinds of guys in black suits showed up. Funny thing is - it was a online purchase

[KazooSkinsFan]

So, you believe private citizens should be able to own nucluear arms and fighter planes. How about tanks? Cluster bombs?

Good question. This is why you are more fun to debate then most of your liberal brethren. Do I WANT people to own those things? No.

But your phrasing isn't right, my position is I don't believe it's governments role to stop them. Government in no way needs to enable them to do so, so I'm not clear how they will accomplish those things.

I tried to buy a Styker and all kinds of guys in black suits showed up. Funny thing is - it was a online purchase

I bet they sell a lot of those online.

On a serious note, the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate international trade, negotiate treaties and regulate interstate commerce. They are not powerless to let peple buy MIGs or nuclear fuel just because I don't want to give them the power to regulate all gun sales.

[crazyhorse1]

I ... don't particularly want my kids gunned down by some juvenile yahoo.

So you support Democratic policies, which arm the criminals and unarm citizens and that makes you feel safer about your kids? OK.

Check the stats. Once of the most dangerous things you can do for your family is bring a gun in the house-- much more dangerous than not having one.

Check the real stats, not the left spin. You only make that work by ONLY counting actual shootings and ignoring situations where no shots are fired and crimes are prevented, which massively tilts the favor toward guns.

Or are you saying your daughter being raped in her bed is OK with you as long as no one is shot?

Where can I get a copy of these real stats?

I will provide, but since you're interested in reviewing sources can you show me your's first since you provided the first stat? What did you base "Check the stats. Once of the most dangerous things you can do for your family is bring a gun in the house-- much more dangerous than not having one" on? And I will provide mine. I already have some bookmarked, just want to do this in order.

Here's a little starter article for you on the dangers of having a gun in the home. Let me know if you need more? You might also reflect on why the NRA and gun advocates don't want thumb print locks on firearms-- since almost all child deaths can be easily prevented.

http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/safetyfi ... safety.htm

[KazooSkinsFan]

I will provide, but since you're interested in reviewing sources can you show me your's first since you provided the first stat? What did you base "Check the stats. Once of the most dangerous things you can do for your family is bring a gun in the house-- much more dangerous than not having one" on? And I will provide mine. I already have some bookmarked, just want to do this in order.

Here's a little starter article for you on the dangers of having a gun in the home. Let me know if you need more? You might also reflect on why the NRA and gun advocates don't want thumb print locks on firearms-- since almost all child deaths can be easily prevented.

http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/safetyfi ... safety.htm

Um..."little starter" was a good description of this article. "very little" would have been more accurate. Is this the sort of evidence you used to support your dissertation? There are no stats at all here other then the vague and unsupported "up to 43 times more." And that is in reference supporting my point, you are only looking at actual shootings and totally ignoring prevented crimes.

You consider this compelling to anyone not already supporting this view? I agree it supports the no duh point that you keep guns away from children and educate everyone in your house on what to do and not to do if you see them. But I have been around guns my whole life and know no one who was ever shot by accident.

This is no more then an obvious article which in no way begins to suppor your contention having them is more dangerous then not. It only supports that it can be more dangerous for stupid people then not having them.

[1niksder]

But I have been around guns my whole life and know no one who was ever shot by accident.

I can't say that... There was this guy from Alaska, anyway I still don't know how he made it out of basic training. Other than him I think most people can make this statement.

[Cappster]

I keep my gun loaded next to my bed. I do not keep one in the chamber though. I know that it may scare you Crazyhorse but oh well. I do not have any kids so "safety" like that is not an issue with me. I am not in favor biometrics on ALL hand guns. Mainly because the cost of guns would sky rocket and the technology is unreliable. I think the best course of action for a parent is to teach their kids gun safety. I knew where my parents pistol was when I was growing up but I never touched it because I knew better.

[crazyhorse1]

I will provide, but since you're interested in reviewing sources can you show me your's first since you provided the first stat? What did you base "Check the stats. Once of the most dangerous things you can do for your family is bring a gun in the house-- much more dangerous than not having one" on? And I will provide mine. I already have some bookmarked, just want to do this in order.

Here's a little starter article for you on the dangers of having a gun in the home. Let me know if you need more? You might also reflect on why the NRA and gun advocates don't want thumb print locks on firearms-- since almost all child deaths can be easily prevented.

http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/safetyfi ... safety.htm

Um..."little starter" was a good description of this article. "very little" would have been more accurate. Is this the sort of evidence you used to support your dissertation? There are no stats at all here other then the vague and unsupported "up to 43 times more." And that is in reference supporting my point, you are only looking at actual shootings and totally ignoring prevented crimes.

You consider this compelling to anyone not already supporting this view? I agree it supports the no duh point that you keep guns away from children and educate everyone in your house on what to do and not to do if you see them. But I have been around guns my whole life and know no one who was ever shot by accident.

This is no more then an obvious article which in no way begins to suppor your contention having them is more dangerous then not. It only supports that it can be more dangerous for stupid people then not having them.

Your idea that guns prevent crimes has no statistical evidence behind it for the simple reason you can't prove why something didn't happen. By the way, while I'm working on other means of showing why your intuition is way off, you might want to check out your other intruitive notion that conservatives think better than liberals. Here's a little chart that shows that all the way through hight school and graduate school dems outshine republicans, except as undergraduates, where republicans do only slightly better.

http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/safetyfi ... safety.htm

[1niksder]

I keep my gun loaded next to my bed. I do not keep one in the chamber though. I know that it may scare you Crazyhorse but oh well. I do not have any kids so "safety" like that is not an issue with me. I am not in favor biometrics on ALL hand guns. Mainly because the cost of guns would sky rocket and the technology is unreliable. I think the best course of action for a parent is to teach their kids gun safety. I knew where my parents pistol was when I was growing up but I never touched it because I knew better.

I used to feel the same way, while in Somolia my ex-wife shot and missed a "intruder' (she kept a .32 on the nightstand). When she turn the lights on she found her sister there for a surprise visit (to this day we don't remeber given her a key). She was carrying her 2 year old daughter. It's been gunsafes for me ever since.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Your idea that guns prevent crimes has no statistical evidence behind it for the simple reason you can't prove why something didn't happen. By the way, while I'm working on other means of showing why your intuition is way off, you might want to check out your other intruitive notion that conservatives think better than liberals. Here's a little chart that shows that all the way through hight school and graduate school dems outshine republicans, except as undergraduates, where republicans do only slightly better.

http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/safetyfi ... safety.htm

Um...First you sent the old link on guns, not a new chart, ironic since you're defending liberal intelligence, and I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.

But to address your point seriously, the issue is not that Democrats don't have intelligence, it's that they don't use it in politics.

I come from an eclectic family (I'm sure that stuns you). My parents are both Republican. My younger brother and I are both libertarian, though he is a member of the actual party and I'm not. My sister is a hard left nut job like you.

Now, my sister has a PhD in Mathematics with her area of expertise being theoretical statistics and you can have some really intelligent conversations with her. Unless you talk politics, she is like the biggest dumb ass liberal in any housing project you'll meet.

Why?

Liberalism is an EMOTIONAL ideology. Liberals will not use their intelligence or logical ability in politics. In fact they revel in not using them. The stronger they all say the same inane thing the more proud they are of their positions.

I think you're probably a lot like my sister, very intelligent and I would probably love to discuss a wide range of issues with you, but with politics you just can't get past the talking points.

[Cappster]

I keep my gun loaded next to my bed. I do not keep one in the chamber though. I know that it may scare you Crazyhorse but oh well. I do not have any kids so "safety" like that is not an issue with me. I am not in favor biometrics on ALL hand guns. Mainly because the cost of guns would sky rocket and the technology is unreliable. I think the best course of action for a parent is to teach their kids gun safety. I knew where my parents pistol was when I was growing up but I never touched it because I knew better.

I used to feel the same way, while in Somolia my ex-wife shot and missed a "intruder' (she kept a .32 on the nightstand). When she turn the lights on she found her sister there for a surprise visit (to this day we don't remeber given her a key). She was carrying her 2 year old daughter. It's been gunsafes for me ever since.

That is why you identify what you are shooting at first. I won't pull the trigger until I know who it is inside of my house. That is why I have a tactical gun light mounted to my pistol.

[1niksder]

I keep my gun loaded next to my bed. I do not keep one in the chamber though. I know that it may scare you Crazyhorse but oh well. I do not have any kids so "safety" like that is not an issue with me. I am not in favor biometrics on ALL hand guns. Mainly because the cost of guns would sky rocket and the technology is unreliable. I think the best course of action for a parent is to teach their kids gun safety. I knew where my parents pistol was when I was growing up but I never touched it because I knew better.

I used to feel the same way, while in Somolia my ex-wife shot and missed a "intruder' (she kept a .32 on the nightstand). When she turn the lights on she found her sister there for a surprise visit (to this day we don't remeber given her a key). She was carrying her 2 year old daughter. It's been gunsafes for me ever since.

That is why you identify what you are shooting at first. I won't pull the trigger until I know who it is inside of my house. That is why I have a tactical gun light mounted to my pistol.

No matter how much prevention you throw up accidents will happen, we were lucky. My ex wife was in the Army at the time and had been trained to handle larger weapons but felt comfortable with the smaller .32. She saw what she was shooting at, her sister is just lucky she didn't put her glasses on before she aimed

She prefers a .38 now but it's something the two of them will never forget. From what I've heard they go to a range together in NC every now and then.

[crazyhorse1]

Your idea that guns prevent crimes has no statistical evidence behind it for the simple reason you can't prove why something didn't happen. By the way, while I'm working on other means of showing why your intuition is way off, you might want to check out your other intruitive notion that conservatives think better than liberals. Here's a little chart that shows that all the way through hight school and graduate school dems outshine republicans, except as undergraduates, where republicans do only slightly better.

http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/safetyfi ... safety.htm

Um...First you sent the old link on guns, not a new chart, ironic since you're defending liberal intelligence, and I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.

But to address your point seriously, the issue is not that Democrats don't have intelligence, it's that they don't use it in politics.

I come from an eclectic family (I'm sure that stuns you). My parents are both Republican. My younger brother and I are both libertarian, though he is a member of the actual party and I'm not. My sister is a hard left nut job like you.

Now, my sister has a PhD in Mathematics with her area of expertise being theoretical statistics and you can have some really intelligent conversations with her. Unless you talk politics, she is like the biggest dumb ass liberal in any housing project you'll meet.

Why?

Liberalism is an EMOTIONAL ideology. Liberals will not use their intelligence or logical ability in politics. In fact they revel in not using them. The stronger they all say the same inane thing the more proud they are of their positions.

I think you're probably a lot like my sister, very intelligent and I would probably love to discuss a wide range of issues with you, but with politics you just can't get past the talking points.

Liberalism is an ideology requiring emphathy. Empathy is a characteristic of a superior brain, one that isn't locked into brute self interest as is the brain of lower animals. There's a reason that conservative regimes easily become fascistic and/or jingoistic under threat, as well as like dogs defending their food bowls when the underclass gets hungry.

[welch]

Before, outside, and around the generic politcal talkj (all liberals think what?), our friend from the UK asked, what is the American fascination with guns?

An honest answer is that, because there are about 150 million Americans old enough to have an opinion, there are, consequently, about 200 million different opinions. (Yes, I borrowed that from William Morris.)

I would answer by asking why, in the apparently normal city of Bradield, there seeems to be an endless supply of serial killers? Why are serial killers running amok in every English village, town, and city, from "Midsomer" to the metropolis? Every one except, may, Dibley in the last 15 years, and Hastings during WW 2?

- My answer is that Hollywood likes guns, and always has, so that foreigners get a slightly skewed idea of life here. Yes, the police are armed, but they hardly ever shoot anybody. Even in New York, with 8 million people, it is a big deal if a police officer has to fire their weapon.

- People who worry about being burlarized usually get a dog. People who own guns usually have them locked down, as many have mentioned, and keep guns for recreational shooting at ranges. That goes even for my friend who has a large gun collection, and who has a son in the NYPD.

- On the comforting Anglo-American myth of the "armed citizenry", see Edmund Morgan, "Inventing the People", ch 7, "The People in Arms: the
Invincible Yeoman". Interesting point: the Continental Army, which beat the redcoats, was essentially a regular army. Washington's first job was to train the Continentals into a disciplined army that could stand and fight. Skipping four-score and seven years, both the Union and Confederate armies were uselessly bumbling mobs during the first year of the Civil War. By 1862, both sides had trained their forces like the Regular Army. Gettysburg was not fought by the militia. The US Army watched the Prussians carefully, and transformed the various local militia companies into the National Guard. Where is the Second Amendment? In the ARNG. (Doubt it? Who took Omaha Beach? Look nearby: it was the 29th Division, Maryland/Virginia National Guard). The basic US defense startegy was always that it would take an enemy a year to transfer a sizable army across the Atlantic, and that the US could train a bigger army within that year.

- "Philosophy" of crime and safety? If your community needs to depend on the police, then the social network has already broken down. See Jane Jacobs, "Death and Life of Great American Cities", for details on how neighborhoods "police themselves".

[KazooSkinsFan]

duplicate

[KazooSkinsFan]

Your idea that guns prevent crimes has no statistical evidence behind it for the simple reason you can't prove why something didn't happen. By the way, while I'm working on other means of showing why your intuition is way off, you might want to check out your other intruitive notion that conservatives think better than liberals. Here's a little chart that shows that all the way through hight school and graduate school dems outshine republicans, except as undergraduates, where republicans do only slightly better.

http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/safetyfi ... safety.htm

Um...First you sent the old link on guns, not a new chart, ironic since you're defending liberal intelligence, and I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.

But to address your point seriously, the issue is not that Democrats don't have intelligence, it's that they don't use it in politics.

I come from an eclectic family (I'm sure that stuns you). My parents are both Republican. My younger brother and I are both libertarian, though he is a member of the actual party and I'm not. My sister is a hard left nut job like you.

Now, my sister has a PhD in Mathematics with her area of expertise being theoretical statistics and you can have some really intelligent conversations with her. Unless you talk politics, she is like the biggest dumb ass liberal in any housing project you'll meet.

Why?

Liberalism is an EMOTIONAL ideology. Liberals will not use their intelligence or logical ability in politics. In fact they revel in not using them. The stronger they all say the same inane thing the more proud they are of their positions.

I think you're probably a lot like my sister, very intelligent and I would probably love to discuss a wide range of issues with you, but with politics you just can't get past the talking points.

Liberalism is an ideology requiring emphathy. Empathy is a characteristic of a superior brain, one that isn't locked into brute self interest as is the brain of lower animals. There's a reason that conservative regimes easily become fascistic and/or jingoistic under threat, as well as like dogs defending their food bowls when the underclass gets hungry.

OK, but here are the basic issues.

#1 - Your liberal assumption is that empathy = government. I want effective solutions, you want inept government. Sorry, Crazyhorse, this is liberal elitism, most of us want to help people. You claim because other people have other solutions besides government they are not empathetic.

This is liberal santimony I keep talking about.

#2 - Is being blind to the ineffectiveness of your solutions really being empathetic? I say liberals are selfish because it's about the giver, not really helping. Some of the fruits of the liberal tree.

- A welfare program that creates entire family trees of people dependent on government for handouts. And at the same time preaching to those receiving handouts they should have no gratitude at all becuase they are owed handouts.

- A social security program that breeds dependency on government for retirement instead of just being a poverty safety net which discourages self responsiblity in favor of government dependence.

- Attempting to dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the history of man in favor of a socilistic one that provided horrible service equally to everyone. Are you at all aware of the systems in your beloved Canadian and European systems?

- The endless pursuit of discouraging achievement by taking money from people who earned it and creating more programs increasing the dependence of government on those who didn't.

- Whining about gas prices while opposing every initiative to lower them excpet by keeping our troops targets through the middle east.

- Putting our troops in the middle east as a target of terrorists and then tieing their hands so they can't take the battle to the terrorists but only respond to an attack.

- Screeching about green house gases while opposing any realistic solution such as increasing gas prices to reduce automobile use and the only major power alternative nuclear.

- Creating massive international welfare programs that don't help the people they are intended to help, like forgiving debts in African countries of governments who then borrow more to buy weapons and more palaces while helping the people not at all.

Liberalism is not empathy, it is selfish because liberals pat themselves on the back for giving, as you do, and hold the programs to no standard at all of delivering, as you do, and by demogogging anyone who wants to achieve the same solution by another means, as you do.

That, is the reality of liberalism.

[TincoSkin]

i wish this was in smack so i could say what i think of both of you!

your definitions of liberalism are a far cry from any academic understanding of what the left wants or what the democratic party stands for has stood for or was founded to stand for.

if you want to sum up liberal thought in just a few words you would be hard pressed. empathy is not right at all. it assumes that the party is one created by people in a position to be empethetic and does not include those that need help.

it is more a party of hope. hope that we can create a better life for ourselves and our neighbors. hope that we can create a great and civil society that up lifts even the weakest and poorest parts of society to make all of us stronger as a group. liberals believe that government can be used to secure that goal. radical change in our country has often required federal help. during the civil rights era opponents of desegregation and other civil rights legislation demanded along with proponents of a small central government that the states retain the right to make their own decisions regarding the matter. after years of no change and mittigated social progression the government took federal steps to ensure a just society.

that is liberalism at work. use of the federal government to achieve a socially up lifting goal that makes our country stronger in the end.

now conservatives has traditionally believed in a small government. one that governs least. most of the time that is the sign of a healthy society that it takes care of its problems on its own but some times it takes a federal government to step in and direct change.


the problem with where we are right now in national politics is that the right is no longer a small government party. there is a lack of balance between federal expansion and collective decision making. the executive branch is grasping for power and the congress is losing power. where will our country end up if there is no party maintaining the line that a government that governs best is that which governs least.

both liberal and conservative views on government are neccessary to maintain balance in our democracy.

[TincoSkin]

as far as welch bringing the converstaion back on topic, i agree with everything he said adding that i think the real importance of an armed citizenry is that no government can rule us by force when we are so armed.

[KazooSkinsFan]

i wish this was in smack so i could say what i think of both of you!

your definitions of liberalism are a far cry from any academic understanding of what the left wants or what the democratic party stands for has stood for or was founded to stand for.

if you want to sum up liberal thought in just a few words you would be hard pressed. empathy is not right at all. it assumes that the party is one created by people in a position to be empethetic and does not include those that need help.

it is more a party of hope. hope that we can create a better life for ourselves and our neighbors. hope that we can create a great and civil society that up lifts even the weakest and poorest parts of society to make all of us stronger as a group. liberals believe that government can be used to secure that goal. radical change in our country has often required federal help. during the civil rights era opponents of desegregation and other civil rights legislation demanded along with proponents of a small central government that the states retain the right to make their own decisions regarding the matter. after years of no change and mittigated social progression the government took federal steps to ensure a just society.

that is liberalism at work. use of the federal government to achieve a socially up lifting goal that makes our country stronger in the end.

now conservatives has traditionally believed in a small government. one that governs least. most of the time that is the sign of a healthy society that it takes care of its problems on its own but some times it takes a federal government to step in and direct change.


the problem with where we are right now in national politics is that the right is no longer a small government party. there is a lack of balance between federal expansion and collective decision making. the executive branch is grasping for power and the congress is losing power. where will our country end up if there is no party maintaining the line that a government that governs best is that which governs least.

both liberal and conservative views on government are neccessary to maintain balance in our democracy.

Um...did you read my post? I was talking about the reality of liberalism. You go on about the intent, which I addressed and you ignored. You can agree or disagree but you might start by writing a post indicating COMPREHENDING of the point made.

You want to go to smack, let's do it, but I'd think twice if you think this post was more then a nice rant ..... COMPLETETLY missing my point.

[UK Skins Fan]

welch wrote:

I would answer by asking why, in the apparently normal city of Bradield, there seeems to be an endless supply of serial killers? Why are serial killers running amok in every English village, town, and city, from "Midsomer" to the metropolis? Every one except, may, Dibley in the last 15 years, and Hastings during WW 2?

Midsomer is a dangerous place for sure. Who would want to live there?

But where is Bradield?

Oh, and thanks for nearly getting us back on topic.

[welch]

But where is Bradield?

Sorry. Bad case of "typing for too many years with spell-check 'on'".

That was supposed to be "Bradfield". A city somewhat like Newcastle, but a place where you are likely to kidnapped and strangled or stabbed if you go to a pub, wait at a bus-stop, walk in the woods, pray in church outside of services. Home to an odd psychological profiler who advises the local police. Three novels by Val (McDermott?) and "Wire in the Blood".

Serial killers, one after another...so I wonder, how come, in all these last thirty years, New York only had David Berkowitz, the "son of Sam"? Maybe we accidentally shoot our (would have been) serial killers before they get started?

[UK Skins Fan]

Ah - Bradfield! Just as long as we realise that Midsomer and Bradfield aren't real. And Wire in the Blood and Midsomer Murders are not documentaries.