Here we go again. More mass gun violence.

If anyone from 13ABC happens to see this; correct your website. Your headline says the shooting was at a Jewish temple, but the story correctly indicates it occurred at a Sikh temple.

It seems to me lkie a lot of innocent people are dying so that a "well regulated militia" can have unlimited access to their metal phalli.

Oh yeah. It's the gun's fault. As usual. Because mass killings never happen in other countries with strict gun control laws.

Please. For example:

28 Children Stabbed At Kindergarten In China In Copycat Attack

TAIXING, China — The screams of the children inside the kindergarten could be heard out in the street.

When people ran in to investigate, they found what one witness said was a scene "too horrible to imagine" – blood everywhere as a knife-wielding man slashed 29 children, two teachers and a security guard Thursday in the second such school attack in China in two days.

Experts called it a copycat rampage triggered by similar incidents Wednesday and last month. They said the wave of school attacks falls amid poor care for the mentally unstable and growing feelings of social injustice in the fast-changing country.

I suppose the knife was his "metal phalli". Nothing like armchair psychology...

Protest all you want oht. The facts are what they are. Guns are quicker than a knife, obviously. Even an armed police officer couldn't stop 20 shot, seven dead. People who believe that unlimited access to guns is supported by the Constitution are delusional. People who believe thet they could have stopped this guy if they were there and armed are also delusional. The nuts will ALWAYS have the drop on you by surprise. Get real.

Oldhometown,

Don't even waste your breath. People like holland refuse to see even if we didn't have guns these nuts would just use something else.

For example a nice bomb would work nicely. But those are already illegal to own or even produce
, so that would never happen. Just ask the people that died in the OKC bombing and other bombings around the world.

Thank God it was a handgun and not an assault rifle or anything, since anti-gun nuts are the most emotional over-reacting people on the planet. A handgun. A crazy person.

Fix crazy people and we all win.

Try to outlaw guns and only outlaws win. Period.

I'll take the woman from the Luby's shooting's opinion who watched her parents get murdered in front of her while her weapon was elsewhere over the wailing of the scared and uninformed ladies who fear all weapons and give us responsible shooters both constitutional short shrift and zero benefit of the doubt.

You are welcome. People of the US who are too afraid to be prepared... you are welcome. The rest of us will continue to serve as silent sentinel to a much, much wilder society if you took us out of the equation.

It is unfortunate that many gun owners believe that they could somehow reduce gun violence with guns. Every time I see a story about someone being victimized by some thug with a gun, I think what would have happened had more guns been involved. This ain't hollywood folks; that teenage girl shot on the east side this weekend would not have been more safe if the house full of teenagers she was with was armed to the teeth.
And before you get all knee-jerk about it, I, and no progressive or liberal I know, thinks that guns should be outlawed or confiscated - so stop it with the phony accusations about such nonsense.

Oh, I see I was too late. justread has framed out position for us - we want to outlaw all guns. Sheesh. Complex problems don't get solved with bumper sticker solutions.

By their existence, lawful gun owners serve as a chilling effect on gun violence among loser and thugs.
The more thugs that wonder which potential victim is Matt Morland the better.

I had the element of surprise. You couldn't have gotten the jump on me in regard to the position that Holland already framed in her post.

Really: Holland suggests that my weapons are "metal phalli?"
And Progress wants to lay faming at my feet?

Metal Phalli? That's not an emotional response?

Not faming. Framing, of course. As in framing of an emotional argument against gun ownership.

And yeah... the gunman, in possession of a gun that would never make a ban list, was stopped by a man with a gun.

With a bullet. From a gun.

New headline: "Crazy man with gun stopped by sane man with gun."

We as a nation should address the sale of guns and the laws that are on the books and not enforced. No way should a felon, emotionally or mentally ill person be able to buy a gun. And a 3 day wait seems just fine to me.

I'll be honest and tell you I'm a pacifist and will never own a weapon. However, my husband is a life long NRA member and even he thinks there should be background checks on people before purchasing.

We have more people killed by guns every day then many nations of the world have in years. There has to be a link some where to gun availability and shooting and killing.

In WWII my father-in-law, a Quaker was drafted. He served over 5 years as a Army medic and never carried a gun. He served all over Europe with honor.

You can stand on your principles of gun ownership and let others obey the law and own guns. But I fail to see where an AK47 is needed for Trap and Skeet or hunting. If you need multiple automatic rounds perhaps you need to go back to target practice.

Guns have been available for the entire history of this nation. In fact, for much of the history they were a tool in every home.

What has changed is a reduction of empathy, responsibility, morals, respect for human life, and family units which keep sociopaths in check rather than sending them away.

The problem in our society is a people problem. We have more psychos. Please don't mix talk and introduce weapons that were not involved, simply fanning hysteria or suggest that the weapons normal people are the problem.

Ok justread; I'll concede that point - people are nuts - more so now than ever before. But why is this an American phenomenon? Regardless of your position in the whole "gun control" debate; Americans knock each other off with guns at a pace that is way out of proportion with the rest of the world.
So you can have your 2nd amendment - I happen to be fond of it myself. But this is a public policy issue that needs addressing. Is your solution more guns?

It never ceases to amaze me that people think these rifles are fully automatic. It is very rare to see a fully automatic rifle in the US. The weapons used in this case were semi-automatic, which means that the user must pull the trigger after each shot. It is possible that he modified the weapons to be fully automatic, but the Assault Rifles that everyone freaks out about are not actually sold that way.

As for what type of gun one "needs" for hunting or skeet or anything else is irrelevant. It can be argued that no one needs a Ford Expedition to get to and from work and school and that the prevalence of those larger vehicles only endanger the lives of those citizens who drive smaller cars. They are all tools that have legitimate uses if handled properly.

To be honest, I am not sure that we can get things back. I am not a gun nut. I don't have Clint Eastwood fantasies. I don't want to live with having shot somebody. But I look around and I say, "no... I'm not going out like that. And nobody in my presence is going to." I honestly believe that an armed society is more civil, and that if the thugs sense that they have easy pickings they will be more brazen.
I honestly think that we aren't enforcing the laws that we have now. I believe in restrictions against people who are prohibited from owning. It is a privilege for the responsible and non-criminal.
I think that we tend to react and focus on the guns. We do not have a proportionate amount of violence for the number of guns in private hands. We have a huge amount of daily violence in the most desparate areas. Toledo has a shooting every day by some thug who simply doesn't care about anyone but himself. I say him, because they tend to be boys. We also have the rare mass shooting. They seem like they are often. They are certainly terrible. They seem preventable, because of the human element. The statistical reality is that many things threaten us all much more than death at the hands of a gunman. Especially those of us who do not live on Oakwood. (Where laws don't work, never mind gun laws)
If we are going to reduce mass violence of all kinds, we need to move culturally to a greater socialization than is happening with technology based communication and we need to find ways to increase communication and parenting skills in homes. Sure, we will always have the statistically present whacko... texas clock tower... mcveigh.... but the more parents who care about kids and instill a sense of hope and the more we can get kids to connect with one another and not drop out of the mainstream culture the better. I say kids because I think that sociopaths are raised, not suddenly hatched like the manchurian.
Sadly, we are probably screwed. I remain hopeful, yet prepared.

I think guns are used the most for murders because they can be obtained easily. If there was a magical way to make guns harder to obtain, murder causes would shift to another "weapon". Homemade bombs, chemicals, etc. would be used.
I honestly don't think guns are the issue here. Granted that shooting someone is quicker and more deadly than throwing a knife or stabbing someone, but not as quick as a pipe bomb wrapped in nails, etc.
As with many subjects, there is no quick or easy answer. Making guns illegal will only put guns in criminal's hands. Trying to enforce the laws already in place would be a huge start. For instance, if it's your gun and you lose control of it, you should be held accountable.

In 2010 - 32,885 people were killed in the USA due to automobile accidents: (which is actually quite an increase from the preceding years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

In 2010 – there were 14,748 total murders committed in the USA. That includes poisons, beatings, stabbing, shootings and other all forms of mayhem....
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

People should NOT be allowed to drive those violent automobiles!

Oops, in the first sentence above I meant the 32,885 people killed in automobile accidents was a "decrease", not increase. - typo.

So another nutjob killed a pile of people by using a gun.

1) Nutjob would have found another way to do it if he was intent on killing people. Yeah, maybe a knife and as many people may not have been hurt, or maybe a bomb and a lot more would have been hurt.

2) Gun nuts scream about how this wouldn't have happened if everyone was armed and OMG this is a conspiracy by liberals and who-knows-what-else.

3) AC grabs some more beers and munchies and posts in thread...

Yeah, gun nuts, I just want to imagine how quick on the draw you're going to be when some nut with the elements of surprise starts shooting up the joint you're in, and how you are ABSOLUTELY NOT a) going to miss the asshole and hit an innocent bystander, b) be mistaken for the asshole and be shot yourself by someone who rushes in from another room with their big bad boomstick, and c) ever going to hesitate to shoot or regret your actions afterwards.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-angola-accidentl6e8j54s4-20120805,0,6959378.story

We may as well lobby to ban soccer along with those darned motorized vehicles.

I think that regret is a given, coward. Hard choices are like that. Life and death choices are really like that. I am comfortable if you stay away from these kinds of choices as that is also your right.
I have met people who have used firearms against others, whether in the line of duty or in the course of a day's events. None of them were ever glib, excited, or glad. They were damaged in the process. But they were the kind of people who could choose their own life and/or the lives of innocent people over voluntarily handing control to a bad person making a bad decision during a criminal act.
Some people are just really bad at being victims, and as long as they are legally allowed to confront the threat with the appropriate tool, they are going to. Don't make the intellectually weak argument that these people are gun nuts, living in some kind of fantasy, or that they are hoping to have to use the gun. The characteristics of the average LAWFUL gun owner are responsibility, sobriety, and care. The guy most likely to walk away from a confrontation is a legal gun carrier. Why does nobody ever speak to that fact?

Just think, over 200,000,000 firearms in the United States did no harm yesterday.

In countries where guns arent available, they just use bombs...

And then we have the George Zimmermans...

And then we have the George Zimmermans...

The news is now saying they think this nutjob was a white supremacist, and an army veteran.

We have ONE George Zimmerman. Each person is different, and each case violent gun use is different.

People who believe that unlimited access to guns is supported by the Constitution are delusional. People who believe thet they could have stopped this guy if they were there and armed are also delusional.

And on the other side, people who believe the violence will magically stop if we just remove guns from society are also delusional.

I also love how you angle the debate like there are no laws on the books regarding guns. Why don't you review this timeline of major legislation and see for yourself. Hasn't kept the criminals from getting guns; more laws only apply to people who follow laws.

Get real.

You first.

Which I will nominate for Toledo Talk Asinine Comment of the Year.

Clearly you don't enjoy the freedom of the United States, so why not relocate to a more peaceful country? North Korea, for instance, forbids the ownership of all firearms with the exception of the government. I have good reason to believe that this law is vigorously, enthusiastically enforced by the government (who owns all the firearms).

The winters can be a bit chilly, but the people are law abiding. When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting in North Korea?

Gunman in Sikh temple shooting identified as ex-Army soldier Wade Michael Page
From the article:
Six people were killed and four wounded, including a police officer, before the man being identified as Page was shot dead by a police officer.

Get that? Shot dead - and it would not matter who shot him and stopped this bloody rampage. Being armed does make a difference, as is illustrated here.

The characteristics of the average LAWFUL gun owner are responsibility, sobriety, and care. The guy most likely to walk away from a confrontation is a legal gun carrier. Why does nobody ever speak to that fact?

Mainly because it doesn't sell papers and it doesn't fit the anti-freedom Moonbat image of what every gun owner should be.

The trouble we're seeing starts with mental health, an area of health care that is underfunded and receives little to no attention in commercial media. If the government wants to cut back on anomalies like this Sikh temple shooting or the massacre in the theater, divert Federal funding from military spending and put the money where it will do some good - mental health research.

People who believe arming absolutely everyone and that having everyone packing everywhere will stop the violence are delusional, too. Because everyone is an expert marksman and they'll be able to shoot the next shooter before he hits more than one person. Right?

Because North Korea has a free press and Internet, right.

False equivalency is false. Quit being an asshole, maddie. If you're going to put up an argument, don't be a dick with it.

Might I point out that the Sideshow Bob there in Aurora and this asshole in Wisconsin are both LEGAL GUN CARRIERS?

Only one of them walked away.

That flushing sound was your arguement going down the shitter.

Oh, while I'm at it:

The trouble we're seeing starts with mental health, an area of health care that is underfunded and receives little to no attention in commercial media. If the government wants to cut back on anomalies like this Sikh temple shooting or the massacre in the theater, divert Federal funding from military spending and put the money where it will do some good - mental health research.

BUT SOSHULISM! OBAMACARE! COMMIE GOVERNMENT BRAINWASHING! HEALTH CARE IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION!

(in other words, you're advocating MORE government spending (something you have emphatically hated "Ayatollah Obama" doing) on health care and subsidies (two other things you're against the government being involved in)

Yes. Legal gun owners.

Is your point that laws can't stop random acts of sociopathy? (Which is also my point)

Or is your point that if there had only been a law against them owning guns that it wouldn't have happened?
What exactly is your point, besides tossing random profanity at Jack and being all mad and stuff?

People who believe arming absolutely everyone and that having everyone packing everywhere will stop the violence are delusional, too.

This has no bearing on the comment I made. In fact, holland wrote essentially the same thing and I pointed out that swinging the pendulum completely the other way was delusional as well.

Because everyone is an expert marksman and they'll be able to shoot the next shooter before he hits more than one person. Right?

"...everyone is an expert marksman"? Who is making that claim? In that it relates to this discussion, there is no Constitutional or statute-based requirement to be a Marine-trained marksman to own a gun.

Are there idiots who own guns and do stupid things? Sure... watch this. So, although I know you are trying to skewer your own set-up strawmen who imagine themselves to be a combination of Clint/Arnold/Jet Li, most responsible gun owners do not carry themselves as such. They do insist on their right to defend themselves if possible, with a firearm (and many, many people have successfully defended themselves). The overwhelming majority do not do what you imagine....which seems to be charging in like Charles Bronson on a meth and Red Bull buzz firing willy-nilly "cuz we likes our gunz"...

Disclosure (again): I don't own a gun. Never have. But more laws/regulations/limitations on lawful owners is not the solution. And knowing who is batshit crazy and who isn't is still a rather imperfect science.

Nothing serious to add, I'm just chuckling at the thought that my guns are my 'metal phalli'. Why would I need a phalli, metal or not?

Has George Zimmerman been convicted of something?

MrsArcher: Your "lady parts", however they may be arranged, are your business.

You owe me a new keyboard.

If you're going to put up an argument, don't be a dick with it.

You'd certainly know all about that, AC.

The real point is that we've already got gun laws in the United States, all of which get enforced to one degree or another. The concept that even more gun laws coupled with zero-tolerance enforcement will somehow magically stop people from committing homicide is blatantly ridiculous.

No Jack, that's not the point at all. The point is that we have currently is a system that does not work. Way too many people die of gun violence in the country and all the NRA fans can say is "more laws won't work." Thanks for you input. How about an actual, substantive idea that reduces the gun homicides in our country. Discussing a ban on assault weapons is good place to start . . .

Banning criminals is a better place to start

P22:

Why do you believe a ban on "assault weapons" would have a significant effect on gun violence? And, on a related note, what do you specifically consider an assault weapon?

When someone like that has so much hate in his heart and mind, he's gonna find someway to cause death.
If he didn't use a gun, he could have just as easily drove his car/truck into the same crowd coming or going from that place.
A question for the anti-gun people. If you were to magically make owning guns illegal right now, today, how long do you think it would take to get "all guns" out of the hands of criminals, off the streets, and out of hidden places?
Don't you think a better way to handle this is to make laws against those who use guns for criminal purposes more harsh and make mandatory sentences? Stop the plea bargins and quit treating criminals like they won a stay at a resort to do their time. Make prison a prison. Not a spa vacation. No college classes except for G.E.D., no tv, no internet, no nothing.

I think one of the things that continues to pop into minds when this happens is why do ordinary citizens need/require access to guns that pop out a multitude of bullets, super fast. I'm not going to get into the what is/what isn't an assault rifle argument. And I know not all instances of mass gun violence involve semi-or otherwise-automatic weapons. But for those that do, I'm always thinking "Why? Why do everyday people need a gun like that"?

Also, I'm a gun owner. Never had a problem with them. Just the above... because that's like overkill if you hunt or for home security. I know some people get a kick out of shooting them... like I'm sure I would get a kick out of piloting a 747... but seriously.

Also, fuck that guy.

What a ...

Len, the argument is like asking why we need electric carving knives when regular knives do just fine. Some people just want something more, whether it is for chits and giggles or some other reason. The reality is, as you well know, that a bolt-action rifle is just as deadly as a so-called assault rifle. In the right hands, a good bolt action would be much more deadly.

The reason I ask what people consider to be an assault rifle is because of the rampant misunderstanding of what they really are. They are not fully automatic, for the most part, and they don't fire 3-inch wide bullets with explosive tips. I am not saying you do not know the difference, but a lot of anti-gun crusaders have no idea what they are arguing against.

People watch too much tv.

On a practical level:
Full auto weapons are illegal except with federal license.
Take them off of the table for our discussion. You can't make them any more illegal than they are now. Actual assault rifles fall into this category.

Semi auto weapons are legal with up to 31 rounds in a magazine in Ohio.
Semi auto essentially means that the weapon will fire only once per trigger pull. It doesn't mean that you can chamber a round faster. There are experts who can fire revolvers faster than a semi auto pistol can keep up.

So ban 31 rounds. Cut it in half.

Your crazy people will now have to change magazines once or carry a second weapon. The guy in Colorado carried four.

The 1000 rounds purchase trigger is silly. Two small boxes of 500 .22 rounds for your target rifle puts you at a thousand rounds.

By the way, I support your right to buy and fly a 747, especially if you let me take it for a spin!

Thanks morethanrhetoric... and justread.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't support my OWN right to buy and fly a 747, unless I am watched over, regulated, licensed, etc.

I don't want to be that asshole who plows it into a neighborhood full of families in a massive ball of flames and explosions because of what the hell ever (mental drama, idiocy, hate) I could be dealing with. I should be fine with a smaller consumer-sized aircraft.

It's not easy to get your hand on a tank. It's not easy to get your hands on a grenade. It's not easy to get your hands on a fucking gunship of any sort.

And I would hope that anyone with "issues" go through a REAL regulated purchasing process for a semi auto, with a background check. If a flag went up on that retard in the movie theatre...

Because if that was done properly he would clearly never have had access to them. Psycho.

Just to clarify, "I should be fine with a smaller consumer-sized aircraft." -- huge difference between something like that and a huge jet.

In the same way what happened in the theatre would have been way less lethal if he were limited in his firearms.

One last thought, I realllllly hate how divisive this issue turns out to be, every time.

Conservatives and Liberals, alike.

The right to gun ownership is not going away.

We just need to work hand in hand to make it a little more difficult for the idiots, (ie, "morans", see above) to access them. Yes, this violence could have happened without the guns... but it would have been way more difficult. Work together?

Too late. There's too many guns out there and too many loopholes and there is NO way you are going to regulate person-to-person sales without the draconian "Obama is coming to take my guns!" sort of legislation (mandatory gun registration and ballistics testing etc.). Hell, someone just managed to 3D print a lower receiver in .22 cal so now manufacturing your own weapon in fully automatic flavor without ANY registration or serial number is soon to happen. This is of course a direct consequence of the Second Amendment making so many guns available. And again, if it wasn't guns, someone would be making bombs and whatever else. And we'd have to sign for buying all sorts of chemicals... oh wait, I already have to sign to buy fucking Sudafed at Walmart when I have a cold, but I can buy all the ammo they have in stock for cash and not have a problem... what the FUCK is wrong with America?

The government cares about us. Limits your sudafed, make smoking harder to do, and make junk food/drinks easier and cheaper than good food/drink.

Heck, it's harder to get a driver's license or to rent a movie, than it does to vote for president.

Gun control is a bread and circus issue that keeps us divided while we are sunk in debt and Washington expands faster than a daily McDonalds eater.

the technology which brought us "3D printing" was made possible by the 2nd amendment? Because guns and the amendment were already around for a month or two.

No "ban" is going to stop a psycho.

I said it before, I'll say it again, "how many guns were used to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City".
Not a damn one! Fertilizer and kerosene, want to ban those too?

But they track fertilizer, etc. sales now... because of what happened in Oklahoma City. It's reactionary... but it helps.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/08/north_ridgeville_man_arrested.html

Don't you think a better way to handle this is to make laws against those who use guns for criminal purposes more harsh and make mandatory sentences? Stop the plea bargains and quit treating criminals like they won a stay at a resort to do their time. Make prison a prison. Not a spa vacation. No college classes except for G.E.D., no tv, no internet, no nothing.

Emphasis mine. The United States already incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world (over two million), including Communist China. Our rate of recidivism is two-thirds. That leaves one-third that don't commit another crime, or at least don't get caught. If the goal of incarceration is to reform the criminal, it isn't working too well. Hell, it makes Toledo Public Schools almost successful by comparison. If you want to reform the criminals, find a country that has some success with this and do whatever it is they're doing.

The only prison system I'd remove is Club Fed. Let the white collar bunch do some time for their crime. The rest of the prison system is just this side of cruel and unusual punishment, and in fact if they could find a decent lawyer to take the case many prisons would be radically remodeled or shut down due to violations of that amendment. Don't believe me? Go take a tour or talk to a few inmates.

But they track fertilizer, etc. sales now... because of what happened in Oklahoma City. It's reactionary... but it helps.

Tracking fertilizer sales does nothing to prevent this kind of crime happening again. Absolutely nothing. The only thing it is guaranteed to do is make life harder for farmers and anyone else who has a legitimate need for fertilizer.

Next you'll propose they start tracking diesel fuel.

You can't "Stop the plea bargains" because it would bring our justice system to a grinding halt. Because of The War on Drugs we have smothered our court dockets with people busted for 20 dollars worth of a plant and all the silly charges that come with it. If we actually sent everyone one of those to trail it would take YEARS to complete. Plea bargains are necessary to keep the beast chugging along.

Fast Food Justice is a product of the failure Sham on Drugs.

Tracking fertilizer sales does nothing to prevent this kind of crime happening again. Absolutely nothing. The only thing it is guaranteed to do is make life harder for farmers and anyone else who has a legitimate need for fertilizer.

It's a pain in the butt to buy Sudafed these days too. Instead of grabbing it from the same aisle as a bottle of aspirin or Tylenol, you have to ask for it at the pharmacy counter and sign your name in the book.

Wonder if the change in policy had any measurable impact on the quantity of meth being made?

Oh I'm sure it did...because, as we all know, most drug kingpins get their base supplies from the local RiteAid...at retail prices.

They'd never do anything like hijack trucks, pay off an insider, hire their own chemists, etc. Nope...Aisle 5, cold remedies...that's where the big batches were made...

The reason we have to sign for a freaking pack of allergy medicine is because so idiot attorney, hired by some idiot person or "watch group" wanted to "keep this from happening to someone else's kid" and made it illegal to buy it openly.
Probably someone who found their kid making a meth lab in their room and killed themselve from an overdose.
People like to blame others for everthing.

Actually, much of the meth is now coming in from Mexico because we of the new restrictions in place.

And yes, plenty of meth is/was produced from Sudafed out of the big box drug stores.

My wife is a pharmacist and he can tell you there used to be people who would buy every last 24 and 48 pack of Sudafed off the shelf and be back every other day.

That’s why meth is such a problem in poor and/or rural areas. Someone used to be able to walk into a drug store and could be producing meth a few hours later…meth isn’t the drug of kingpins it’s the drug of trailer parks.

Meth is a classic prohibition drug, legalize cannabis and cocaine (the later being relativity as safe as long term booze use) and trailer trash meth goes away.

People only drank gasoline based, bathtub made hooch during the prohibition era because Jack Daniels was pulled off the shelf. No War on Drugs, no meth.

I actually do know people who have access to homemade hooch. One of my uncles brings a bottle occasionally to a family dinner - think one of his relatives or friends down south somewhere makes it.

I have never been brave enough to even try a sip, but my uncle talked my husband into tasting it once. The look on his face was priceless. LOL

Amazing. SensorG and I agree on something. Will wonders never cease.

SensorG is quite right about the phenomenon of Actifed and Sudafed sales and the mysterious increase in the production of methamphetamine from trailer court laboratories. The chemical of choice is pseudoephedrine which used to be sold over the counter in the original formulation of Sudafed. We have the gigantic but evil drug manufacturers to thank for keeping their product on the shelves, and the DEA and King George II for sponsoring and enacting legislation to keep anything containing pseudoephedrine out of the hands of the hoi polloi. It's for our own good...

:: slams down beer

Bah. This crap and the very discussion are all tactics used by the rich to keep the rest of us occupied and fighting amongst ourselves so we don't kick their asses and take away every last penny from their moneybins. Doesn't matter how many guns we have, either, because they can afford Blackwater/Xe and any other number of merc outfits as well as the fact they own the government.

Moonshine. I've had it. Its still made down in the holler's. I couldn't stand the taste. It's like nothing else. My Hubs family is from Kentucky. Most of the people in the Hubs older generation family claim to have a jar or jug on hand. The younger generation don't seem interested. I think the tradition is fading away.

oh IM INTERESTED ;)

How do you expect to control guns when our very own government sells them to criminals?
It's a show, put on by politicians to tell people what they want to hear. Just like the "war on drugs". You know how much money is spent on that? Wasteful money thrown into a half-ass attempt at stopping drug usage in America. But, we won't beef up our Mexican border to stop it from coming across the border. Heck, in some places we don't even patrol. How many more tunnels are they going to find and act surprised that drugs get into the U.S.?
The war on drugs has been lost. Give it up. I thought like prohibition, they would give it up, but too many goody-two-shoes feel that allowing drugs is horrible while they throw back their scotch whiskey til they can't think or see straight.
I hate to say it, but AC is right. We really need to quit arguing among ourselves and demand more from politicians. We keep paying more and more taxes while the government keeps throwing out more and more grants for everything. Why don't we just cut back the grants and pay what taxes are absolutely necessary?
Ok, I'm done ranting. Sit me down in front of tv to watch old Lawrence Welk programs. When the world was simple. Or at least I didn't know about it.

Possum turns out a few gallons every so often. If you really want the real deal, I'll see about getting you a jar. Mind you, all it is is corn whiskey.

Tradition hasn't stopped, either. The methods are a good deal more sophisticated. Temperature sensors on the boiler and the worm, tests for purity and an electric, computer controlled heating element.

You can, if you've a mind, make moonshine in the privacy of your own kitchen. There are distillation systems that are used primarily for distilling water, but can easily be adjusted so as to distill other things. You won't turn out much, maybe a few gallons, but it's a whole lot cheaper than buying it over the counter in the State store.

Just sayin'.

If you're scared about going blind drinking bootlegged white whiskey, pick up a bottle of Junior Johnson's Midnight Moon. It is good stuff if you can handle it straight, but I think it really shines as a vodka substitute in cocktails.

You are so getting black helicopters now. The rich didn't want anybody to know. I heard them talking about it at the country club.

The black helicopter pilots didn't like it when I fired my frickin "laser beam" into their cock-pit. You wonder why that's a federal felony now? Yeah, they will never admit it though because they'd have to admit sending the black helicopters after me.

:: chugs another beer and crushes it against forehead

I admit it. I LOL'd.

http://gawker.com/5932846/american-becomes-laughingstock-of-canada-after-letter-to-editor-lamenting-lack-of-handgun-during-mild-confrontation

What an idiot.

"Been to the Stampede yet?"

Yes, that certainly is an aggresive line of questioning to ask someone in Calgary. LOL

Hey mom2! You been to the Stampede yet?

Report: ‘Nose Hill Gentlemen’ Were Calgary Stampede Promoters Giving Away Free Tickets

http://gawker.com/5933264/report-nose-hill-gentlemen-were-calgary-stampede-promoters-giving-away-free-tickets

You're lucky I'm not packing heat, madjack. ;)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/staten_island/cluckin_nuts_NZHOgruiJlAp2G4LRuV21M

Yeah, responsible gun ownership, sure...

Is your point that this crazy person was presented as an example of responsible gun ownership? Who do you say "yeah, sure" to, as if you have expertly dismissed our case?
Because none of us responsible gun owners would have suggested her. Of course, we wouldn't have scoured the country for a single unrelated example to make our larger point, either.
Did we not readily suggest that there are some whackos out there? That woman doesn't represent me or the other responsible gun owners that I know. You can keep throwing things until they stick, but the fact is that between that woman in NEW YORK and us folks in Toledo, more than a million good gun owners slept quietly that night. Whackos represent a teeny tiny fraction of the group that you attempt to disparage with your post.