|
We can't move away from them.
For as long as humans have existed, other humans have infringed upon rights which most people agree are inherent and implicit.
Oh, and, the shooter used an SKS, which is a semi-automatic Russian military rifle. There's nothing illegal about that specific firearm, other than that he likely didn't legally possess it.
Edit: Nevermind. News sources conflict on whether the rifle used was a fully-automatic AK-47, or a semi-automatic SKS.
Either way, it was illegal for the shooter to possess the rifle, but I'd be more concerned with how he got an AK-47 than an SKS.
|
This is in response to HeadBangaa
You understand the contitution, Loving the constitution without dogma is great. I support it. Sadly for some it doesn't happen. People tend to associate with groups accepting core tenants. Once ingrained these beliefs rarely change. I stand by my statement. Nationalistic attachment to the constitution translates, for many Americans, respecting the right to bear arms. This does not mention left, right, or politics. This is about social identity and where the strong attachment to this antiquated right comes from.
|
good thing this kind of shit never happened around me yet, hopefully never will.. gotta keep my distance from them depressed maniac.
|
This is in response to HeadBangaa
You said "arod, your theories about cultural drift don't apply. Society will not evolve away from "crime". Guns are a means, not a paradigm (such as racism, sexism). Apples and oranges, kiddo."
I have to competely counter this. We have cultural attitudes toward gun use just as we have cultural attitudes toward anything such as racism and sexism. Getting rid of guns won't eliminate crime. I know this. But societies do move away from crime. For an example of this I site Holland. Look at their statistics on crime compared to the United States. American cultural attachment to guns is a paradigm. This paradigm has and will continue to change. I cite the rise of gun control laws. Where was gun control 100 years ago in America? It didn't exist. I must stress again I do not support immediate abolition of firearms in the United States. America is not ready for this. "insert random aggressive but yet familiar attachment."
|
This is in response to aRod
You have met my "society will not evolve away from crime" with "look at crime in Holland." But Holland is a homogenous culture: a bunch of white people eating shortbread cookies and dancing in the mud with cute wooden shoes. Is that really comparable to the dynamic demographic of the USA? For example, cultural pluralism is a precondition to race-related gang activity. That's an entire branch of crime Holland is basically exempt from. Secondly, you continue to ignore statistics about the impact of gun control in a more relevant context. How far am I really going to get with such blatant blind-eying?
Yes, guns are grandfathered into the culture in USA. The gun attachment has existed since before the inception of the United States itself. The problem is cultural, but not "gun-culture". The people who go to shooting ranges and hunt often are not the ones committing the crimes, though they are the primary members of "gun culture" and the ones who are disenfranchised by ridiculous gun control laws.
A lot of you hyper-liberals would laugh at the idea of reading NRA literature, but I recommend you to go buy a single issue from the news stand and read about the politics of gun control laws. That should at least give you some balance from the left-swing of the cultural pendulum which saturate the opinions of those who speak on gun control.
|
Crime is a constant. Crime has always existed, still exists today, and always will exist. If we, as a society and culture, migrate away from guns, we migrate away from the appropriate and effective means with which to defend ourselves, our family, our property, our ideals, and our general well-being, not only as individuals, but as communities, and as a society as a whole.
40 REASONS TO SUPPORT GUN CONTROL
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops
need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to
strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per
100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but
statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are
"just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went
into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent
crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a
shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of
fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but
if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a
smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no
defense --give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc.
Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice
about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on
heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a
civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine,
a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for
firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National
Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal
land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms,
punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; “right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
"right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations
herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others
retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are
reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer
to individuals,
but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the
state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we
should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and
5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of
course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren’t
“military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn't have "assault
rifles,’ because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which
is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940?s, 1950?s
and 1960?s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus
stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting,
no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there
were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids
handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run
a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use
them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the
typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only
has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers'
advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering
butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass
killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a
majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be
a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against
guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be
questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of
Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really
protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters,
computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare
hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain
parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends
other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a
cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie
actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador
for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control
summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need
larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face
criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive
guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over
handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because
the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court
says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but
police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a
building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large
numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft
preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government
pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on
their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the
wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
|
haha, nice, saved that list 
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 07 2007 13:22 Mayson wrote:
I don't know.
What I do know:
- It was illegal for him to possess an AK-47
- It was illegal for him to possess hand grenades
- Laws didn't stop him
Once again, the laws did nothing to prevent a criminal's behavior. This is why gun control will not work. He didn't possess hand grenades.
It was legal for his step-father to possess an AK-47.
He took it.
Saying the step-father should've taken better care is not a realistic response, because you know that won't completely succeed. We also know banning guns won't completely succeed either, so we weigh the two. I think restricting the sale of powerful rifles is more effective than legislating parenthood.
Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it. It was designed to establish some sort of military service because the federal government could not have a standing army until 1791, so by those standards it is irrelevant today. Still, the Constitution is a living document and it's not rational to blindly follow our country's sentiments from 1786. So, we find out next year when this monumental case goes down.
The most I can hope for is that the Court remains independent of the NRA's deep pockets. I know the same can't be said for the other two branches of government. :/
EDIT: Simply pointing to DC and Chicago's murder rates and gun control legislation is taking the simple and idiotic way out. You and I both know those things are determined by a tremendous amount of social influences and pointing solely to gun laws is intellectually fraudulent. I don't expect any random forum goer or blogger, from either side, to put together a comprehensive and conclusive argument, so it's just annoying to try IMO. And I don't expect the NRA or the Brady Campaign to put together a fair case either.
|
On December 07 2007 14:17 Jibba wrote:
Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National
Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal
land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms,
punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; “right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
"right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations
herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others
retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are
reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer
to individuals,
but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the
state.
Jibba, stay consistent. The wording of the amendment is very clear. We interpret other parts of the Constitution in the obvious sense. The forefathers supported private possession (ie, non-military possession) of firearms, clearly. If you wish to debunk the utility of private gun possession, do so without resorting to historical blasphemy.
I'm always amazed when people falsely align the views of the forefathers with their own. They were eloquent yet outspoken; any small amount of reading reveals their views. People pulling this shit constantly are the ones in need of "LOL"ing
|
This is in response to HeadBagga
I would like to first acknowledge statistics. Gun control has had almost no effect on gun use in crimes etc. Cities with gun control laws have higher crime rates as do all cities etc. I mean it goes on from both sides. Frankly after looking at the statistics I believe gun control has had no clear effect on gun use in crimes. I don't believe gun control has strongly influenced crime or gun use. But I say give it time. Opinion polls concerning gun ownership and use continue to show a trend towards advocating gun control and not owning personal firearms.
America is not a homogeneous culture. This is an excellent point. This makes any universally accepted cultural attitudes difficult to adopt, but we do adopt them and continue to adopt them. I site women voting. I could go on with dramatic examples, but gun control is much smaller. I liken our beliefs on gun control more to smoking. Americans have slowly been moving away from smoking (very very slowly) and slowly passing laws against cigarette companies just like guns.
You criticize me for not applying gun control in a relevant context. But I think my context is entirely relevant. Where we head as a culture is largely directed by todays efforts. This has been my context and will continue to be my context. Realizing gun control is part of cultural change is important to acknowledge. Realizing where it has the potential to take us is important. But then again, points about the effect of gun control laws are also relevant. As I said, I do not advocate abolishing fire arms. I advocate gun control as a means of education and cultural change.
I mean how many people ever reach this level of analysis regarding gun control. Most people stop much sooner. Get people thinking. Keep the debate going.
|
This is in response to aHab
On December 07 2007 14:31 aHog wrote:
Frankly after looking at the statistics I believe gun control has had no clear effect on gun use in crimes.
Well I'm looking at this patch of grass right here and, by King George himself, I believe it's red and not green.
|
On December 07 2007 14:17 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 13:22 Mayson wrote:
I don't know.
What I do know:
- It was illegal for him to possess an AK-47
- It was illegal for him to possess hand grenades
- Laws didn't stop him
Once again, the laws did nothing to prevent a criminal's behavior. This is why gun control will not work. He didn't possess hand grenades. It was legal for his step-father to possess an AK-47. He took it. Saying the step-father should've taken better care is not a realistic response, because you know that won't completely succeed. We also know banning guns won't completely succeed either, so we weigh the two. I think restricting the sale of powerful rifles is more effective than legislating parenthood. Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it. It was designed to establish some sort of military service because the federal government could not have a standing army until 1791, so by those standards it is irrelevant today. Still, the Constitution is a living document and it's not rational to blindly follow our country's sentiments from 1786. So, we find out next year when this monumental case goes down. The most I can hope for is that the Court remains independent of the NRA's deep pockets. I know the same can't be said for the other two branches of government. :/ EDIT: Simply pointing to DC and Chicago's murder rates and gun control legislation is taking the simple and idiotic way out. You and I both know those things are determined by a tremendous amount of social influences and pointing solely to gun laws is intellectually fraudulent. I don't expect any random forum goer or blogger, from either side, to put together a comprehensive and conclusive argument, so it's just annoying to try IMO. And I don't expect the NRA or the Brady Campaign to put together a fair case either. Actually, he didn't take the rifle from his step-father; he stole it. That's a crime.
What is your idea of reasonable restrictions placed on rifles? What rifles would be restricted? How would you determine what requires a restriction and what doesn't?
I haven't cited anything from the NRA or the Brady campaign. I've done my best to weed out the biased statistics and only cite those that I believe to be objective. I've quoted DoJ statistics, as well as controlled research studies conducted by criminologists (not medical doctors like Kellerman).
|
On December 07 2007 14:34 HeadBangaa wrote:This is in response to aHab Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 14:31 aRod wrote:
Frankly after looking at the statistics I believe gun control has had no clear effect on gun use in crimes. Well I'm looking at this patch of grass right here and, by George, I believe it's red and not green.
You sarcasm is unnecessary and it detracts. But, since you make me ask, what clear evidence is there that gun control (this could be any form of gun control) has influenced crime?
|
How about the fact that every time the right of private citizens to defend themselves effectively is restricted, crime rates increase?
Washington, D.C., anyone? They banned handguns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 07 2007 14:28 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 14:17 Jibba wrote:
Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it. Show nested quote +
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National
Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal
land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings, and uniforms,
punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; “right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
"right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations
herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others
retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are
reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer
to individuals,
but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the
state.
Jibba, stay consistent. The wording of the amendment is very clear. We interpret other parts of the Constitution in the obvious sense. The forefathers supported private possession (ie, non-military possession) of firearms, clearly. If you wish to debunk the utility of private gun possession, do so without resorting to historical blasphemy. I'm always amazed when people falsely align the views of the forefathers with their own. They were eloquent yet outspoken; any small amount of reading reveals their views. People pulling this shit constantly are the ones in need of "LOL"ing You're pointing to a "Top 40" chain email, I'm talking about historical texts and notes from our founding fathers.
The Second Amendment refers to the legalized possession of firearms to state militias, because guns were illegal for private citizens. The reason they were allowed for militias was because the federal government was not allowed to have a standing army, but we still needed military protection from OUTSIDE attackers. If it was intended to protect us from our own government, it would serve no purpose at the time because our government had no military. The second Amendment establishes our first form of military. Furthermore, members of the militia needed to purchase the guns with their own money because neither the state or federal government had the money to provide them.
The modern incarnation of these militias is the National Guard, which is federally funded and can be called upon by the federal government, however the commander in-chief of the Nat'l Guard is the governor of the state each unit is representing, so they are a "state militia."
As I pointed out before, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to say:
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship
|
This is in response to Mayson
I agree, any local effort to ban handguns is silly considering the availability of handguns elsewhere in the country and the freedom of shipment. Have any logical forms of gun control influenced crime such as clip restrictions or cool down times?
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 07 2007 14:37 Mayson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 14:17 Jibba wrote:On December 07 2007 13:22 Mayson wrote:
I don't know.
What I do know:
- It was illegal for him to possess an AK-47
- It was illegal for him to possess hand grenades
- Laws didn't stop him
Once again, the laws did nothing to prevent a criminal's behavior. This is why gun control will not work. He didn't possess hand grenades. It was legal for his step-father to possess an AK-47. He took it. Saying the step-father should've taken better care is not a realistic response, because you know that won't completely succeed. We also know banning guns won't completely succeed either, so we weigh the two. I think restricting the sale of powerful rifles is more effective than legislating parenthood. Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it. It was designed to establish some sort of military service because the federal government could not have a standing army until 1791, so by those standards it is irrelevant today. Still, the Constitution is a living document and it's not rational to blindly follow our country's sentiments from 1786. So, we find out next year when this monumental case goes down. The most I can hope for is that the Court remains independent of the NRA's deep pockets. I know the same can't be said for the other two branches of government. :/ EDIT: Simply pointing to DC and Chicago's murder rates and gun control legislation is taking the simple and idiotic way out. You and I both know those things are determined by a tremendous amount of social influences and pointing solely to gun laws is intellectually fraudulent. I don't expect any random forum goer or blogger, from either side, to put together a comprehensive and conclusive argument, so it's just annoying to try IMO. And I don't expect the NRA or the Brady Campaign to put together a fair case either. Actually, he didn't take the rifle from his step-father; he stole it. That's a crime. You're right, but teenagers will always be very capable of stealing things from their parents.
What is your idea of reasonable restrictions placed on rifles? What rifles would be restricted? How would you determine what requires a restriction and what doesn't?
No idea. That's why I defer this responsibility to Think Tanks and legislators in Washington, whom I pay with my tax dollars to figure these things out. You do the same, we're not fixing the world on TL.net.
I haven't cited anything from the NRA or the Brady campaign. I've done my best to weed out the biased statistics and only cite those that I believe to be objective. I've quoted DoJ statistics, as well as controlled research studies conducted by criminologists (not medical doctors like Kellerman).
I know, but Bangaa suggested reading NRA manuscripts. There's certainly some merit to "understanding the other side" but if you bounce between Lobby literature from both sides of an argument, you're never going to come close to an objective view.
|
Actually I agree aRob, I misunderstood you but re-read your post.
On December 07 2007 14:31 aRon wrote:
Opinion polls concerning gun ownership and use continue to show a trend towards advocating gun control and not owning personal firearms.
I guess I don't understand how the "gun control cultural movement" is inherently good. You claim it is the product of evolving cultural. Where is evidence of that? On the contrary, I claim my views are the direction of progression, and yours are a devolution. It seems a bit arbitrary, doesn't it?
You say that the movement exists because it is progress. I say it exists because of smear-campaigns, fallacious appeals to fear, and general group-think. All I see are sheep influenced by mass media. The proof: Speaking against gun control is almost as marginalizing as declaring that homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry, even though gun control can be studied and the effects quantified. There should be no taboo. And yet, why people react to these in the same way.
|
On December 07 2007 14:43 Mayson wrote:
How about the fact that every time the right of private citizens to defend themselves effectively is restricted, crime rates increase?
Washington, D.C., anyone? They banned handguns. I guess the criminals didn't get the memo.
Can you show me some data on this? The DC handgun ban was passed, I believe, in 1976. The crime rates then and now are down slightly for most of the key classes of crimes. See link below.
I also wonder how you can explain the huge drop in violent crime since the passage of the Brady Bill. I am not so sure the Brady Bill actually helped to cause the drop in violent crime (it went about gun control in an awfully strange way), but the fact that crime dropped so much doesn't really mesh with your statement about "restricting the rights of private citizens to defend themselves" and a correlated increase in crime.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
|
On December 07 2007 14:49 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2007 14:37 Mayson wrote:On December 07 2007 14:17 Jibba wrote:On December 07 2007 13:22 Mayson wrote:
I don't know.
What I do know:
- It was illegal for him to possess an AK-47
- It was illegal for him to possess hand grenades
- Laws didn't stop him
Once again, the laws did nothing to prevent a criminal's behavior. This is why gun control will not work. He didn't possess hand grenades. It was legal for his step-father to possess an AK-47. He took it. Saying the step-father should've taken better care is not a realistic response, because you know that won't completely succeed. We also know banning guns won't completely succeed either, so we weigh the two. I think restricting the sale of powerful rifles is more effective than legislating parenthood. Again, constitutionally the issue is up in the air. Based on historical evidence, the spirit of the second Amendment is not as you're interpreting it. It was designed to establish some sort of military service because the federal government could not have a standing army until 1791, so by those standards it is irrelevant today. Still, the Constitution is a living document and it's not rational to blindly follow our country's sentiments from 1786. So, we find out next year when this monumental case goes down. The most I can hope for is that the Court remains independent of the NRA's deep pockets. I know the same can't be said for the other two branches of government. :/ EDIT: Simply pointing to DC and Chicago's murder rates and gun control legislation is taking the simple and idiotic way out. You and I both know those things are determined by a tremendous amount of social influences and pointing solely to gun laws is intellectually fraudulent. I don't expect any random forum goer or blogger, from either side, to put together a comprehensive and conclusive argument, so it's just annoying to try IMO. And I don't expect the NRA or the Brady Campaign to put together a fair case either. Actually, he didn't take the rifle from his step-father; he stole it. That's a crime. You're right, but teenagers will always be very capable of stealing things from their parents. Show nested quote +
What is your idea of reasonable restrictions placed on rifles? What rifles would be restricted? How would you determine what requires a restriction and what doesn't?
No idea. That's why I defer this responsibility to Think Tanks and legislators in Washington, whom I pay with my tax dollars to figure these things out. You do the same, we're not fixing the world on TL.net. Show nested quote +
I haven't cited anything from the NRA or the Brady campaign. I've done my best to weed out the biased statistics and only cite those that I believe to be objective. I've quoted DoJ statistics, as well as controlled research studies conducted by criminologists (not medical doctors like Kellerman).
I know, but Bangaa suggested reading NRA manuscripts. There's certainly some merit to "understanding the other side" but if you bounce between Lobby literature from both sides of an argument, you're never going to come close to an objective view.
To say that "understanding the other side" necessitates "bouncing between lobby literature" is nuts. The NRA reveals a lot about the specific political leaders who seek to pass strict gun control laws, and has compiled a lot of objective, factual information about the track records of such government officials. It's very revealing, and not something palatable to the mainstream media. This justifies "understanding the other side" proactively, if you care at all about truth.
Of course, I will not make the mistake of assuming that people care about truth so much as comfort :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
