Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Support

I'll ask agian,,, any comment from idiot Barak.. I dought he has any.,,, watch Bill Oreilly tonight and there was a "piece" about the new book "usefull idiots" ,,,,
Barak, in spite of himself should be in this famous book, Barak you are a usefull Idiot..Thank you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Barak,

Regardless of the president, the desire of the nation has never been to seize Iraq's oil.

Show you a clear and present danger. I guess if you are not bothered by a thug from a criminal family who siezed power, executed even members of his own family, has killed millions of his own countrymen, possesses WMD, supports terrorists, is irrational, and hates the US--then I can't show it to you. Then again, the English weren't convinced Hitler was a threat in 1939.

Your mid east analysis isn't quite accurate. Having been deployed to Saudi twice, perhaps I have a little more perpective and a little better ability to read between the lines. The Arab world often plays both sides of the deck. The threat of Saddam is what got us over there in the first place, and only because he's still a threat to all the countries over there have we been allowed to remain in Saudi and Kuwait for so long.

Bush would gain an incredible amount politically if he pulls this Iraq thing off without going to war. If Saddam were to accept exile--along with his cronies--and iraq's WMD were found and destroyed without sending troops in harms' way. Bush would scoe a huge political victory. Escalating the fighting from it's current level is a 50/50 proposition for him politically at best.

The war he's already had is the regieme change in Afghanistan and the hunting down and killing of Al Qeada (sp?). He's gaines a s much politically form that war as he's going to gain in such a manner. remember, Bush 1 was thought unbeatable after Desert Storm, yet he lost to a man that became the worst president this country has ever had.

Bush II isn't perfect, but he is a moral man who seeks God in his decisions. Our country is better off for having him than not.

Blaine

When Barak called Bush,,,,, Baby Bush,,,,, is when I took offensive. To be honest I didn't read all of his (Baraks) "drivel".... been there, done that, and his "drivel" will make you ill, He offends me. Oh well, he is chicken [bleep]/cherry ass not to answer me now, or will you Barak, which rymes with Jacques or Chirac....Any comment Barak???? I stand behind my words, please move to France!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Tee,

Easy. When we make such statements, we look foolish as well, even if we are right.

Blaine

I'm honored.


Ah--there it is. You folks are disturbingly polite over here on this board; it's taken me a good month or so to be called delusional. And AFP even called me honest first--an experience that's at least as unfamiliar to me as voicing disagreements is to you.

But one takes what one can get. After all, more people have been to Paris than I have.


Please elaborate; I'm not quite grasping your point.


Documented by whom? If you're talking about the same documents everybody else is, you mean a set of Iraqi documents and a set of UN estimates (in some cases based on earlier versions of those same Iraqi documents). Wouldn't you agree that Iraqi documents voluntarily submitted aren't among the most credible known sources of information? And hopefully we also agree that almost everything that comes out of the UN is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical, for a number of reasons. First, biological and chemical weapons have a finite lifespan. They keep their potency for a few years and are then useless. It's been 12 years since Gulf War I; if he had any chem or bio agents in 1991, they're not much good now. Secondly, while it's comparatively easy to make poison gas or isolate a deadly germ, it's a much bigger, more complex task to weaponize it. It's a big enough operation to make it tough to hide. If he had been manufacturing more weapons to replace the ones that decayed, my suspicion is that after 12 years we'd know about it.

And don't forget that there are many other countries that much more reliably pose a significantly greater threat to us right now. If we were really worried about threats, we'd be after those countries, not Iraq.


Not much. It killed--what, 3 people? 5? I forget. A single digit, though, in just under a year and a half. Death is never a light thing, but getting nationally wigged out about anthrax is almost an order of magnitude sillier than getting nationally wigged out about children being killed in gun accidents.


First, there's a substantial possibility that those chemical warheads have been imaginary since the very beginning. Second, even if they exist, after 12 years they're not particularly dangerous. Third, it would be just as silly for him to attack us with chemical weapons as it would be for him to conventionally bomb New York City. We'd blow him to smithereens, and he knows it. (And that war even I would support.) Fourth--once again--there are other countries belligerent to the US who actually do have real, up-to-date chemical weapons, and we're ignoring them.


Equal footing with the US is overstating the matter just a hair, don't you think?

Nuclear weapons are just as susceptible to deterrence as any other weapon.


There's a fundamental perspective disconnect here.

Us talking about what we should allow Iraq to have is roughly analogous to me talking about whether I should allow you to make love to your wife, or whether the state should allow you to keep and bear arms. Iraq is a sovereign nation; the US has no right to allow or disallow anything to it. If Iraq attacks us, we should squash it; but as long as it minds its own business, we need to mind ours.

The UN claims to have such a right. If the UN would like to try exercising it, then I say let 'em; but as I said before, we should have no dog in that fight.


As it turns out, I don't agree with France about much. I'm not particularly interested in keeping him contained. I am interested in keeping him from attacking the US, but I have complete faith that the same strategy that has worked for all our other enemies for so long will work just as well for him: the credible threat of quick and overwhelming retributive force.

(Note, in case it's necessary: what Baby Bush is cheerleading for right now is not retributive force, but aggressive force. There's a difference.)

Finally, let's please not forget why Saddam is honked off at us in the first place. We're clear on the other side of the world from him, and he'd much rather occupy himself killing and torturing other Iraqis, selling his oil at highwayman rates, and using the proceeds to rebuild Babylon. Why is he even interested in us?

Because we're starving and bombing his country, that's why. Why are we doing that? Skip skip skip...because he invaded Kuwait. Why did he invade Kuwait? Because the Papa Bush administration invited him to. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, do a Web search on "April Glaspie.") In other words, he's mad at us because we screwed him. Sure he's a lying, murderous tyrant; but chances are good that he'd be much less interested in us if we hadn't dealt so dishonorably with him.


I don't really understand what you mean by "a monopoly on the Constitution." But lest you make incorrect assumptions, please note that I am not among the Constitution's biggest fans. I think there are a couple or three fundamental problems with it, among which is the fact that it cannot be held morally or legally binding on anyone alive today except politicians and soldiers who have sworn to uphold and defend it.


Well, of course. (To the extent that it has been preserved, I mean, which seems to be less every day.) Were you under the impression that we disagreed on this point?


I'm not quite sure what you mean.


The United States used to be the greatest nation in the world. Perhaps it still is, but it's rapidly becoming a socialist police state just like the Soviet Union that Reagan called an Evil Empire.


Well, we agree about the backbone, anyway. He does have backbone. Fine, moral, and principled? Mmm, no, I don't think so. A fine, moral, principled man would honor his oath of office. Of course, that's not too resounding an indictment, because he's a politician by trade; and I can't think of a single fine, moral, and principled politician in Washington other than Ron Paul, who is something of a special case.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry to be so emphatic, but this is absolutely wrong. He's not going to war in the name of anybody; rather, he's sending tens of thousands of young American men and women to war in his name.

1. Did you vote in the pres. election? Yes. I vote in every election, although the futility of it is becoming more and more evident to me. Perhaps one day I will stop.
2. Have you been in the military? No, just the militia. I had a chance to join the Navy and be a nuclear physicist on a submarine, but I wanted to study computer science, so I went to graduate school instead.
3. Do you feel like you should be able to say whether you can own and have guns or not. No, and neither should anyone else. I can own and have guns, and so can everyone else who isn't in prison or on parole.
4. Would you "fight to kill", someone if they came in your house and raped wife and kids, while destorying your house. I can't say for sure what I'd do in real life, but I hope I'd "shoot to stop," not "fight to kill." (Or are you talking about a scenario where I come home after the fact and find the deed already done?)
5. What is your age? Sufficient.

AFP, I'd love to respond thoughtfully to your thoughtful post, but it's late where I am and I have to write six letters yet before I can sleep. Hopefully I'll get to you tomorrow, if I have some off time at work.

Barak:

I was away all afternoon/evening, and a part of me was regretting having written my earlier post to you. In taking on the role of webmaster and facilitator, I gave up the liberty to always post freely what I feel. However, I made an exception this time, because I feel this issue is much larger than a website and my role as its moderator.

Upon reading your response to my earlier post, I will refrain from entering into a point by point rebuttal in the secure knowledge that it will serve no further purpose. You have made up your mind. So have I.

I will end my part in this discussion by stating that there is nothing I could add that would make my point any more clear than your response already has. If my post did nothing other than cause you to elaborate on your beliefs and philosophies, for all to see, then I will happily consider it an argument well made.

Bottom line: We differ greatly in our opinions, in the things we trust in and hold dear, and in our perceptions of our duties as Americans. I don't know what your ultimate goal is, but it sure doesn't seem to include supporting, strengthening, or serving the United States or the Constitution.

Nothing is perfect, but the United States IS the best country in the world, your wishy-washy equivocation notwithstanding. As a nation, she has my complete devotion and loyalty. Period.

I have one question for you, and one question only: Can you say the same?

For the record, I support our President one thousand percent. I believe he is doing the right thing, the only sane thing, in insisting that Saddam Hussein disarm, one way or the other. I honor the fine young men and women who have chosen to put their lives on the line in order to protect our freedoms, including yours. I also thank God that we have George W. Bush and not Al Gore as President. Bush is the right man at the right time in the right place. The world will be a better place for his having been President.

Thank God your guy, whoever he is, didn't win!

That's all.

God Bless America

Interesting. And scary.

I urge all the name callers to reread these threads. With a calm, open mind if possible.

The professor's always told me. "once you attack the individule, you've lost the debate"

And too many of you here are acting on emotion, and have done nothing but attack the individule.

If you look into the facts, you will find that "W" has done more to take the rights of Americans than ALL the democrats since FDR, PUT TOGETHER!!!

I'll leave you with one last thought from the professor, It's infinitely easier to control a slave that THINKS he's free, than to control a slave that knows he's a slave.

Rick ET AL, I must agree with almost all that Barak has so inteligently stated. I believe this will become Americas version of the French in Indochina, except we will win the physical conflict. Morally we do not have the right to impose OUR will on other SOVERIGN NATIONS just because we can. The Iraquis are not a CLEAR AND PRESENT danger to the SOVERIGNITY of America. Yes the terrorist of the world CAN do us damage, no doubt about it. But they cannot, and will not destroy us or our way of life UNLESS we lower ourselves to their level and let them. North Kore is a far more deadly and capable threat to us than Saddam ever even dreamt of being!

That said, I will support our troops 110% in their endevors, and will not interfere with my governmant in it's mission, simply because I am a loyal American. I can still disagree with some of the policy and will excercise my right to say so!

I was about to post here to say that I have a group together over on another board that is putting together "comfort" stuff to send Montana Marine and any others we get addresses for, they are the ones I am concerned with, not GW and the rest of the leaders! I been to a war like this one, the troops need all the positive support we can offer, and that is what I will concentrate on. We have a guy that works in a warehous facility and he is getting together broken retail cases of powdered Gatorade, Kool-Aid nuts returned magazines and other comfort item. Just thought the board would like to know. Any service address will be kept by me and one other fellow and I will do the forwarding of the stuf, we are not passing the addresses around or putting them up on th net, we want only positive goods and messages going to those on the pointy end of the stick!

T LEE,
We have two or three right now from the 24 hour campfire that is deployed or with a duty assgn. overseas, and another getting ready to go. See about picking these up. I sent a 15lb. package to MM on the 5th or 6th can;t remember now. I sent hard candy, lots of gum, hot choc drink mix., AA batteries, aleeve for headaches, gun mag., paper backs, sun blocker, seems like another thing or two, can't remember. Sent it USP priorty mail, it runs a little more than a dollar a pound for the shipping. The girl at the Post office said it would take about three weeks to get there.

Concerning Barak, I am getting the impression he has a complete misconseption on how he gained his rights and retains them. I know he is set in his ways as far as his Ideals on the possible war with Iraq, or he is either pulling our leg on his thinking. I think Rick has figured it out too.

As I reread this, it seems that you could mean either A) that it has never been the policy of a US President to seize Iraq's oil, or B) that even if it has occasionally been official US policy to seize Iraq's oil, the "American people" have never wanted to do so. I'll have to wait for a clarification before I can respond.


I agree with most of that except the "irrational" part; you'll need to elaborate a bit on why you consider him to be irrational. It seems to me that if he really were irrational, by now somebody would have used that weakness to kill him.

I'd say he poses a clear and present danger to the Iraqi people, based on what you've said. If he does materially support terrorism against the US (it's not clear so far that he's done anything other than cheer from the sidelines), then he poses a much muddier and less immediate danger to whatever Americans turn out to be targets of that terrorism. But a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States? When he invades and conquers New York City and begins marching on Washington DC, let's talk again.

Let me put it this way. I would support the following national foreign policy: "To whom it may concern: if the US can demonstrate to its satisfaction that your regime has provided material support to terrorism against Americans or American targets, the US will topple you from power--probably either by killing you or by providing opportunity and capability for your other enemies to kill you. We will then immediately withdraw all our forces from your country and leave your people to sort out the mess." That's a policy for retributive force, rather than aggressive (initiative) force.


Good point: I was unclear. He would be a threat to his neighbors if we weren't protecting them from him. Since we are, he isn't; therefore, they see no need for us to go to war with him.


Okay, I can see that.


Ah, I see. I guess I was unclear again--I meant a war that he could claim to have won, as Papa Bush claimed to have won Gulf War I and Slick Willy claimed to have won Yugoslavia. Afghanistan is looking less and less like that war every day as the Taliban gains back its power despite our best efforts, and having bin Laden still out there making videotapes and audiotapes is a bit embarrassing.


Depending on what you mean by worst, I agree with you. He was certainly the trashiest excuse for a human being we've ever had in the White House. However, if the primary job of American government is to preserve and defend the Constitution, then there have definitely been worse presidents than Slick Willy--Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt among them. After observing him for a few years, I'm pretty sure Baby Bush doesn't even understand what the word "liberty" means, although he seems to think he does.


Well, everyone is entitled to his opinion.

Barak,

I guess you woke up this morning with everything just fine, no attacks on you or family. No worrys thru the night about this either, right? Ever wonder what it would be like to live in a country where you could have awaken to something of this nature? Ever wonder what it would be like to worry about every person approaching your house, whether they may arrest you or family members, to make you work (slave work) in the leaders factorys making mass weapons of destruction under poor safety conditions. Do you know why you don't have to worry about this? I know you are a person with a good education and smart enough to see this. It isn't because you were just merely born, You think this because you never did have to worry, because from the day you were borm you have been protected from it, you now assume it is like that anywhere you go and it is your birth right. The only reason you can have this is thru our country leaders and soldiers protecting these rights. Whether they do it with war or the threat of war it has become their duty to do so, they are obligated by the constitution to uphold it, the same document that gives you these rights as a person living under it.
If we were after Oil as you say, don't you think we would do this in our own back door? We could go to the southern parts of North America and northern South America and obtain all the oil we would ever need, without all the shipping and so forth. Those countrys would be a easy to take as you say Iraq would. We could attack from the north and by sea in a much shorter time span. As far as that goes you can throw that out the door, it isn't the reason. If we were after the land don't you think we would have kept Canada when we won it during the French/Indian wars of the late 1700's. Now, there could be an act of Imperialism, when we fought the American Indians for the land of this country. But now, present day I throw that thought of Imperialism out the door too!! The only reason we are considering the idea of getting Saddam out of Iraq is to protect our rights and others thru out the world. I'm sure Mr. Bush would let Saddam step down and leave the country with the same style of goverment in force, he has offered it as an exception. This tells you right there we are not acting nor implementing Imperialism.
North Korea, give it time and we will have problems there too. Our leaders see it and you do to, but we are only so many and can do only so much. Take care of this item in Iraq and you will see the U.S. confront this problem also. Whether it is thru talks, threatening war or war itself, but bet your a$$ we will see it thru. We cannot let these countrys develop such weapons to threaten the world to get what ever whim they come up with. They would not hesitate to attack others to get things such as oil, land, or food once they have these weapons of mass destruction, this has been proven in the past 40 years with North Korea. They didn't build on the same values we and others have, that are trying to control the WMD.
Barak, you really need to do some reading on this and open your eyes. I'm not trying to change the way you want to be but only make you aware of how you obtain and keep these rights that are given to you from the constutition. Don't confuse them with your birth rights which are worthless without the constutition. We all have gotten comfortable with our living and tend to forget how we get to be this way. They have been won with blood and kept with blood in some occasions and with negotiations on others, regardless we must remember they were not and are not assumed or given freely by no means.

I understand. But if you feel you have something to say, then I encourage you to log in using a non-administrator account and "post freely what you feel" from there. I know I seem incorrigible, but I'm actually not. I've tried to form my opinions and positions after thinking through at least the standard arguments that have been presented on both sides. Therefore, standard arguments don't have much chance of changing my mind, because I've probably already considered them. But if you have arguments that haven't already appeared in newspapers and on web sites and TV, I might very well be susceptible to them.

You may have noticed that I'm a rather unconventional thinker, not to put too fine a point on it. (Actually, I believe your word was "delusional.") I got that way by seeking out and listening to unconventional arguments. Maybe you have some unconventional arguments?


I'd love to be able to say yes or no, but the answer depends on what you mean by "nation."

Do you mean the original idea of our founders that a nation could be based on individual liberty, and that governments should exist only at the consent and pleasure of the governed, in order to protect and preserve that liberty? Well, in that case, my answer is yes.

Do you mean the nation as it exists in implementation today, with an oppressive, confiscatory government growing by leaps and bounds, with one mailed jackboot on the neck of those same individual liberties and the other constantly trying to widen the empire across the world? With hundreds of millions of people who have been so blinded to history and acclimated to authoritarian socialism by the public schools that they're like so much livestock, waiting dumbly to be fenced, fed, shorn, milked, and butchered by the authorities? In that case, my answer is (guess what!) no, absolutely not.


I don't think I've ever supported a President even one hundred percent. I prefer to think for myself. Probably the one I've disliked the least in my lifetime has been Reagan; but politics is an occupation that pragmatically requires its successes to be scum, and the US Presidency is one of the highest expressions of that occupation.

You might be surprised.


Sure I have. I'm as prepared for it as I can reasonably be, although of course my resources are limited. As I said on another board here, I fully expect that I will die either in prison or during my arrest. Let's see: I'm a white heterosexual male, a fundamentalist Christian, a husband, a father, a libertarian, a firearms enthusiast, a militia member, a general-aviation pilot (one that likes to fly VFR in uncontrolled airspace, to boot), an occasional cigar smoker, and a loudmouth. Each of those is a reason for the government to hate me, and I have no doubt that it'll get around to me sooner or later. I'm just not cut out to be a "dying peacefully in your beds, many years from now" kinda guy.



"You sleep peacefully at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence in your defense," eh?

Look--if you managed to get through all the apparent paranoia above, there seems to be a misunderstanding that needs to be set straight.

There are differences between the existence of a right, the recognition of a right, and the free exercise of a right. When I quoted the Declaration of Independence, I was talking only about the existence of rights.

According to the Declaration, I had the God-given rights to life, liberty, and property the instant I was born. So do Europeans (even the French!); so do Iraqis; so do the poverty-stricken, illiterate, disease-ridden subjects of the very worst tyrannies that exist or have ever existed on this earth. The Declaration says all men.

Different governments recognize these rights, and allow the free exercise of them, to different extents. For example, I have the right to keep and bear arms. For good measure, that right is guaranteed to me by the Constitution, although I would have it even if that wasn't the case. The government I live under, however, recognizes that right only in my home, at a government-inspected shooting range, and in a couple of other government-approved places. That doesn't mean that I don't have the right to carry a concealed weapon into a post office or a courthouse: but my government does not allow the free exercise of that right--in much the same way that Iraqis have the right to free speech, but Hussein doesn't allow the free exercise of that right. The government's refusal to recognize the right says nothing about the existence of the right, only about the character of the government.

To get a government to recognize a preexisting right generally takes some kind of fight--maybe voting, maybe argument, maybe litigation, maybe bloodshed. This is the conflict of which you speak, and I'm well aware of its necessity--perhaps more aware than some. But rights themselves are absolute, whether they're recognized and freely exercised or not. That's what I meant when I quoted the Declaration.

Aside from that, I think that either we've already covered most of the other stuff in your post, or that we agree about it. If there's some point to which you particularly wanted me to respond, let me know.

I need addresses then, we are collecting quite a lot of stuff and need to spread it around some. MM ain't gonna be able to handle it all, Marine or not! LOL

Good deal, T LEE <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Barak,

I won't give up......


You say, "According to the Declaration, I had the God-given rights to life, liberty, and property the instant I was born. So do Europeans (even the French!); so do Iraqis; so do the poverty-stricken, illiterate, disease-ridden subjects of the very worst tyrannies that exist or have ever existed on this earth. The Declaration says all men."

How do you figure you have a God given right? Show me documentation where you have this so called right. Better yet show me what is protecting this so called "God given right". I would think the only thing you or I would have guaranteed upon birth is that first breath we sneak in before the ball bat hits the back of the head. Declaration or no declaration, look at the acts of Polpot (spelling). The only reason it hasn't happened here in the U.S. is the general population knows they would loose MOST of their rights under the constutition of the United States of America. These are the rights you have given to you by the people that have protected them up to this minute, not because God give them to you. You have elected to stay in this country and the people of this country have made the laws for us to live under, which you are confusing with rights taken away from you or not allowed. You cannot walk into a US Post Office with your weapon because of the laws we have enacted to protect your rights. In other words protecting your life and others in case a person wanted to rob the Post Office and shot you instead of the person holding the money bag. It is also along the lines protecting the persons work place from the same thing. This right never was removed from you, only edited to help prevent such from happening.

Good for you.


Are we still arguing from the Declaration? Its writers "declared...to be self-evident" the "truth" that "all men...are endowed by their Creator" (that's God) "with certain unalienable rights." That's what I mean by God-given rights--I'm assuming that you're willing to accept the Declaration as a premise when talking about rights. It's perfectly acceptable for you to reject it, but if you do, then we'll have to go clear back to first principles.


Which ones? Are you pointing out that he refused to recognize the people's rights or to permit the free exercise thereof? If you are, I agree with you.


If God gave me my rights, then only God can take them away. People can threaten me with harm if I exercise my rights, but they're mine nonetheless; I can't lose them to a person or a group of people.


Whom do you mean when you say "the people of this country?" Me? I've never made a law. My representatives in the legislature? I don't have any representatives in the legislature: I didn't vote for a single one of them.

Laws (the sort you speak of) are things of man; rights are things of God. No man-made law can take away (or even affect) a right. Laws that prohibit the exercise of rights are immoral, and the Supreme Court has decreed that laws prohibiting the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Constitution are meaningless. (Marbury v. Madison, 1803: "An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.")

Of course, that is not to say that the government will not use an unconstitutional, meaningless law as an excuse to apply coercive force to you: coercive force is what governments do for a living. But it doesn't make it right.


Almost. Actually, I cannot walk into a US Post Office with my weapon because of the laws you (you said "we") have enacted to prohibit the free exercise of my rights. (The particular right in question happens to be a fairly special one, in that it's specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. That means any law that infringes it falls squarely into the crosshairs of that reference from Marbury v. Madison above.)


Aw, c'mon: you're not one of those, are you? You're on an outdoorsman's website, and your username implies that you're a hunter and the owner of a semiautomatic rifle. And you're going to try to make the VPC/HCI/MMM argument that carrying a gun will make me less safe in a robbery? More Guns, More Crime? I'm really disappointed.


Rights can't be "edited" by men, any more than they can be created or destroyed. The word you're looking for, I suspect, is "infringed."

Barak,

You say, " Aw, c'mon: you're not one of those, are you? You're on an outdoorsman's website, and your username implies that you're a hunter and the owner of a semiautomatic rifle. And you're going to try to make the VPC/HCI/MMM argument that carrying a gun will make me less safe in a robbery? More Guns, More Crime? I'm really disappointed."

No, That isn't my point here, what i'm saying is Mr. Bad A** walks into the Post Office to pickup his crazy check that comes in on the first of the month like clock work. Well today he is carrying, and the Police officer noticed it also. He stops him and tells him to remove the weapon before entering the Post Office. Well Mr. Bad A** tell the PO to take a hike since he has a Constutitional right to carry a firearm, so the PO lets it go. Mr. Bad A** enters and goes to his box and the check isn't there, holy cow does he go off!! Well, it just so happens that Mr. Barak is also there trying to mail some software out and picked up his mail also. Mr. Bad A** sees the mail in Mr. Barak's hand and goes to thinking he has stolen his check since his mind is so disfigured now from being upset, he pulls out the weapon and unloads it on Mr. Barak. Mr. Bad A** is normally a easy going guy, and also goes to Chruch every Sunday, but still a tough ole guy. Now if Mr. Barak had voted in his State and Federal elections for his legislators then the whole incidence could have been avoided, but no, he held a belief that no person had a right to set laws that would govern his rights in society today and held to those beliefs.