Home > Dr. Steve Sainsbury > Taking Aim at Handguns

Taking Aim at Handguns

We certainly had a lively segment on Wednesday when emergency room physican Dr. Steve Sainsbury dropped by to elaborate on his recent Op-Ed in the Tribune about handguns.

Dr. Steve isn’t against hunting, nor does he have a beef against sport shooting. But he has treated more than a thousand gunshots wounds in his career and he believes it’s time to get serious about handguns in this country. He drew comparisons between the U.S. and other countries, especially in Europe where they don’t seem to have as many gun-related deaths. Dr. Steve is especially concerned by the use of guns in suicide cases.

In responses to numerous calls, Dr. Steve dismissed the Second Amendment as not being absolute and certainly not applying to the weaponry of today. He believes that there are too many handguns and too many people have easy access to them. He calls it an epidemic.

I’d say the calls were balanced pro and con on this subject with most of the disagreement coming from those who believe that people have the right to defend themselves. Dr. Steve believes using a gun only escalates the violence.

A very articulate and passionate guest, but what say you about handguns in the U.S. Is this an epidemic we need to address, or is the good doctor misdiagnosing the problem?

Advertisements
  1. Anonymous
    June 8, 2007 at 2:05 am

    Yes! Yes! Yes! No hand guns! They should be outlawed by tomorrow afternoon! This blog rocks!
    Forget the facts that when Florida became a “right to carry” state only 4% more floridians bought hand guns…and violent crime rates dropped dramatically and still are! Who cares! Forget the second ammendment! Those ammendments we meant for way back then not now! We all now that!
    And you should also forget that when canada outlawed guns their crime rates screamed to an all time high and remain there…who cares!
    We need to listen to the doctor who thinks nobody should have a hand gun…I think we all agree here on this blog…
    Do you think the gangs and criminals will agree with us progressive minded liberal small town thinkers…
    They must! We make too much sense for them not too!
    They will just throw their hand guns away…right? WAIT!
    What if they don’t? Oh my gosh! Then only the criminals would have hand guns. mmmmm Now I’m confused! But I still agree with Dave and the doctor!
    no more hand guns…(right?)

  2. Anonymous
    June 8, 2007 at 3:40 am

    Perhaps Doctor Steve, a noted firearms expert, could explain how, according to CDC figures, ten times the number of firearms victims die each year due to physicians’ mistakes? Perhaps doctors are more dangerous to the public than handguns?

  3. Anonymous
    June 8, 2007 at 3:55 am

    Almost as many peope die from pharmacy mistakes, which is some 10,000 people. Maybe we should bad prescription drugs too?

  4. Anonymous
    June 8, 2007 at 4:12 am

    So no more guns, doctors or drugs?
    Wow! What a great society that would make!
    Can we still leave marijuana alone?
    I need it for my pain…
    Except for that…the drug companies (Bush’s friends) can all go broke!
    But who will treat all our illegal mexican friends?
    dang! now I’m confused

  5. Marilyn
    June 8, 2007 at 5:20 am

    The purpose of guns is to kill people. The purpose of doctors is to save people. I would take a doctor any day over a gun.

    Anonymous, your logic is flawed. Although 10 thousand people die of malpractice a year, millions more are also saved every year. Compare that with guns. Guns have killed millions over the last century. How many lives do you think guns saved in comparison to the ones they actually killed?

  6. admin
    June 8, 2007 at 6:02 am

    Marilyn, your numbers are off by an order of magnitude. The number dying by malpractice each year exceeds 100,000.

    As for guns not saving lives – what do you call it when an armed citizen pulls a gun and tells a criminal to go away (over 2 million times a year) or shoots an attacker and thereby saves themselves?

    Guns and suicide? How about tall buildings and suicide? The Japanese have almost no arms in private hands, yet their suicide rate is double the US rate. Studies have shown that if you remove guns, the gun-related suicide rate goes down. But the suicide rate doesn’t change. People just use other means.

    Finally, it is true that guns have been used to kill not mere millions, but more than a HUNDRED MILLION of people over the last century. I speak, of course, of the JPFO finding that totalitarian governments after first confiscating firearms from their citizens then used them to slaughter the (disarmed) helpless citizens by the millions – in Russia, Germany, China, Rwanda, Cambodia… a total of more than 100 million people killed BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS AFTER BEING FIRST DISARMED.

    So, you want to disarm the People?

    Puts you right up there with Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot…

  7. fsilber
    June 8, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    The doctor claims that using a gun in self-defense only escalates the violence. I guess he has in mind the replacement of an armed robbery or rape with a mere attempted armed robbery or rape ended by a legal and justifiable homicide.

    I strongly favor that kind of violence escalation, and deeply resent the doctor. Consider a rapist’s buddy who pins a womans arms while his friend rapes her. He defends his actions by arguing that the woman would otherwise try to scratch out the rapist’s eyes using her long fingernails, and not even a rapist deserves to be permanently blinded. So he helps with the rape.

    Instead of pinning the woman’s arms, Doctor Steve would take away her gun. Either way, he is the rapist’s buddy, and morally no better than the rapist, burglar or armed robber himself.

    Because he works within the law, however, I consider Doctor Steve to be a bigger threat than the criminals.

  8. Henry
    June 8, 2007 at 2:10 pm

    The amazing thing here is Doctor Steve was able to get through medical school even he is severly impeded by an extremely low IQ. If he studied medicine the way he has studied history, I wouldn’t let him put a bandaid on a paper cut.

  9. Anonymous
    June 8, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    “Dr. Steve isn’t against hunting, nor does he have a beef against sport shooting … and he believes it’s time to get serious about handguns in this country.”

    “Dr. Steve is especially concerned by the use of guns in suicide cases.”

    If his beef is only against handguns, how does this comport with his concerns about gun suicides? Long guns work just as well (or better) for suicide as handguns and most gun suicides involve long guns last I heard.

    I think the good doctor is lying to us.

  10. Anonymous
    June 8, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Marilyn,

    If you would take a doctor over a gun owner, a good start would be a medically supervised weight loss doctor

  11. Rich from Paso
    June 8, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    No, Marilyn, my logic is fine. My point illustrates the flawed logic the good doctor has. Anyone can find any reason to ban anything they want. Why not ban knives? They can be used to kill, commit suicide, etc. And since banning guns will lead to more stabbings, we should get ahead of the power curve and ban knives now. As for the good guns have done, our soldiers in WWII didn’t liberate Europe with slingshots and wet lasgna noodles. We did it with guns. What all you liberal headcases forget is that a handgun is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It is not inherently evil or good. it is an inanimate object. Any tool, used with malice, can kill. A hammer has been used to kill, as a chain saw has as a car has. All those items are tools. It is interesting to note that serial killers, with the exception of the Maryland sniper case, do all of their killings up close and personal. Jack the Ripper, the Nightstalker, the Hillside Strangler, BTK, etc. all strangled or knifed their victims to death.

    I will grant you that when it comes to taking a human life, a gun is the tool of first resort. The reason is the simple efficiency by which an evildoer can end the lives of those the choose. And the other annonymous is right: a disarmed populace is nothing more than lambs to the slaughter for an oppressive government. Watch a documentary on Cambodia or life under Saddam or what it was like to be a Jew in Nazi Germany or Poland and you, if you actual can stomach watching anything on Jews, will see that they were all defenseless masses easily dispatched.

    There is a really good book on this topic called “On Killing”, it was written by a friend of mine David Grossman. In the book, he talks about how fewer than 10% of the total troops in the field actually killed someone with their musket during the Civil War. Most fatalities in combat were from bayonette charges. That number rose slightly in WWI, but most casualties there were from artillery and machine gun fire. WWII the number rose up to 25% or so. It wasn’t until the Vietnam War that our training methods changed and the effectiveness of our M-16 raised that number up to around 60%. Fast forward to today, the Iraq War has produced a nearly 90% kill rate by our rifles. Which means that 90% of our soldiers are having no problem shooting and killing the enemy. All you liberal pacisfists may think that is a bad thing, but consider: How many soldiers did we really need if 90% of them actually pulled the trigger and killed a Nazi in WWII? We lost 300,000 soldiers and most of them died without firing a shot. That is wasting lives. We have been able to do what we have because our soldiers are that much more effective in doing their jobs: killing the enemy. Now, this is not to excuse the lack of troops that was needed immediately after the statue came down; I have conceded that already.

    I know this is kind of getting away from the foundation of the thread, that being handguns are bad, but it is to illustrate that handguns and guns in general are not evil, but are inanimate tools that can be misused by lunatics like the VA Tech shooter. I do believe that every handgun should have a built-in trigger lock and that every gun owner must attend police certified training before they can purchase a handgun.

  12. Anonymous
    June 8, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    Anything that encorages a criminal to choose a rifle or shotgun to commit his deeds is foolish.

    Perhaps, though, this is in the interest of the doctor. The bodies will be driven directly to the morgue, and he wou’t have to spend any time on them.

    And effective ban on handguns would result in criminals choosing these more deadly tools.

  13. Hoosier21
    June 8, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    Statistics are a wonderful thing. Dr Salisbury repeatedly brought up the 22: 1 ratio. This is the ratio of deaths from guns other than justifiable homicide (suicide, non justifiable homicide, and accidental death) to the number of justifiable homicides. Sounds terrible, doesn’t it. But what is the ratio in homes where there are no hand guns. It’s almost 4 times as high. Close to 100:1. Does this mean homes with guns are safer? No. It just shows that not all stats have meaning. This stat is used by gun control people to convince others how dangerous guns are, when actually it is a useless stat in this argument.
    Everything you would want to know about guns
    http://www.guncite.com/

  14. Anonymous
    June 8, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    An estimated 225,000 people die every year in this country as a direct result of receiving medical treatment. Slightly under 30,000 die from firearms and that includes 16,000 suicides as well as gang shootings and legitimate shootings by law enforcement and self defense by victims of attacks.
    There are approximately 3.4 million doctors and nurses in the U.S. There are an estimated 250 million firearms. Where is the greater threat?

  15. Rich from Paso
    June 8, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    Hey Annonymous: Your statistics raise a very interesting question in my mind. If the Federal Government can botch something like Hurricane Katrina relief (as the liberals remind us every time they wish to pile on Bush) just how bad do you think the Federal Government can make the medical situation worse? I think that deaths due to malpractice and bureacracy will cause that number to increase dramatically.

  16. Hoosier21
    June 8, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    I know most liberals don’t want to hear this, but our first amendment right is the cause of our abuse of the second amendment. You can not scan through the FM radio dial without hearing a song demeaning someone or about violence toward someone. You can not flip through the TV channels without seeing some guy chasing someone (usually women) with a gun or axe or something. I am not saying ban the 1st amendment. I am just saying we reap what we sow and this is just an expected result. Many books on this.

  17. Rich from Paso
    June 8, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    Great point, Hoosier.

  18. Victoria in SLO
    June 8, 2007 at 10:35 pm

    Banning hand guns would not violate the right to bear arms. The gun advocates could still have their rifles for hunting. When our founding fathers granted us that right most people who had arms had rifles and shotguns,not the semi-automatic hand guns that are used in these mass killing, such as Virginia and Colorado. I agree with the doctor. As a registered nurse with more than thiry years of practice in Intensive Care and Emergency Room I have had to care for more victims of guns than I would like to count, even a gentleman who kept a gun by his bed. He heard a noise and thought someone was trying to break-in to his house. He got up and tucked his gun in the waist band of his pants. Unfortunately the gun was heavy and slipped down from his waist down the inside of his pant leg and discharge when it hit the floor. He nearly died from blood loss before the EMTs reached his home not to mention injuries to certain delicate parts of his anatomy. Oh, and the intruder was his son coming home.

  19. Marilyn
    June 8, 2007 at 10:58 pm

    The fact still remains that more people’s lives are saved by the medical and nursing profession every year than by owning guns. Guns kill more “innocent” people than they save “innocent” lives.

    If someone has statistics to show that more lives were saved by actually using guns, please share them with us. Of all the weapons discharged in this country, how many were actually discharged erroneously or to commit a crime versus to save lives? Of all the guns I have been around (and I have been around a few that have been actually discharged against people), it is rare that innocent lives were saved, including in peacetime and in war. Usually, “innocent” people are caught in the middle of it or are injured or killed accidentally.

    I have seen situations where violence was defused using plain old negotiation whereas the use of guns escalated the conflict.

    I think many people are talking in hypothetical situations and have not had to use guns in real life against real people. The reality is different.

    I agree with Victoria and the doctor, the Constitution acknowledges the right of citizens to protect themselves, especially against transgressions of an oppressive government. The Constitution does not recognize the lawless accumulation of weapons of all calibers and lethal strength. That was not the INTENT of the amendment. The intent of the amendment was to promote citizen safety and rights and not to encourage gun ownership. One is not necessarily inclusive of the other.

    We should not use the Constitution to promote policies that go against the intended purpose of that Constitution.

    I ask again, how far do we go in owning guns? Is an RPG a legitimate weapon to own and is firing an RPG or an automatic gun a legitimate form of protection against unarmed suspected intruders?

    There are many people who fire their weapons before they judge the situation they are in as Victoria’s example shows and there are many of those examples around. I know many people who have shot their siblings by accident and who went on to kill themselves with a gun also because of the guilt they felt. Where is the necessity and justice in such a way of life?

  20. lb
    June 9, 2007 at 12:21 am

    I would put a ban on homicide vests

  21. Anonymous
    June 9, 2007 at 12:56 am

    so now the libs want our guns! LOLOL! Try this out…if you believe hand guns should be banned turn in your gun to the local police.
    Then when you are really in trouble call 911…waiting 15 mins for the cops to arrive…or over an hour in a civil crisis you will pray to have your gun back! wait! You libs don’t pray…so I guess either way you are screwed!
    But what a great way to thin the lib gene pool!

  22. Anonymous
    June 9, 2007 at 12:59 am

    LB!
    You can’t ban suicide vests! That violates our muslim brothers and sisters right of religeous freedom!
    shame on you!
    Thats why they all hate Americans!
    We need to embrace our muslim friends…counsel them…invite them for a sunday BBQ (no pork!)
    Make a new friend! Embrace a muslim…and let them vest up as allah directs them…It’s only fair and right and just!

  23. Marilyn
    June 9, 2007 at 1:20 am

    To the anonymous infatuated with suicide vests, those are not used in the back woods of Hicktown. Our Christian brothers have nothing to worry about out there (no offense and my apologies to the real people of faith out there).

    I think maybe wearing camouflage battle fatigues and playing Rambo while hunting defenseless squirrels and ducks with Uzis and double barrel shotguns have gotten some people confused between real courage and bullying. Must me a tough world out there for all the battle hardened squirrel hunters.

  24. billyD
    June 9, 2007 at 3:45 am

    rich great post marilyn O never mind you will never get it

  25. Bob from San Luis
    June 9, 2007 at 6:17 am

    ATTENTION, TO THOSE ON THE RIGHT: The Second Amendment is not the only amendment to be worried about. “If they take away our handguns, what’s next, our assault weapons?” What you on the right should be more concerned with is the one amendment we all should be worried about, the Fourth Amendment.

    Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Why is this more important than having your precious weapons? Well, if the government can come into your home without a warrant, arrest you without cause, detain you without showing you why, no amount of ammunition, automatic weapons or handguns will stop the government. Do you really think that firearms will help you if our government suddenly decides that you are a “problem” and you should be removed from society? Do you have some sort of fantasy that you will be part of an armed uprising against a totalitarian government, when they have all of the firepower of our awesome military?
    What all you liberal headcases forget is that a handgun is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It is not inherently evil or good. Um, Rich, that tool as you call it, has one purpose, only. To “misuse” a handgun is still using it as it is designed to be used. Yes, you can misuse a knife, a baseball bat, a pipe, etc, but how many people intentionally misuse those tools to harm more than one or two people, how many times does it happen that a young person picks up a knife or bat and stabs or clubs someone by accident? I am truly amazed at how dependent handgun owners are on their “tool”.

  26. Steve
    June 9, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Bob essays

    Well, if the government can come into your home without a warrant, arrest you without cause, detain you without showing you why, no amount of ammunition, automatic weapons or handguns will stop the government. Do you really think that firearms will help you if our government suddenly decides that you are a “problem” and you should be removed from society?

    The government boogieman is real but you should not have guns? Huh?

  27. Anonymous
    June 9, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    To marilyn: Your cover was blown long ago…We are onto to your schtick!
    To Bob: First I suggest a hobby for you, if not that then the govt can search, seize, arrest and detain me all they want if they promise to keep all those wack-a-loon muslim freaks off our streets. Small price to pay to stay alive.

    Those islamo facist have nothing to lose! They live in the crap hole of the world with nothing! No water. elctricity etc…all they have is some dead guy that brainwashed em all to kill anyone that has more than them. Not bad logic. Kill those with more than you keeps this allah freak from actually having to do something to improve the quality of life…oh…and his opinion of muslim women…thats a beauty ain’t it? And millions follow this idiots idealogy? Maybe there was hope for Jim Jones after all. Maybe he served the kool aid a century or three too early!

  28. rob in los osos
    June 9, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    wow anonymous

    you have such depth and clarity of thought – are you by any chance a writer or philosopher or perhaps an astrophysicist? All I ask is for more – please enlighten us all with more of your pearls of wisdom.

    Although,
    Its too bad you’re such a freakin’ pussy that you don’t even have the guts to post with your own name, JERRY DAGNA

  29. NewsstandGreg
    June 9, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    Anon,

    Who is this “we” you speak of? Marilyn is one of the only commenters who doesn’t sling (“lib” or “winger”) labels instead of actually speaking to the point.

    Looks to me like Marilyn has real world experience and is willing to share it. What about you?

    I must congratulate most of the commenters for staying on the “hand guns” topic.

    My take: safety locks, safe-use training, felony check and one more. Risk screening: any would-be gun/ammo buyer would be screened for psychological history related to being a threat to public safety and welfare evidenced by restraining orders.

    Posting this type of info into a local database would be required and would be used to disallow a purchase. Had this policy been in place at the time, the Virginia Tech rampage would not have happened.

    What do you think?

  30. Anonymous
    June 9, 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Wake up gregg! Getting a hand gun is easier than buying booze under age!
    Guns were here from the beginning…every page of american history is told from the sites of a gun.
    Guns are here to stay. Don’t want one…don’t get one!
    Light your insense and sign ohms to your attacker…
    as for me a 357 magnum…2 shots to the upper torso and one to the head! It’s cheaper that way rather than trying to lock him/her up for 20 yeras! Saves taxpayers money and gives me a story to tell forever…
    Go ahead…make my day…I don’t dial 911.
    as for marilyn…oh forget it!

  31. Tango
    June 9, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    Originally Posted by newsstandgreg:

    My take: safety locks, safe-use training, felony check and one more. Risk screening: any would-be gun/ammo buyer would be screened for psychological history related to being a threat to public safety and welfare evidenced by restraining orders.

    Greg – while a nobly intended sentiment, I have personal knowledge of four cases where restraining orders were filed as a “matter of course” during divorce proceedings; all by the wives, and all alleging a “fear of violence” as advised by their attornies. None of the husbands had ever made threats or been involved in physical altercations with their wives during the marriage.

    In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms already precludes persons subject to such restraining orders from purchasing firearms under Section H on Form 4473.

    http://www.atf.treas.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

    For Victoria; while I respect her point of view, I’ll counter her experience with being a EMT/Paramedic for 18 years. I also have seen a fair share of gun violence, and have found that the majority of “innocents” killed by gunfire were people whose families denied their involvement in illegal acts; or folks who were hanging with their friends – friends who, after investigation, just happened to found to be gang members or drug dealers.

    I can count on one hand the number of true “innocents” killed by guns; and while this does not lessen the crime or pain of such a tragic incident, it allows the casual observer a clearer understanding of how circumstances and surroundings can effect outcome.

    It may also demonstrate that guns do not simply stroll down the street by themselves, shooting persons at random.

    Originally Posted By Marilyn:
    If someone has statistics to show that more lives were saved by actually using guns, please share them with us.

    You might want to check out the 1997 US Department of Justice study “Guns in America” , authored by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

    http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt

    It revealed that firearms were used more than 1.5 million times each year in self defense – and those were only documented examples. Other reporduced studies have shown that number to be closer to 2.5 million times.

    Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995)

    For the “handguns aren’t included in the 2nd Amendment” crowd – as a descendent of one of the Lexington Minutemen, allow me to provide this history lesson:

    The Revolutionary War began April 19, 1775 because a detachment of 700 British Army soldiers were sent to Concord to seize weapons owned by the colonists… included in those arms were “non-sporting” ones.

    Such actions were one of the reasons that the “2A” was included in the Federal Constitution; in fact, many states adopted language guaranteeing the individual the right to keep and bear arms before the newly formed US government did, and an impasse to the ratification of the US Constitution was threatened if similar language was not included.

    And FWIW, I have also been olaced in situations where I have had to use my handgun for self defense more than once; luckily, I didn’t need to fire it before the person threatening me decided to change their plans for the moment. And since I didn’t discharge it, I felt no need to call the police – so my uses are in addition to the “officially documented” ones.

    I believe that the rights of the law abiding should not be restricted due to the actions of criminals, or the accidents of the hapless.

  32. Anonymous
    June 10, 2007 at 4:05 am

    Dave, I had called in advocating banning swimming pools if one is to ban hand guns. When I called in I did not have my source in front of me unlike the doctor who had his gun control lobby numbers available to him.

    According to the book Freakonomics For children under 10, the likelihood of death by pool is 1:11,000 vs death by gun 1:1,000,000+ (pp 135-136).

    The doctor was just spouting gun control propaganda numbers, you should have vetted your guest better Dave.

    On a side not I think it would be amazing if you could land the authors of Freakonmics to appear on your show. I do not know if you have read the book Dave, but it is interesting as hell. By no means is it a right-wing book at all (they credit the drop in crime in the ’90s to Roe V Wade). Get the authors on your show Dave, and it will be your best one yet.
    –Nick in Santa Maria

  33. Bob from San Luis
    June 10, 2007 at 5:20 am

    The Revolutionary War began April 19, 1775 because a detachment of 700 British Army soldiers were sent to Concord to seize weapons owned by the colonists… included in those arms were “non-sporting” ones. … and this addresses the issue of handguns not being specifically noted in the second amendment how? Can you legally own a fully automatic weapon? Can you legally own land-mines, grenades, r.p.g.s, or anti-aircraft missiles? No, they have been outlawed, as they are too lethal for civilian use.

    What all you liberal headcases forget is that a handgun is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It is not inherently evil or good. it is an inanimate object. Any tool, used with malice, can kill. That is true enough, but that “tool” is designed for one purpose only. The point about any “tool” being misused is that a despondent individual might be able to commit suicide with a hammer or axe, a person in the heat of an argument might pick up that shovel or knife, a child might find a straight edge razor laying about and hurt themselves badly, but in every case just mentioned, if there is a loaded handgun available without a trigger lock, and you have the potential for a homicide or accidental death, period. Rich mentioned earlier about the deaths caused by drunk drivers; if all available laws on driving under the influence were enforced to the maximum and the whole of the judicial system addressed drunk driving with the intensity that it deserves, deaths by drunk drivers would be reduced. If drunk driving were changed into a felony for any offense, in other words the laws made tougher, deaths caused by drunk drivers would significantly reduced. In a straight up comparison then, why can’t you handgun enthusiasts acknowledge that even enforcing the existing gun laws could reduce handgun related deaths? To continue the comparison then, more restrictive laws should further reduce handgun related deaths, and the complete outlawing of handguns would lead to an even further death rate related to handguns. Most, if not all of you handgun enthusiasts will at this moment will be frothing to respond to me with all of the vengeance you can muster; but first, please tell me, why are you all so attached to your “tool”?

  34. Anonymous
    June 10, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    Bob,
    Nobody can copy-n-paste better than you! George sorros has a good friend in you!
    Keep up the good work! Don’t think…just lock step with his move on organization and copy-n-paste your way to a new america!
    Way to go Bob!

  35. Anonymous
    June 10, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    Marilyn, In “our” country we respect and defend incividual freedoms…especially the right to bear arms!
    As for the “hardened sqirrel hunters”…do you homework!
    When they banned hunting in the widerness of Yellowstone it wasn’t more that 3 breeding seasons before the balance of wildlife was dangerously out of control. What was the solution? The powers to be opened that area up again to the hunters…and now all is well again.
    Liberal indoctrinated women that call themselves “thinkers” are not far from an embarassment of facts as you are in this situation.
    As many have saod before…If you are so dedicated to change, go back to your dust pit of a country and straighten those brainwashed idiots!
    We in America are and will do just fine without the likes of those “transplants” that come in here and place their heads into the public trough for a living and then spend their tme time trying to destroy that which feeds your mouth.
    Foloow your sons lead and bend a kneee to the Lord and savior Jesus Christ and get on the right path.
    You are desperately lost soul…and a bitter one at that.
    Which in itself is the reason that an unmarried woman over 45 chances of getting married again is 1 in 1887…pssst? Thats a hint!
    Men just don’t like angry and bitter women…no matter how smart they think they are!

  36. Anonymous
    June 10, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    i agree bob has some major “issues”

  37. Paul
    June 10, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    Bob, you would understand if you had one.
    I think the point being made is that people are going to injure and kill themselves no matter what kind of laws you pass. The fact is most people don’t harm themselves or others, and this endless effort to rid the world of danger is intrusive and selective.
    I also think that when the bad guys kill each other, that’s a good thing.
    Rob, the mouse definitely reeks of dagnism. Or would that be dagma? Dagnican?

  38. Rich from Paso
    June 10, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Bob, let me start by saying that I do not own any firearms of any kind. But just because I do not see a reason to own a gun doesn’t maean no one should own a gun. I don’t hunt, but I defend those that do their right to hunt. I don’t selectively choose which articles of the Constitution or which laws I want to see enforced. I support a woman’s ability to get an abortion (which I am morally opposed to) with the same energy that I support the right to keep and bear any legal firearms. But what you fail to understand is that you can’t legislate behavior. If you ban all handgun, you will not prevent death, just handgun deaths by legal handgun owners. Criminals in England still have handguns even though they are illegal for law-abiding citizens to own. That is a fact.

    Suicides by handguns do account for 60% of all suicides of both men and women. But again, eliminating the handguns will just make suicide by hanging (the #2 method prefered by men) number one. Women would continue to OD and poison themselves to death (#2 for women). Eliminating handguns does not eliminate the reasons why people commit suicide. To even suggest that suicides will go down without handguns is naive and specious.

    Guns are a tool and yes, the designed purpose of a handgun is to kill. But so what? You make it sound like America would be a utopia if only we could get rid of handguns. Well, you do that with everything you support. America would be a utopia if: we banned handguns, had universal heathcare, no contractors doing anything for the Department of Defense, no more Wal-Mart, and no corporations, among other things. Well, in this case, banning handguns will just ensure that the street gangs, drug smugglers, bank robbers and any other na’er-do-well, has the handgun they need and the unarmed populace to prey upon. The disarmed law abiding citizens will just have to hang themselves or jump off the Golden Gate Bridge if they want to kill themselves in your world.

    Finally, nobody here wants anyone to have landmines, RPGs, heavy machine guns or anti-aircraft missles. Really, no gun collector wants any of that stuff. That is a stupid comparison

  39. Anonymous
    June 10, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Bob doesn’t have “issues”…he just doesn’t think the constitution is important enough to follow nowadays!
    He is like every spoiled brat limosuine liberal…They want it their way “or else”.
    That’s why they have failed after taking over the house and senate! That’s why the senates approval rating is below Bush’s…They are all talk and no action. We used to call those cry babies in my day.

  40. Elin
    June 11, 2007 at 12:43 am

    Robert has no issues, just disjointed opinions. Maybe he can wake up someday and figure out how dangerous his loose theories are.

  41. ANONYMOUS
    June 11, 2007 at 2:48 am

    Where is my Marilyn when we need her the most!?

  42. billyd
    June 11, 2007 at 4:15 am

    you dont need hand guns to kill does anybody know the name of tim mcveiay 160 plus and no guns just your homedepo any person can make a BOMB at home NO GUN

  43. Bob from San Luis
    June 11, 2007 at 8:20 am

    Well, that was interesting. And no surprise, Rich had the most intelligent responses, even if his data on handgun crime in England is over five years old. The “theory” about reducing handgun crime is that as you get further away from the initial date of the ban, fewer guns will be available for black market and then for criminals to use. The conclusive data is apparently not available yet, so it remains a “theory” at this point. Everyone who mentioned that countries that have handgun bans do seem to have a correlating bump in assault crimes have a valid point also. Rich, this will come as no surprise to anyone, but I do not own a firearm either. I have shot various weapons in my youth, and I have hunted before, but I have no interest at this stage of my life. One point you missed (slightly) was my implication about what a firearm is designed to do. A firearm is designed to fire its projectile as accurately as possible, with the implication that that projectile will hit the mark which is usually meant to kill. As I mentioned last comment, the real problem is when that despondent or enraged or (worse case) underage individual gets their hands on a loaded handgun that does not have a trigger lock, you have a recipe for disaster. I do understand that you cannot legislate behavior; my suggestion is to legislate opportunity. Rich, you assert that reducing the availability, or lack of, a handgun has no effect on suicide attempts or “successful” suicides; why is that “specious”, and what proof do you have to offer? I assume you are basing your assertion on common sense, but how about backing up your assertion?
    Rich, as to what I would consider a utopia of no privately owned handguns, no contractors working with the DoD, no Wal-Mart or other corporations and universal health care; I am a realist, meaning, I don’t foresee the day when handguns will ever be made illegal in the United States, period. As for the rest of your partial list; contractors certainly have a place in providing goods and services for the military; my gripe is when there is no competition and/or you have contractors doing the actual job the military is supposed to do. I do not want Wal-Mart to “go away”; I would like them to treat their employees (associates, as WM calls them) to be treated fairly, paid better and have access to reasonable health care. Perhaps if they would relent on the idea of being unionized they would see productivity increase and most likely their profits increase as well. I would also like to see them not have any special considerations when building their new stores such as zoning variances, waiving of permit fees and other devious means of getting their way. For corporations in general; eliminate the legality of corporations having the rights of a person; corporations have certain legal rights (granted by law), but none of the obligations of the individual. Universal Healthcare; yes, this one I agree with you. When we initiate a single payer universal health care system here in the US, not only will the citizens be in better shape, but the employers will be also.
    Back on topic; the fact that having a loaded, concealed handgun is only a misdemeanor (except at an airport or government building) is a nod to the NRA, so that usually law abiding citizens can protect themselves with a loaded firearm, but this also gives some credence for criminals to carry loaded firearms as well.
    Look, I understand you don’t want to give your weapon, or your access to having a firearm, so please do the following; don’t leave your weapons accessible to young kids, don’t leave your weapon loaded, and please buy and install trigger locks on all of your guns.

  44. Rich from Paso
    June 11, 2007 at 4:43 pm

    Bob, that last statement is the same last statement I made in my first post on this thread. Why do we get bogged down in all this minutia when you and I agree in principle on the overall topic at hand: trigger locks on all hand guns, certified training course prior to ownership, proper screening of medical and criminal records. So where’s the difference on this issue?

  45. Bob from San Luis
    June 11, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Rich: As far as I can see, the difference between you and me on this issue is that I do believe that fewer handguns will result in fewer deaths. You seem to poo-poo that ideal. I don’t understand people who claim to have a legitimate need to own a handgun in today’s society. This is not the wild west where everyone (it seems) is carrying. My argument is that since most people have no legitimate need, they should not have access to those weapons. But I also understand that many will stamp their feet and bawl if anyone even mentions restricting access to handguns. Good day.

  46. Rich from Paso
    June 11, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    Bob, it’s not up to you to decide who does or does not have a legitimate need for a handgun. I know you doing the academic thing with the topic, but the 2nd Amendment clearly states that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. Incidently, that the right to keep and bear arms is expressly there to keep the government from abusing its priviledges as a governing body and it prevents the very abuses you cited may be/are occuring under the 4th Amendment. Neither you nor I speak for the whole of the American people. You understand that you will never strike the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, so why don’t you spend your efforts trying to decress handgun deaths within the framework of a 2nd Amendment present in perpetuity? Your desires to interpret the Constitution according to your personal views and not according to what the Constitution states is a prime reason why people who think like you are dangerous to America. You seek excuses to impose your world view on the masses regardless of what is stated in the documents of America. That same methodology is what led to the creation of the phony “Right to Privacy” that allows women to kill babies in their wombs: the “prenumbra, formed by emanations” leads to the “right to privacy nonsense. Ironically, this was attributed to the Due Process clause of the Constitution which is not extended to would-be human beings. My point here is that every time I hear people on the left trying to abridge people’s rights, whether it is Anti-gun activists, the resurrection of the Fairness Doctine, prevention of peaceful protests at abortion clinics, the squelching and shouting down of conservative speakers on college campuses, etc, I cringe. The left has a nasty habit of doing things out of “compassion” or with the best of intentions and their efforts actually make things much much worse.

  47. Gunguy
    June 11, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    If I wanted to live in a country where the government decided what I needed and thus could own, I’d move to North Korea.

    Marilyn says she’d take a doctor over a gun every time. Well, if I’m having a medical issue or have suffered trauma, I’ll agree with her. But if I’m being attacked, robbed or watching someone trying to rape a loved one, I’ll take the handgun.

    I take my responsibilities as the head of my household quite seriously. I’ve obtained training in first aid, and keep a well equipped first aid kit in my home and in each of my family members cars. I look for electrical hazards, have working smoke detectors, and even fire extinguishers (which are not required by code) in my home. I have a supply of food, water, flashlights and a battery operated radio in the event of a natural or man-made disaster.

    Why in the world would I then trust my family’s safety to a 911 call and subsequent police response?

    I don’t. I have guns. And they’re loaded, and don’t have trigger locks.

    If a crook doesn’t want to stand there and wait for me to dial 911 and then for the police to show up, do you think he’ll wait for me to unlock my gun, load it and chamber a round? Me neither.

    But what about the children?

    I don’t have children. Why must you cast blanket laws when every situation is different?

    For what it’s worth, my guns are locked in a fashion that’s infinitely more secure than any trigger lock. But because non-gun people are trying to be experts on a subject they know nothing about, they’re advocating laws that would require someone who stores their guns in a 1000 pound safe to use a trigger lock.

    You guys amaze me.

    Humans have been killing humans since the beginning of time. You’re not going to stop it by taking away handguns. You’re just going to create more helpless victims.

  48. Anonymous
    June 12, 2007 at 1:49 am

    here’s the score:
    Cut-n-paste Bob 2
    Paso “wasting his time” Rich 5
    Hezbullah Mary -57
    Gun Guy a perfect 10
    Anonymous 312 and counting
    brett & Rob -45(are they a couple?)
    Hate bush croud 0 (helpless)
    Keep on blogging!

  49. Travis in SLO
    June 14, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    And Mr. Anon that has time to actually count the entries…priceless!

    Seems to me that in a time when a musket really was something very powerful compared to axes and arrows, they were true assault weapons of the age and even more powerful than a lowly handgun in a world with AK 47’s shotguns, uzi’s etc. See, it was a much more powerful weapon at the time.

  50. Bob from San Luis
    June 15, 2007 at 6:19 am

    The county Sheriff’s Narcotics Unit arrested a 50-year-old Arroyo Grande man Tuesday on suspicion of selling illegal firearms.

    I wonder if this guy was any of the anonymouses who comment here?

    LInk here to the whole article. Do you suppose he is a lifelong NRA member?

  51. the ghost of christmas past
    June 15, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Bob, you are always full of suppositions (among other things), aren’t you?

  52. gunguy
    June 15, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    I’m sad for Bob. He gets presented a logical counter argument to his anti-gun stance, and he instead chooses to implicate all gun owners or NRA members as criminals.

    Once again, it’s ok for the radical left to cast sweeping generalizations.

  53. Bob from San Luis
    June 16, 2007 at 6:59 am

    gunguy & tgoCp: I am full of suppositions, as well as “other” things; quite a long time ago I mentioned here on Dave’s blog that I fully reserve the right to make a fool of myself at any time on any subject, as being foolish is a totally human trait. Please reread my comments to Rich where I acknowledged that outlawing handguns will probably never happen given how much those who “treasure” their weapons will fight tooth and nail to defend their “right” to own them. Even though the Second Amendment makes no distinction about the type of weapon that can be owned and thus one could make the argument that that means handguns are not protected. As for my “supposition” that the man arrested in Arroyo Grande for the weapons violations might be one of the anonymouses who comment here; I would assume that he is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment (even though he was illegally selling legal and illegal firearms), and maybe he is an NRA member because he likes his firearms so much. Even if he is an NRA member, that does not cast dispersions on the NRA or any of their other members. My main objection to the private ownership of handguns is that having a lethal weapon that is relatively easy to use can lead to that handgun being misused. A home that has small children that also has firearms needs to be doubly cautious about how those firearms are stored and accessed, and those children need to taught very early that a gun is never a toy, even if you know that it is unloaded. As for suicide by handgun, the link provided details how those who have military experience are much more likely to kill themselves with a firearm than those who do not have that experience. My “question” about handguns is why do those who own them feel such an overwhelming need to possess them? I know many will say that they need the protection that a handgun affords them, but you can defend yourself most of the time without needing lethal force. And I am fully aware that I am not going to change anyone’s mind about owning or not owning a handgun. I would really like for anyone considering purchasing a handgun to really think about what your needs truly are before arming yourself.

  54. Travis in SLO
    June 16, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    Bob, you are completely foolish in saying that this criminal has anything to do with legitimate gun issues. In fact, it bolsters that fact that if you remove guns from the law abiding citizen, you will increase the power of the criminal element such as the man who was selling these illegal guns to illegal owners. See, they simply do not consider the law in their everyday activities. It is illegal to sell guns person to person in CA without going through a licensed dealer for the required checks, it is illegal to own, possess, or manufacture a fully automatic weapon without very restrictive approval in CA, and it is illegal to sell guns to someone who you know is part of a criminal element. How would a ban on handguns or any guns changed the headline in the Telegram Tribune about this criminal?

    Travis in SLO

  55. eric
    June 17, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    Bob really struggles to grasp reality. Reading one of his posts can be troubling. I hope he gets help soon.

  56. gunguy
    June 17, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    Bob, you’re right in that you can protect yourself without a gun most of the time. The trouble is, when the time comes that falls outside of that “most” category and you need a gun, your attacker is unlikely to wait for you to go to a gun shop, purchase a gun, wait ten days, pick up the gun, load it, and shoot him.

    If I knew with 100% certainty when and where violence would erupt, I wouldn’t need a gun. I’d just stay out of that place during that time. If only life were that predictable.

  57. Anonymous
    June 17, 2007 at 7:23 pm

    the aclu has bob’s back

  58. Bob from San Luis
    June 19, 2007 at 7:22 am

    Travis: I find your side-stepping the question about whether or not the man selling illegal guns is a supporter of gun rights a little amusing. Yes, the man is allegedly a criminal, selling guns in an illegal manner; that does not mean that he is not a supporter of gun rights, or espouses against any type of gun control. As to whether or not more restrictive gun laws would reduce the criminal element from gaining access to firearms; if more restrictive laws governing the manufacturing, transportation, distribution, and of course, the selling of firearms (along with more rigid bans against importing cheap or illegal type weapons were enforced, Yes, there would be a reduction in the ability of criminals to obtain firearms.
    gunguy: Seriously, please; have you ever had a situation that a gun was the only means of you or your family not being harmed, robbed or threatened? If you are encountering multiple situations where a gun is the only thing that protects you, you need to seriously exam how you are living your life. I studied a martial art for a few years (I really should go back to it), and I have used what I learned two or three times, but never in a manner that I would have been harmed without the training. The most important “skill” I learned was the ability to maintain an awareness of potentially bad situations so I could either avoid the situation, or I could be on a more heightened awareness while I am in that zone of a potentially bad situation. I am not suggesting that I will be able to defend or avoid all future situations that a gun would be the best or only protection, but I for one refuse to live my life thinking that by owning a handgun, keeping it loaded, and maybe even carrying it is the best means for me to protect myself or loved ones. If you feel that a handgun is the only way that you can have peace of mind, so be it (even if that is sad beyond comparison). Good luck with that.
    anonymouse: The ACLU has all of our backs, if the question is about the Constitution.

  59. gunguy
    June 19, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    Bob, you don’t know me. You don’t have a clue what my background is, what experiences I’ve had, or really anything about me at all. Yet when I present a logical argument as to why sometimes a gun is the best weapon of defense, you label me as “sad beyond comparison.”

    How dare you.

    I’m very aware of what situational awareness is, thank you very much.

    Your pondering about the NRA membership status of an accused felon is specious. It would be no different than me asking whenever someone is arrested for child molestation, “Hmmm…I wonder if he’s a Democrat?”

    Try to think outside of your little liberal fantasy world and realize that there are people out there that wouldn’t blink an eye at the thought of robbing or killing you. If you choose to protect your family with rusty martial arts skills and brotherly love, that’s your right.

    Just stop trying to stomp on mine, ok?

  60. Bob Sr.
    June 19, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    The ACLU is a political action group Bob. If you are godless, or liberal, or agnostic, or gay or a muslim they will use you like a tool in court to get their twisted anti American agenda turned into law.
    Call your beloved ACLU Bob when someone comes through your front door with bad intentions

  61. Anonymous
    June 19, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    ACLU finds a religion it likes

    Karen Bouffard / The Detroit News

    DEARBORN — Muslim leaders in Metro Detroit have decided not to raise private money to pay for two footbaths at a local college campus now that the American Civil Liberties Union has said the plan doesn’t pose constitutional problems.

    The University of Michigan-Dearborn’s plan to spend $25,000 on the footbaths was criticized on conservative blogs and radio shows this month. Critics said using public money for the project would violate the First Amendment, which says governments can’t favor or subsidize religions.

    Muslims are required to wash body parts, including feet, up to five times daily before prayers.

    University officials say the floor-level wash basins are needed because some students at the 8,600-student campus wash their feet in the sinks.

    Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said his group was concerned a public outcry would cause the university to back down from the project.

    “If the ACLU had decided to take legal action against the UM-Dearborn, we probably would have called for the university to raise the funds privately, just so that the UM-Dearborn wouldn’t have to go through the trouble of having to defend its position against the ACLU,” Walid said.

    Kary Moss, director of the Detroit branch of the ACLU, said its review concluded the plan is a “reasonable accommodation” to resolve “safety and cleanliness issues” that arose when Muslims used public sinks for foot cleaning before prayers, which often spilled water on bathroom floors.

    “We view it as an attempt to deal with a problem, not an attempt to make it easier for Muslims to pray,” said Moss, who likened the plan to paying for added police during religious events with huge turnouts.

    “There’s no intent to promote religion.”

    Bob from San Luis?

  62. the ghost of christmas past
    June 20, 2007 at 3:22 am

    I think that there shoudl be basins of holy water next to the footbaths so that there will be equal respect for all religions, not just the ones that the U of M administration is too chickenshit to stand up to. Diversity my ass! Only if you are a non-christian or jew and non-white do you get any consideration in the “diversity” catagory. It is the tyranny of the minority brougth to you by the Atheists, Criminals, and Letchers Union

  63. Bob from San Luis
    June 20, 2007 at 7:36 am

    gunguy: My comment about you being “sad beyond comparison” was my view that you seem to present here that you love having access to your guns, period. You are correct, I have no idea what your background is like, however I stand by my statement that if for you to feel “protected” you have to have a handgun nearby and loaded, I cannot understand how you can enjoy your life. That is to me, sad beyond comparison, in my view. As I said before, good luck with that, sincerely.
    anonymouse and tgoCp: Wow, you sure seem to have a “thing” for the ACLU. It is an organization of Americans who purport to love the Constitution so much that the lawyers and legal aides that volunteer their time to represent those who’s Constitutional rights are being trampled or violated. It is an organization of people however, so that means that it is not perfect. I am perfectly willing to believe that you or anyone else who has the time to research the topic can find many who have served in an official capacity for the ACLU have done all sorts of bad things; that makes them human beings, unless they are using their knowledge of the law and the resources of the ACLU to hide their own misdeeds or illegally cover their tracks. How many organizations do you know of that have absolutely no misconduct among their members? And getting back to gunguy for a second, given the most recent track record of the two political parties, a more likely remark about an arrest for child molestation would be “I wonder if he is a Republican politician?

  64. Bob Sr
    June 20, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    confused Bob says

    “It is an organization of Americans who purport to love the Constitution so much that the lawyers and legal aides that volunteer their time to represent those who’s Constitutional rights are being trampled or violated”

    volunteer? wha? Huh? you’re out to lunch buddy.

  65. Marilyn
    June 21, 2007 at 12:21 am

    To the truly interested entities, this page will describe what the ACLU is all about and how they get their money and, most importantly, who they actually serve. I think maybe we should all go back to school to study the Constitution and the Bill of Rights before we pass blanket judgment on an organization that has helped many who normally would have no recourse to justice because of their economic or class status.

  66. Charles Rust-Tierney
    June 21, 2007 at 3:00 am

    Outstanding link Marilyn. Do you have any children by chance?

  67. Mrs. GG
    June 21, 2007 at 9:31 pm

    Bob…

    I fail to see why you even ask if the criminal who sold guns illegally supports the 2nd amendment or is an NRA member.

    Why is it so hard to differenciate a criminal from someone who supports the 2nd amendment or is an NRA member?

    Honestly, does a criminals stance on gun control issues make any difference to non-criminal gun supporters?

    I think your argument was shallow, short sighted and completely missing the point. If a criminal wants to commit a crime, they’ll do it by whatever means are possible.

    I have personally been in situations (through *NO* fault of my own) where a gun was the ONLY way to leave a situation unharmed. Some of us have a rough life, even though we don’t ask for it. In my 5 (yes, 5) experiences with this, each time the “bad guy” backed down when there was force shown. It potentially saved the life of myself and my family.

  68. the ghost of christmas past
    June 21, 2007 at 11:09 pm

    hey look everyone! another woman is posting on this blog and she is not a rabid america hater like marilyn is. she disagree with bob. how cool is that? way cool in my book

  69. Bob Sr
    June 22, 2007 at 2:33 am

    Bob on the ACLU

    “How many organizations do you know of that have absolutely no misconduct among their members?”

    Bobby,Bobby,Bobby. It’s a political action group that is corrupt. Fact is Bob, a ACLU bylaw says members are not allowed to criticize the organization.
    Just curious, how much are the dues?

  70. the ghost of christmas past
    June 22, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Wow! Bob says that the ACLU’s members are allowed to be human beings, even though the leader of these human beings molest children and lobby and sue for pediophiles to be able to molest children (NAMBLA), but George W. Bush and anyone that supports Bush, also human beings, are miserable pieces of shit in Bob’s mind. What a contrast.

  71. Anonymous
    June 23, 2007 at 6:05 am

    Banning handguns by law will leave handguns in the hands of criminals, and government.

    Government is responsible for more gun deaths than all other non government gun deaths combined.

    Do you really want our government to have a monopoly on these tools?

    Do you really expect the government to protect you from those that do not care about the law? They tend to show up afterwards, or be the shooters.

    All governments become corrupted and fail. Ours has not failed yet. It is corrupt. Guns are insurance.

    Never forget that the second amendment was not written for hunters and sportsmen. It is essential for a free society to have the means to resist government force with force, as well as other threats to ourselves.

    What Hitler did was LEGAL, not moral. Guns are the last check on government when all other checks and balances fail.

    Please read the declaration of independence if you have not recently, and see if you feel these words are irrelevant.

  72. Anonymous
    June 26, 2007 at 1:14 am

    Marilyn…It’s the AMERICAN Constitution…muslim freeloaders could never understand it because of their illogical approach to life…
    You see…We die for what WE believe in…a muslim will KILL for what he believes in.
    Sound barbaric? IT IS!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: