Its good, if nothing else, is to provide a vehicle for reaching concensus... sometimes such good just takes time is all.

I think too many forget that they already surrendered their sovereignty and individuality when they decided to interact with any one other than themselves... and the inability to see this is just like the inability of a baby to differentiate between "self" and "other"... it is time for the children to grow up, and not remain in a perpetual childhood of self centered blindness.

GBII said much the same thing... Why is easy to answer: Because we are all human beings... a part of a much larger community than just our household... our neighborhood... our village... our county... our state... our nation... we are all human beings, and should want to be a part of that community just as we do for each of these smaller organizational units.

Would that they could count on us...

Let's see... make ourselves subservient to an unelected president with a history of lies, cheating, underhanded dealing and concern for nothing but his rich buddies and acceleration of the creation of Armageddon. Nah, I'll pass.

Would that it were so...

meaningless extracted babble.

Heck, and there must be nothing wrong with "disarming" the people by perverting their voting processes in order to enslave them... we are loseing far more via those processes than by eliminating glocks and machine guns from our hands.

Sure, we "can", but we can also do better than that... heck, we can also fix that too! It is facinating to note that for the most part the very same people who advocate zero gun control (so they can own machine guns) are also in favor of 100% drug control... hum, let me see... machine gun for killing others - ok... grass for getting self high at home - not ok... makes perfect sense... NOT!

He gets it half right. No one needs anonymous ownership of handguns. As they say, it all depends upon what is is... since this quote is missing its middle part, we don't really have the ability to read the last sentance fragment in context. sigh.

The art is in finding the middle ground gray area and negotiating it with success. There is no art to polarized black & white decisions.

Handguns? Yes! Semi-automatics? Yes! Hunting weapons? No!

Since this is provably incorrect (just look at the Bush II administration and its lies and illegal activities which are abusing The People on a daily basis), it is just nonsense.

Indeed, and thus the only guns that make sense to license & register are those which are built for killing people not hunting: glocks, machine guns, sniper rifles (and yes, there is a difference between a good hunting rifle and a good sniper rifle which is inappropriate for hunting).

Guns are not a necessary requirement for liberty... and those who believe so today are actually stating that they believe in the violent overthrow of the government (if not today's, then someday's). I can agree that those who own guns should be taught how to use them, as clearly our current VP was not (you don't take medications and then alcohol and then go hunting unless you want to shoot your hunting partnerts... oh, that's right, it worked correctly for him, duh!).

... and so the "guns rights" advocates are actually telling us to overthrow the current opressive goverenment by violent means rather than peaceful ones? Well, get to it then, don't let us stand in your way of your violent solution (since that same party (the GOP) is blocking peaceful means such as voting)! (Anything to be rid of this budding dictatorship!)

Ah, I'm finally getting it... the so called "law & order" party (the GOP) want the people to have their glocks & machine guns such that they can overthrow the oppressive, put the people down party (the GOP) by force (or are we just back to "kill kill kill"?)... and you call this enlightened compared to empowerment of the people by education and through non-violent means... duh! I should have seen the clarity of this long ago.

If you can't source it, it doesn't exist...

So, our first respondant (NMM of DF) just wants to "kill kill kill", Our freedom correspondant just cares about his view of freedom while condeming the rest of us of the freedom of walking down the street feeling safe from drive-by shootings. And our third is implicitly claiming that guns save lives as medical professionals do... no wonder this country is in such a mess.

I am more safe when the glocks & machine guns (etc) are only owned by the military and police forces... and every farmer and hunter is welcomed to keep their shotguns and 22s and even their muzzle-loaders... they are not welcomed (or have any need for) 50 round clips and semi-automatic options. The largest problem with this whole "debate" is that the word "gun" means different things to different people.

... which were hunting guns, roughly equivalant to today's shotguns and 22 rifles... and not at all related to machine guns or glocks or any of the weapons which are helping to destroy our inner cities.

What is right for one, is wrong for another... thus the need to allow for personal choice. "One size does NOT fit all!"

PC should not be confused with acting decently and treating others with respect... PC achieves neither of these laudable goals.

Actually, no, not all the poor on welfare are fools... sometimes they are just an honest and hard working person who needs a little short term help... "been there, done that"... and more than made up the difference in current and past contributions to the public coffers.

... or 21st century United States of America...