# AP: Student group wants more guns on campus



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

I don't know where to begin with this one:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

_College campuses are different from other public places where concealed weapons are allowed. Thousands of young adults are living in close quarters, facing heavy academic and social pressure - including experimenting with drugs and alcohol - in their first years away from home._

The above statement is a very good reason_ not_ to allow guns on college campuses. Well, not all guns I guess...concealed carry guns. I did always find it annoying that I couldn't have my shotgun at school during hunting season.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Is that quotation directed at college students or young enlistees?


----------



## Cool Cal (Jan 19, 2007)

Concealed weapons seem better to react to a situation, but isn't the point to prevent the need to use a gun? I think non-concealed weapons would be better in that respect.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

"I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," said Massengill, a former head of the Virginia state police. "But our society has changed, and there are some environments where common sense tells us that it's just not a good idea to have guns available..."

Like the Luby's in Killeen, TX. Too many silver hairs fighting to get at the biscuits and gravy.

Oh wait, sorry, really bad example.

On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. During the shooting, he approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill[1] and in general [2][3], after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. (Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person[4].)


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

What happened at Luby's is sad... living in a place where people feel the need to actively arm themselves in preparation for this is sadder.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

omairp said:


> What happened at Luby's is sad... living in a place where people feel the need to actively arm themselves in preparation for this is sadder.


To deny that there are those who are willing to kill you for your property, or just for fun is to deny the reality of human nature. Crazy murderous people have always been with us and alway will whether we live in a socialist utopia like Canada or the UK, or in the rugged and wild United State of America.

To trust your life to the chance that you won't happen to meet one of them is the saddest of all.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> What happened at Luby's is sad... living in a place where people feel the need to actively arm themselves in preparation for this is sadder.


You live in Alberta, right?

April 28, 1999, Taber, Alberta, Canada One student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.

It can happen most anywhere.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It can happen most anywhere.


You're right, it can happen anywhere like that kid in Taber. But it seems to be a more common occurrence in some places than others, but maybe it's CNN hustling me.

There has been campus violence here in Edmonton, I know 2 guys who got stabbed in seperate incidents, but I still can't fathom the idea of campus becoming any safer by adding more guns to the mix.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

How about the Appalachin School of Law shooting where it was students with personal firearms who brought it to an end? How about the poor police response time at VT (that they really can't be faulted for because it's unrealistic to expect fast police response times).

I don't see why we are so afraid to regulate that we rather simply ban. Why not allow students who have a CCW permit to carry on campus once they have passed a strict weapon proficiency test and a pyschological evaluation and registered with campus police? At least allow open carry. As a student at William & Mary, I cannot legally have a gun on campus, yet a non-student can legally bring a gun onto the campus (and in fact the college is not allowed to bar non-students from carrying guns on campus)


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

android said:


> To deny that there are those who are willing to kill you for your property, or just for fun is to deny the reality of human nature. Crazy murderous people have always been with us and alway will whether we live in a socialist utopia like Canada or the UK, or in the rugged and wild United State of America.
> 
> To trust your life to the chance that you won't happen to meet one of them is the saddest of all.


It's unfortunate that some people are overtaken by fear of the highly unlikely. This is kinda off topic, but kinda relevant. I was in Pakistan 10 months ago during a spate of suicide bombings in Islamabad (the day after I purchased my plane ticket, someone tried to blow up the Islamabad international airport where I was headed) and I wasn't afraid or feeling the need to carry a weapon. I went to KFC in sadr (a neighborhood in the capital's twin city Rawalpindi) and they scanned me with a metal detector before letting me in. Outside McDonalds in Islamabad, you're greeted with a guard wielding a shotgun. I also visited family in Peshawar, which the media claims to be a hotbed of the Pashtun insurgency in Northern Pakistan. I'm going again at Christmas time, state of emergency or not, which will probably bring about a new set of tensions given the current climate. I've had people try to rob me before in Europe. But I've never thought to myself "I need a gun for protection."



marlinspike said:


> I don't see why we are so afraid to regulate that we rather simply ban. Why not allow students who have a CCW permit to carry on campus once they have passed a strict weapon proficiency test and a pyschological evaluation and registered with campus police?


I could envision such a policy, under some very stringent regulations. But my concern would be that this would not be the end of the discussion, rather the beginning of a push towards de-regulating carrying firearms on campus to the point where anyone could get a hold of a gun. But, I guess this line of logic works both ways in the gun debate. "If you give them an inch, they'll take you a mile." I guess thats why the idea of keeping a registry of who owns firearms is such a controversial idea (personally I think gun registries are a waste of time and money.)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> But my concern would be that this would not be the end of the discussion, rather the beginning of a push towards de-regulating carrying firearms on campus to the point where anyone could get a hold of a gun. But, I guess this line of logic works both ways in the gun debate. "If you give them an inch, they'll take you a mile." I guess thats why the idea of keeping a registry of who owns firearms is such a controversial idea (personally I think gun registries are a waste of time and money.)


You were wise enough to capture both ends of that argument.

Now in the US, gun laws can vary by state and jurisdiction. In AZ the laws concerning CCW forbid you to carry your weapon into any establishment that serves alcohol, any public event, and god help you if you are caught packing while intoxicated or high. I know the saying is quite trite, but really, the only people that tend to violate gun laws are criminals. So, to use the trite saying, "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns." To my experience, the average Joe gun owner really is a pretty damn law abiding person. We just need to enforce the laws we have.


----------



## garyslinger (Oct 6, 2005)

omairp said:


> I don't know where to begin with this one:


You live in Canada. How exactly is this any of your business?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

omairp said:


> rather the beginning of a push towards de-regulating carrying firearms on campus to the point where anyone could get a hold of a gun.


The problem is as someone who is still a student, I'm close enough to it all to realize that I definitley wouldn't trust most of my fellow students with a gun. I definitley wouldn't want this level of regulation with the public at large, but with schools in particular I would welcome drug screening, pysch eval, and an accuracy test.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

garyslinger said:


> You live in Canada. How exactly is this any of your business?


It is part of my evil little pinko plot to take over America. I intend to have all Americans wearing red toques, watching CBC news and eating Tim Horton's donuts as they sit on their chesterfields by the end of the year. Everything that Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and anyone else ever said about Canada is true. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. :icon_smile_big:

It's an interesting story in the news, I thought I'd post about it here on the interchange. Unless I'm wrong, there's no citizenship requirements to post about a subject on AAAC. Maybe we should get a moderator to check everyone for British passports before they're allowed to talk about Saville Row clothing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Never reply to people that have been members for two years and chose to make their second post semi-flamish. There are embedded trolls amongst us and they are a Friggin' Nasty Breed.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

Im in support of this group, but their cause is completely futile. They're fighting against too much inertia. To overturn these long-standing college policies against guns on campuses would require way more than a simple majority of students/alumni supporting their position, which isn't going to happen because most students simply don't care if they're allowed to keep a gun. 

I think the best thing this organization can do is target state laws which prohibit any guns on campus. In some states it's legal to bring guns on campus, but still against college policy- you'll get kicked out of school, but you wouldn't have broken the law. Students can weight the costs and benefits of packing a gun. With up to $100k invested in their educations, you can bet only the most motivated and careful students would choose to bring guns on campus. I think that's the way to handle it- let colleges make their policies, but don't back it up with the force of law. 

In states where carrying on any campus is illegal, students and employees are screwed when it comes to self-defense. What makes these little 10-square-mile patches of campus different that the rest of the state? Why let the state government prevent people there from legally exercising self-defense, when it doesn't even pretend to assume responsibility for the safety of the people there? It's a Washington-DC-like situation. 

If your state is going to bother to make it legal to carry concealed, it's a joke to designate "safe zones." Someone who is OK to pack heat in a grocery store is suddenly going discharge his gun in a church or college campus? Come on...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The silicon chip inside her head gets switched to overload.
And nobody's gonna go to school today, she's going to make them stay at home.
And daddy doesn't understand it, he always said she was as good as gold.
And he can see no reason
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?

"Tell me why?"

"I don't like Mondays."

"Tell me why?"

"I don't like Mondays."

"Tell me why?"

"I don't like Mondays. I want to shoot the whole day down."

The telex machine is kept so clean as it types to a waiting world.
And mother feels so shocked, father's world is rocked, and their thoughts turn to their own little girl.
Sweet 16 ain't so peachy keen.
No, it ain't so neat to admit defeat.
They can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?

"Tell me why?"

"I don't like Mondays."

"Tell me why?"

"I don't like Mondays."

"Tell me why?"

"I don't like Mondays. I want to shoot the whole day down."

All the playing's stopped in the playground now.
She wants to play with her toys a while.
And school's out early and soon we'll be learning the lesson today is how to die.
And then the bullhorn crackles and the captain crackles,
With the problems and the how's and why's.
And he can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to die?

"Tell me why?"

"I don't like Mondays."

"Tell me why?"

"I don't like Mondays."

"Tell me why?"

"I don't like Mondays. I want to shoot the whole day down."

*(C) 1979 THE BOOMTOWN RATS *


----------



## McKay (Jun 13, 2005)

android said:


> To deny that there are those who are willing to kill you for your property, or just for fun is to deny the reality of human nature. Crazy murderous people have always been with us and alway will whether we live in a socialist utopia like Canada or the UK, or in the rugged and wild United State of America.
> 
> To trust your life to the chance that you won't happen to meet one of them is the saddest of all.


But most people do trust their lives to exactly that, and for nearly every last person on earth that proves to be a winning bet. Nothing sad about that at all!

Sad would be if we all succumbed to paranoia and armed ourselves in the belief that we stood anything more than an astronomical chance of dying by getting shot.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

McKay said:


> But most people do trust their lives to exactly that, and for nearly every last person on earth that proves to be a winning bet. Nothing sad about that at all!
> 
> Sad would be if we all succumbed to paranoia and armed ourselves in the belief that we stood anything more than an astronomical chance of dying by getting shot.


Here are several sources for the rate of death by gunshot wounds (GSW) in the United States:

14.24 / 100k https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
14.2 / 100k https://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf
10.3 / 100k

Okay, now go find out the death rates of say, certain cancers, that people usually get screened for on a regular basis. According to your logic, any cancer than has a lower death rate should not be screened for, as after all, nearly every last person on Earth will not get that cancer, right? So we should stop much of the cancer (and other disease) screening we do, correct?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Debate over weaponry is as old as the first fossil Peking Man that displayed cannibalism and probably homicide. I am comfortable with any set of rules, provided my personal safety can be garanteed 110%. Until such a time, I subscribe to the strategem of another nimrod, one Elmer Fudd " be wery, wery quiet. I'm packing-huhuhuhuhuh" OO


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Debate over weaponry is as old as the first fossil Peking Man that displayed cannibalism and probably homicide. I am comfortable with any set of rules, provided my personal safety can be garanteed 110%. Until such a time, I subscribe to the strategem of another nimrod, one Elmer Fudd " be wery, wery quiet. I'm packing-huhuhuhuhuh" OO


Have you considered moving to China? The government will guarantee your personal safety, until they shoot you in the head or run you over with a tank.

And how free would you feel to e.g. engage in heated political discourse in a classroom, knowing full well that many/most of your classmates are carrying weapons, and are already under tremendous amounts of mental stress?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Frank, given my many postings I am utterly at loss why you suggest communist China. And I indeed attended university with a large body of peers who were quite familiar with everything from M- 16s to 16" naval cannon. Heated debate? You mean like the marxist geography teacher who insisted Saigon be called Ho Chi Minh city? Now that was funny, seeing a classroom made up of @ 50% veterans and vietnamese refugees write SAIGON in big bold letters.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I thought guns were illegal in most states so why do campuses need weapons?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> I thought guns were illegal in most states so why do campuses need weapons?


Because a campus is a person too?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Aren't even campus police at many colleges not allowed to carry guns? Just sayin' that it would be pretty hard to allow students to carry guns on campus given institutional hostility to it, whether one favors this or not. 

Reading the exploits of certain posters on their campuses I think I'd be very afraid were students allowed to carry guns on campus -- either that students like such posters might end up with a gun, or that another student, exasperated, may use one on him.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I think that it is an excellent idea that students help defend themselves and others. college campuses should organize watch groups - students can volenteer to be trained, and they can take 2-6 shifts a month gaurding campus. 

but as to let a bunch of kids walk around armed, who, pretty much by definition, have shown that they don't take security seriously enogh to join the armed forces, seems like a stupid idea.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> I think that it is an excellent idea that students help defend themselves and others. college campuses should organize watch groups - students can volenteer to be trained, and they can take 2-6 shifts a month gaurding campus.
> 
> but as to let a bunch of kids walk around armed, who, pretty much by definition, have shown that they don't take security seriously enogh to join the armed forces, seems like a stupid idea.


Sorry to see a few Americans still think the invasion of Iraq had something to do with U.S. national security.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

So Frank, What your saying is to end Iraq we must end military service? I would hope the Coast Guard's exemplary effort in Katrina be matched by your rainbow pride choir's purchasing it's own Helicopter. Think of the opportunity to decorate the interior!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> So Frank, What your saying is to end Iraq we must end military service?


No. I'm saying that since 1945, joining our armed forces has had absolutely nothing to do with "supporting security", and it certainly has nothing to do with it today in Iraq. Cheney, Bush, Rice and the rest of the WH oil whores are taking their $100/barrel oil and laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> No. I'm saying that since 1945, joining our armed forces has had absolutely nothing to do with "supporting security", and it certainly has nothing to do with it today in Iraq. Cheney, Bush, Rice and the rest of the WH oil whores are taking their $100/barrel oil and laughing all the way to the bank.


Amazing how the thread went from 2nd Amendment issues on college campuses to a Dubya/oil rant...and a specious rant at that. I mean, DYOH, between domestic production (about 40% of demand), Canada (about 17% of demand) and Mexico (about 12% of demand), you have about 70% of the US oil needs right there. Iraq? LOL, talk about fantasies.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Amazing how the thread went from 2nd Amendment issues on college campuses to a Dubya/oil rant...and a specious rant at that. I mean, DYOH, between domestic production (about 40% of demand), Canada (about 17% of demand) and Mexico (about 12% of demand), you have about 70% of the US oil needs right there. Iraq? LOL, talk about fantasies.


"The invasion of Iraq was mainly about oil." -- Alan Greenspan

"We're not allowed to talk about oil." -- Dick Cheney's response to Alan Greenspan

Iraq sits on the world's second largest proven oil reserve (only Saudi Arabia's is bigger).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "The invasion of Iraq was mainly about oil." -- Alan Greenspan
> 
> "We're not allowed to talk about oil." -- Dick Cheney's response to Alan Greenspan
> 
> Iraq sits on the world's second largest proven oil reserve (only Saudi Arabia's is bigger).


When I'm buying gas for $.80 / gallon and it's from Iraq, I'll say you're not suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Until then, BDS.

"The invasion of Scotland was mainly about tweed" ==> Edward (the Longshanks)


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Oil interests have little to do with low gas prices. Having said that, I don't think it was about oil (and I do think it was about nothing good).

Whatever anybody thinks about the wars our country has fought, I think all would have to agree that most people are most useful to our nation in a non-military capacity.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> Whatever anybody thinks about the wars our country has fought, I think all would have to agree that most people are most useful to our nation in a non-military capacity.


well, on the face of it, I wouldn't agree, but if you can explain to me where the sense to that statement is, I might.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> When I'm buying gas for $.80 / gallon and it's from Iraq, I'll say you're not suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Until then, BDS.
> 
> "The invasion of Scotland was mainly about tweed" ==> Edward (the Longshanks)


A rather long read, but worth the effort for people like you who don't have a frickin clue about why Bush invaded Iraq:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> A rather long read, but worth the effort for people like you who don't have a frickin clue about why Bush invaded Iraq:


Sorry, wasted my time before dissecting your moronic "sources" only to have you be too blind to appreciated the critique.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> well, on the face of it, I wouldn't agree, but if you can explain to me where the sense to that statement is, I might.


Well, for instance, a person who is physically weak and is also a poor military strategist but has a strong legal mind might be more useful to the country as a legislator than as a soldier.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Well, for instance, a person who is physically weak and is also a poor military strategist but has a strong legal mind might be more useful to the country as a legislator than as a soldier.


Okay...no such thing as a *useful* legislator! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> Well, for instance, a person who is physically weak and is also a poor military strategist but has a strong legal mind might be more useful to the country as a legislator than as a soldier.


1. you said "most people", and here you are talking about a specific case of an individual being both physically weak, a poor strategist and a strong legal mind. I would be the first to agree that many people are not needed in the military, or can contribute more in a non military position, but not "most"

2. I would suggest that even the weakest man, with the best legal mind, would be a better legislator after he served in the military for a tour.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This thread went from firearms on the cloistered monasteries we arrogantly call universities to military service, itself a society both closed and open to all. Can anyone name the Pacific war service of Roosevelt's son and his many physical shortcomings that individualy would sideline any other man? Has anyone read about the frail french WW1 ace Georges Guynemer? what of Alexander's apparent epilepsy? Theodore Roosevelt spoke of 'the Vigorous life' and himself overcame physical shortcomings. This goes back to the Greek ideal of men perfect in mind and body. Instead we have a pandemic of kids walking around sucking on breathing aids in sick buildings getting slaughtered by random madmen.Gasp! maybe universal service , military or otherwise isn't such a bad idea. Then colleges won't be defacto abatoirs for mind or body. I discretely carried a Colt at Santa Cruz before going on to UCB. We had the 'Trailside Killer' back then. I walked a lot of trails and only encountered a few mystics and several skunks. I never shot either, or my co academics.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Because a campus is a person too?


Aren't campuses protected by police and security?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> 1. I would be the first to agree that many people are not needed in the military, or can contribute more in a non military position, but not "most"
> 
> 2. I would suggest that even the weakest man, with the best legal mind, would be a better legislator after he served in the military for a tour.


1 (which I didn't quote in full) - well, I suppose I should have said most people I know. I didn't realize your point of non-agreement was on the use of most, so I used a specific and clear example to show how it could be the case.

2 - on this point, if the person's ultimate best use is not in the military, what is the point of risking his life in the military? I have quite a few friends in the military (and my own father was in the USMC) and it the opinion of both them and myself that the "education" they received in the military has in no way served them.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Have you considered moving to China? The government will guarantee your personal safety, until they shoot you in the head or run you over with a tank.
> 
> And how free would you feel to e.g. engage in heated political discourse in a classroom, knowing full well that many/most of your classmates are carrying weapons, and are already under tremendous amounts of mental stress?


And how would you feel to e.g. engage in heated political discourse in a personal meeting of the Ask Andy Forum Interchange members, knowing full well that many/most of the forum-members are carrying weapons, and are already under tremendous amounts of mental stress?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> And how would you feel to e.g. engage in heated political discourse in a personal meeting of the Ask Andy Forum Interchange members, knowing full well that many/most of the forum-members are carrying weapons, and are already under tremendous amounts of mental stress?


I think participation in a men's fashion forum indicates one is relatively free of mental stress.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

How is being a student stressful? You read and you write...there is no stress involved.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> How is being a student stressful? You read and you write...there is no stress involved.


Is there no end to quotable signature lines in this forum?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> And how would you feel to e.g. engage in heated political discourse in a personal meeting of the Ask Andy Forum Interchange members, knowing full well that many/most of the forum-members are carrying weapons, and *are already under tremendous amounts of mental stress?*




MichaelS, I am sorry to hear you have tremendous mental stress and I feel you are wise not to allow yourself to carry a gun. As you have already intimated physical violence against me once, I think you are making a good decision. As someone with small amounts of stress, I hope that you one day find contentment for yours.

Cheers


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Is there no end to quotable signature lines in this forum?


Should I have added that I'm a law student and was recently an undergrad student at a top 10 college (well, top 10 liberal arts as ranked by us news) known for a high workload and no grade inflation? The guys and girls who celebrated their Thanksgiving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in a stressful situation, not us students.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> Should I have added that I'm a law student and was recently an undergrad student at a top 10 college (well, top 10 liberal arts as ranked by us news) known for a high workload and no grade inflation? The guys and girls who celebrated their Thanksgiving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in a stressful situation, not us students.


Oh puhleeze. That's just more blind, misguided and pathetic hero worship. If it weren't for roadside bombs our kids would be dying of _boredom_ in Iraq and Afghanistan. And over the years -- including the last five years -- we've seen far more incidents of students going postal on fellow students, compared to soldiers doing the same on fellow soldiers.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Oh puhleeze. That's just more blind, misguided and pathetic hero worship. If it weren't for roadside bombs our kids would be dying of _boredom_ in Iraq and Afghanistan. And over the years -- including the last five years -- we've seen far more incidents of students going postal on fellow students, compared to soldiers doing the same on fellow soldiers.


So, are you going to swap places with them then? I didn't say I think they should be over there, just that being over there is stressful and being in a classroom is not. You're a bit misguided if you think the only thing attacking them is roadside bombs. Friend of mine has 4 confirmed kills in Iraq, all defensive, each a unique incident. Getting shot at by a Dragunov SVD (as he was) is a lot worse than worrying how you did on your last test or how you have no friends because you're dysfunctional.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

marlinspike:

Pay no attention, I think you have put things in perspective very well.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> So, are you going to swap places with them then? I didn't say I think they should be over there, just that being over there is stressful and being in a classroom is not. You're a bit misguided if you think the only thing attacking them is roadside bombs. Friend of mine has 4 confirmed kills in Iraq, all defensive, each a unique incident. Getting shot at by a Dragunov SVD (as he was) is a lot worse than worrying how you did on your last test or how you have no friends because you're dysfunctional.


Several friends (and friends of friends) are over there now, and several more have served and returned home. Not only are they bored, the majority don't even believe they're serving any useful purpose in those countries.

This agrees with every survey I've read of U.S. troops in the last 3-4 years, e.g. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/on-a-new-poll-of-us-sol_b_16497.html. And those who aren't bored and disgusted are utterly clueless, e.g. "Nearly nine of every 10 - 85% - said the U.S. mission is "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks..."

Utterly clueless, and pathetic.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Utterly clueless, and pathetic.


Frank,

Why is it that everyone that does not 100% agree with the Gospel of FrankDC gets called names by you? That is what is totally pathetic. Cannot someone simply have an honest disagreement with you without getting called names? And your sources. My god.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank,
> 
> Why is it that everyone that does not 100% agree with the Gospel of FrankDC gets called names by you? That is what is totally pathetic. Cannot someone simply have an honest disagreement with you without getting called names? And your sources. My god.


Huh? Isn't Zogby was one of _your_ guys?

And I'm sorry if I'm splashing water all over America's love fest with our troops, but in this case it's badly, badly needed. IMO of course.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Huh? Isn't Zogby was one of _your_ guys?
> 
> And I'm sorry if I'm splashing water all over America's love fest with our troops, but in this case it's badly, badly needed. IMO of course.


There's enough info there to get in touch with the families and let them know that it's no big deal and not nearly as stressful a situation as, gasp, exam week.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Huh? Isn't Zogby was one of _your_ guys?
> 
> And I'm sorry if I'm splashing water all over America's love fest with our troops, but in this case it's badly, badly needed. IMO of course.


I do not even click your "sources" anymore after I tore several apart to have you too blind to appreciate the effort.

I do not claim to know what the majority of US troops think, as you constantly claim to, but I can tell you that vast majority in my neck of the woods, which happens to be home to D-M AFB and Fort Huachuca, seem to think they are doing a valid task. YMMV, but I tend to trust what I hear from the actual people as everyone reporting on it seems to have an agenda.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> 1 (which I didn't quote in full) - well, I suppose I should have said most people I know. I didn't realize your point of non-agreement was on the use of most, so I used a specific and clear example to show how it could be the case.
> 
> 2 - on this point, if the person's ultimate best use is not in the military, what is the point of risking his life in the military? I have quite a few friends in the military (and my own father was in the USMC) and it the opinion of both them and myself that the "education" they received in the military has in no way served them.


I am not going to voice an opinion on the present war. I think that all young men can benifit by a term in the military, and I think that a democracy is almost impossible to sustain over a long period without the majority of the people taking part in the defense of the state and people.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> I think that a democracy is almost impossible to sustain over a long period without the majority of the people taking part in the defense of the state and people.


What if you come from a state that's not continually under attack?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

omairp said:


> What if you come from a state that's not continually under attack?


canada has a proud history of what they like to call "peace keeping". service: taking orders, living next to people that you would normally never enounter, working toward a common good that is greater than you and above your level of understanding, and dealing with life and death are excellent sources of education for a young man. if your state doens't have a military - the french will take you, as long as you have a clean criminal record.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> [/b]
> 
> MichaelS, I am sorry to hear you have tremendous mental stress and I feel you are wise not to allow yourself to carry a gun. As you have already intimated physical violence against me once, I think you are making a good decision. As someone with small amounts of stress, I hope that you one day find contentment for yours.
> 
> Cheers


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

It was an obvious joke based on the tone of the posts in this thread! Bored sitting alone at your computer again?

Judging by the constant tone of so many of your posts, I really doubt your claim to be someone with small amounts of stress.

As to my stress, I love it!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Judging by the constant tone of so many of your posts, I really doubt your claim to be someone with small amounts of stress.


What gives my stress away? The constant "Cheers"? Or the dry wit I seemingly need to provide sub-titles to? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> How is being a student stressful? You read and you write...there is no stress involved.


There is some stress,I'm guessing.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Overhearing a conversation a couple of weeks ago this gal I went to school with in high school, or maybe it was just her husband, but anyway, her brothers took their guns to school so they could go shooting right after school and not have to go all the way home to get the guns. It was common for childern to bring guns to school in this little city in Eastern Washington. People didn't live in fear back then about people with guns. So what has gone so wrong with America that Americans can't trust other Amercians with guns? Why can't Americans cope anymore? We used to be the land of the brave. What have we become? The land of the cowards?

The only way to fight back is to take away the laws that prevent people from getting guns, including government checks, and then those that break the laws get what they deserve with out punishing the innocent. I'm tired of the innocent getting punished- this really needs to stop!!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Howard said:


> There is some stress, I'm guessing.


Howard, I have never seen anybody so clueless as you.

Did your parents keep you in a cardboard box your whole entire childhood?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

WA said:


> The only way to fight back is to take away the laws that prevent people from getting guns, including government checks, and then those that break the laws get what they deserve with out punishing the innocent. I'm tired of the innocent getting punished- this really needs to stop!!


How are innocents being punished? Seems to me that a legal gun owner can still pretty much have thier way for legit purposes.

I'm not anti-gun, but like many I'm for responsible control. Unfortunately this has become an all or nothing debate...

-spence


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Spence said:


> How are innocents being punished? Seems to me that a legal gun owner can still pretty much have thier way for legit purposes.
> 
> I'm not anti-gun, but like many I'm for responsible control. Unfortunately this has become an all or nothing debate...
> 
> -spence


Probably 95% of gun buyers are responsible people- they don't need government intrusion. What you believe in is government ownership of people, which is anti America, because of the Declaration of Indenpence- the first legal document of this country. Not to mention slavery has been outlawed, so government needs to obey the law. Socialism is another form of slavery. People are not to be owned. What part of that don't you get?

People who break good laws should be punished, not the innocent by goverment making bad laws. A good government does not punish the innocent. The government does not have any right to make me jump through a bunch of stupid hoops. If you want to jump through strupid hoops, then do it on your own. Why do you need to be lead around by the government? Where you not taught to be responsible as a child? Is that why you need government to run you life and say if it is ok for you to do this or that? If you and the rest of this country are so ill-responsible then how can you vote for a responsible government when there is nobody that is responsible to vote for? There is a whole line of responsible thinking that you have never known, isn't there? People are not animals to be corraled. You are like so many people who like the Jews in Germany were told to hop on to the train to safety, but instead, got railroaded to their death. Clearly some people do not want you to do your own thinking and it is never good to let somebody else run your mind. For you have clearly been mislead about what responsiblity is. When government has control over your life it means you don't. And when you don't have control it means you don't have freedom.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

the vast majority of guns owned by criminals were aquired illigally - basically, somebody stole them from "reposnsible" gun owners to sell to criminals. if somebody can steal your gun, you are not responsible.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> the vast majority of guns owned by criminals were aquired illigally - basically, somebody stole them from "reposnsible" gun owners to sell to criminals. if somebody can steal your gun, you are not responsible.


If life were only so simple globe. If you own two pistols and you keep them in a locked range box, at the back of our closet, in your locked house, which also has a secruity system, you are being responsible. Could those guns still get stolen from there? Sure thing. Responsible = taking reasonable precautions. Responsible =! certitude against all things.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> If life were only so simple globe. If you own two pistols and you keep them in a locked range box, at the back of our closet, in your locked house, which also has a secruity system, you are being responsible. Could those guns still get stolen from there? Sure thing. Responsible = taking reasonable precautions. Responsible =! certitude against all things.


yes, nothing is that simple, you are right. but for every guy who has two guns locked in a lockbox in a locked house, how many have a gun in their glove compartment? or dresser drawer? or have 250 guns on racks in the living room?

I have not ever advocated keeping guns away from people - having one or two well secured guns is very reasonable, I would suggest that more than a few people are less responsible than they should be.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> yes, nothing is that simple, you are right. but for every guy who has two guns locked in a lockbox in a locked house, how many have a gun in their glove compartment? or dresser drawer? or have 250 guns on racks in the living room?
> 
> I have not ever advocated keeping guns away from people - having one or two well secured guns is very reasonable, I would suggest that more than a few people are less responsible than they should be.


Globe, I am with you in that many people are not responsible. However, one case you mentioned, the glove box...that gets forced on people by existing law. For instance, going to the Post Office? Gun comes out of holster and must go in the glove box (locked) or trunk (which will totally draw attention to you in the parking lot). Going into an eaterie that also serves alcohol? Same deal. There are many examples.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Globe, I am with you in that many people are not responsible. However, one case you mentioned, the glove box...that gets forced on people by existing law. For instance, going to the Post Office? Gun comes out of holster and must go in the glove box (locked) or trunk (which will totally draw attention to you in the parking lot). Going into an eaterie that also serves alcohol? Same deal. There are many examples.


honestly, it is a hard issue - I was raised that you never leave a firearm unattended, that is, there should always be somebody watching your guns, or they should be a serious safe. that is extreme, but then you work around it and plan around it - I used to go to the police station to lock up my firearms when I would be out of town, for instance.

you don't have to go so far, but you can say "well, I know I need to leave the gun in the car every now and then, so before I put in a sound system, I'll put in a strong lock box for the gun".

I knew a guy who left a loaded gun under the seat of his car, the car he left unlocked in his driveway. his 16 year old son knew he had the gun, and where it was.

I don't know if he is in he 1 % of most irrisponsible gun owners, but I honestly believe that he is probrably in the mid range.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Globetrotter when I was in 1rst grade one of my peers had guns in every room of the house. Over the doors, all the way around each room like banners some banners three high. Even the bathroom and the kitchen had plenty of guns. Those kids wouldn't dare touch those guns evn though they hung on the walls about there beds. And how many houses had guns hanging over the fire place?

When criminals can go out and buy their own guns and when caught get serverly punished that means the rest of us are not being foolishly punished because of the few foolish. Government and all of it's regulations over 95% has not done much good at all, if any. Government does not have the right to tread on me. You are caught up with ill-responsible thinking and with an ill-responsible government looking over your shoulder- you should be able to see through that. This turning innocent people into criminals is not wise.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> Globetrotter when I was in 1rst grade one of my peers had guns in every room of the house. Over the doors, all the way around each room like banners some banners three high. Even the bathroom and the kitchen had plenty of guns. Those kids wouldn't dare touch those guns evn though they hung on the walls about there beds. And how many houses had guns hanging over the fire place?
> 
> When criminals can go out and buy their own guns and when caught get serverly punished that means the rest of us are not being foolishly punished because of the few foolish. Government and all of it's regulations over 95% has not done much good at all, if any. Government does not have the right to tread on me. You are caught up with ill-responsible thinking and with an ill-responsible government looking over your shoulder- you should be able to see through that. This turning innocent people into criminals is not wise.


I have the right to walk down the street wearing nothing but a thick coat of horseshit, if I want. I choose not to.

this discussion usually gets down to that point - I am not saying "take away the guns". I am saying "use only the guns that you need". there is a huge difference.

why should a house have guns hanging on all the walls? what possible good does that serve? the fact is, a lot of people are killed with guns in the US, and, another fact is that we have a lot of guns in the US. if we had less, less people would be killed - in my book, that is a good reason for us to have less guns.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> this discussion usually gets down to that point - I am not saying "take away the guns". I am saying "use only the guns that you need". there is a huge difference.


Sounds like you're a Texas justice pushing pink panty wearing rational thinker.

-spence


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> I have the right to walk down the street wearing nothing but a thick coat of horseshit, if I want. I choose not to.
> 
> this discussion usually gets down to that point - I am not saying "take away the guns". I am saying "use only the guns that you need". there is a huge difference.
> 
> why should a house have guns hanging on all the walls? what possible good does that serve? the fact is, a lot of people are killed with guns in the US, and, another fact is that we have a lot of guns in the US. if we had less, less people would be killed - in my book, that is a good reason for us to have less guns.


Sounds smart and wise, except you have stomped on the word liberity. Do you need any paintings in your house? What about extra dishes? Or, how about carpet. Do you have more than one bathroom in the house? Do you need paint on the walls? Etc.? People own guns for more reasons than you have acknoweged, which means you have stomped out those reasons as though you have some right and they don't. Therefore, that makes you a hypocrite.

When I was a boy there were a number of other boys that walked a trail behind the house on their way to a lake in the mountain nearby. Some of these boys carried guns and guess what? Nobody was afraid of them! Can you imagine that! And, Oh! they never had those guns for protection, isn't that terrible? Law abiding citizens carring and shooting guns without big moma government holding their hands and not even knowing they have guns. What you preach is fear like GB instead of true sanity, which is to not be afraid. The rules you would create are bogus laws that hurt people that would not hurt anyone. Law enforcement do pursue those who are not a thread over those that are a threat, so innocent people will be drug before the courts wasting billions of tax money and hard core criminals won't be bothered. In this town cops leave hard core criminals alone, but they do pursue non-threatening people who speed. Why do people own guns? Some for protection, others as a tool for hunting, some for competion, others recreation, and some just to have a gun if not several, and then there are the gun collectors, and there are more reasons than this and you excluded most of these liberties. Government does not have the right to know which liberties you pursue, and it certainly does not have the right to take away your liberties. Therefore government has no right to know if you bought a gun or to have any other knowlege of you and guns unless it tells you that you have to own a gun or if you do a crime with a gun. Now that is liberty and not the slavery that you impose upon others with your make believe morality. People were safer when I was a boy and young man. Today with the rules you believe in we are by far less safe. The fearful should not lead.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

WA said:


> Sounds smart and wise, except you have stomped on the word liberity. Do you need any paintings in your house? What about extra dishes? Or, how about carpet. Do you have more than one bathroom in the house? Do you need paint on the walls? Etc.? People own guns for more reasons than you have acknoweged, which means you have stomped out those reasons as though you have some right and they don't. Therefore, that makes you a hypocrite.
> 
> When I was a boy there were a number of other boys that walked a trail behind the house on their way to a lake in the mountain nearby. Some of these boys carried guns and guess what? Nobody was afraid of them! Can you imagine that! And, Oh! they never had those guns for protection, isn't that terrible? Law abiding citizens carring and shooting guns without big moma government holding their hands and not even knowing they have guns. What you preach is fear like GB instead of true sanity, which is to not be afraid. The rules you would create are bogus laws that hurt people that would not hurt anyone. Law enforcement do pursue those who are not a thread over those that are a threat, so innocent people will be drug before the courts wasting billions of tax money and hard core criminals won't be bothered. In this town cops leave hard core criminals alone, but they do pursue non-threatening people who speed. Why do people own guns? Some for protection, others as a tool for hunting, some for competion, others recreation, and some just to have a gun if not several, and then there are the gun collectors, and there are more reasons than this and you excluded most of these liberties. Government does not have the right to know which liberties you pursue, and it certainly does not have the right to take away your liberties. Therefore government has no right to know if you bought a gun or to have any other knowlege of you and guns unless it tells you that you have to own a gun or if you do a crime with a gun. Now that is liberty and not the slavery that you impose upon others with your make believe morality. People were safer when I was a boy and young man. Today with the rules you believe in we are by far less safe. The fearful should not lead.


WA,

try to stick to a reasonable argument. where have i ever supported laws restricting firearms?

and your other points make sense - do you need paint on the walls of your house? sure, but does it make sense to restrict lead paint, which can be lethal? yes, it does.

do you need extra dishes in your house? well, I have a certain number of dishes for every day use, and a certain number for "special" use. I actually inherited more dishes, and we decided that we didn't need them, and so we got rid of them. it would be silly for my family of 5 to have 500 sets of dishes around the house. and, if dishes killed people, it would be more than silly, it would be irrisponsible.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> WA,
> 
> try to stick to a reasonable argument. where have i ever supported laws restricting firearms?
> 
> ...


I know it sounds silly, but guns themselves don't actually kill people. In what way is having 100 guns in a house more dangerous than having 1 gun in the house if all of the people in the house are responsible?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> I know it sounds silly, but guns themselves don't actually kill people. In what way is having 100 guns in a house more dangerous than having 1 gun in the house if all of the people in the house are responsible?


1. are you sure that all the people who have access to those guns will always be responsible? guns last a long time, people come and go, and people change.

2. 100 guns are harder to secure than 1. if you feel that you are locking 100 guns up and securing them correctly, then they are no more dangerous. the people I know who have large numbers of guns don't secure them in a way that I feel is responsible.

3. I really believe in the principle that one gun is better than two - any guns above and beyond what are "needed" can, potentially, fall into the wrong hands.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

So you think guns will solve the problem If you had own one?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> 2. 100 guns are harder to secure than 1. if you feel that you are locking 100 guns up and securing them correctly, then they are no more dangerous. the people I know who have large numbers of guns don't secure them in a way that I feel is responsible.


If they're in your own home, what do you need to secure them for if you're responsible? As long as you don't let any irresponsible people into your own (and on the rare occasion you do have to, lock the guns away), how can they cause any harm? Home invader would steal it? 28 years in the same location without a home invasion. The probability is low, and the damages that would result are low as well (someone who likely already has a gun getting more guns). While that probability is still just as low that you'll need to use them in self-defense, the damages that would occur are much higher and so the cost of the first is justified by expected damages of the second.

I don't understand your first point at all about people coming and going. Are you saying that people leave their guns to irresponsible people in their wills?

On the 1 gun is better than 2, not that I practice this, but let's say you're in the kitchen and your one gun is kept by your bedside. An armed intruder comes in. How is that one gun in your bedroom better than 1 in your bedroom and 1 in your kitchen?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> If they're in your own home, what do you need to secure them for if you're responsible? As long as you don't let any irresponsible people into your own (and on the rare occasion you do have to, lock the guns away), how can they cause any harm?


I have guests in my house a few times a year, I also have the occasional plumber/handiman/babysitter. I think that that is pretty normal. one gun is pretty easy to secure when you have company, 100 are less so. on top of that - where do you draw the line? are you sure that everybody you consider a friend/family member is responsible?



> Home invader would steal it? 28 years in the same location without a home invasion. The probability is low, and the damages that would result are low as well (someone who likely already has a gun getting more guns).


well, I was thinking about a burglary - still much much more common than a home invasion, but that is an intersting point. home invasions of people who are not criminals are extremly rare, and yet they are the main reason cited by many people for wanting guns at home.

but burglaries are pretty common, and guns are one of the things that burglars activly look for.



> While that probability is still just as low that you'll need to use them in self-defense, the damages that would occur are much higher and so the cost of the first is justified by expected damages of the second.


actually, I this is where I disagree most - using a gun in self defense has a very marginal possiblity of helping, where as if a firearm is stolen, it is, by definition, going to fall into the hands of an outlaw. it is very probable that a stolen gun will be used irrisponsibly, and very probrably cause injury.



> I don't understand your first point at all about people coming and going. Are you saying that people leave their guns to irresponsible people in their wills?


I am saying that lets say right now you have 100 guns, and you have a large safe and security system for them. lets say you die, and your child gets them - will he have the same level of awareness about security? will he be interested in the guns? will he put them in boxes in the garage, maybe? or, maybe he won't even want them, and they end up going to somebody who is totally irrisponsible - effectly, 100 guns will outlive you, and you have no control over them.



> On the 1 gun is better than 2, not that I practice this, but let's say you're in the kitchen and your one gun is kept by your bedside. An armed intruder comes in. How is that one gun in your bedroom better than 1 in your bedroom and 1 in your kitchen?


good question

1. assuming that you are not a proffetional gunman, your training time is limited, you should be focusing on training with the one weapon that you are most likly to use. having multiple weapons around the house can cause confusion

2. I would argue that it is better to have one weapon secured correctly than one by your bedside and one in the kithen, if they aren't secured properly

3. the issue is much less a person with two guns - it is usually a person with 5 or 10 guns, all of which are different caliber and handle very differently. a person who plans his home defence this way is just setting himself up for disaster.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

I guess it comes down to if you think the government's job is to protect people from their own stupidity or not. If someone is in my dwelling and I don't have a good reason to assume they're responsible I tell them not to touch a gun because it's going to be loaded and they're going to hurt themselves. If I have a plumber or something of that sort come in (very very rare, there's very little a person can't do themselves), I lock things away. I would never leave a gun to someone who doesn't already own guns and/or acts irresponsibly.

The question boils down to should the government infringe on my right because there are stupid people who don't do these things. I say no, it seems to me you say yes.

Also, you're looking at the self-defense scenario from the other side of things. I'm saying your cost to not having a gun should that rare occasion (P) where you need it occur is your life. This is the ultimate cost (D). On the other hand, there is a slightly larger probability (P') of someone breaking in and stealing your guns (because well still rare, people do break in when nobody is home), but the cost is the mere potential that someone you don't want armed now is (D'). This cost is less than the ultimate cost.

I say that P*D > P'*D'


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> I guess it comes down to if you think the government's job is to protect people from their own stupidity or not. If someone is in my dwelling and I don't have a good reason to assume they're responsible I tell them not to touch a gun because it's going to be loaded and they're going to hurt themselves. If I have a plumber or something of that sort come in (very very rare, there's very little a person can't do themselves), I lock things away. I would never leave a gun to someone who doesn't already own guns and/or acts irresponsibly.
> 
> The question boils down to should the government infringe on my right because there are stupid people who don't do these things. I say no, it seems to me you say yes.
> 
> ...


what I find most interesting is that, maybe 1000 times over the past few years I have clearly said on this forum that I don't believe that the government should limit gun ownership, and yet, everybody who is pro-gun, seems to think that any sugestion that they shouldn't have a takn at home comes with the idea that all guns should be outlawed.

let me state this clearly - you should have the right to have guns. you should, as a point of honor/style/what have you, not utalize that right to the full, in my opinion.

I see no reason why, dispite the fact that you have the right to do something stupid, you should insist upon it.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

globetrotter said:


> I see no reason why, dispite the fact that you have the right to do something stupid, you should insist upon it.


It's only stupid when done stupidly.


----------

