LET'S MAKE AMERICA A 'SAD-FREE ZONE'!

[Solo]

LET'S MAKE AMERICA A 'SAD-FREE ZONE'!
April 18, 2007

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy  in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing  as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them.

Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone  at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"
If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

Retreived from http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

 

[Rhetorickety]

...What happened will never be right. But what makes a mass murderer? Satan. Have as many laws as you like, the battle is in each individual. Laws are great. If you ask me which is better, for thirty three people to die along with the gunman and for the gunman to kill himself or for someone to have shot the gunman, I will say it would be better to have more live, but neither will ever be right. Are we to be complacent with this? Are we to give up and instruct our nation to kill? This is an easy solution, but you might as well say no one was worth anything. That mass murderer was a kid at one time, and that kid died, when he could've been saved. I will tell you what is better. It would be better to have saved the gunman earlier and to have had no one die. Death is nothing if you have eternal life, and life is nothing if you're already dead. But when a person starts killing people... Load the handguns with rubber bullets. Just don't shoot him in the eye. Or, just have faith and tell the gun to stop working. Not trying to be funny at all, I am completely serious.

 

[LittleNipper]

Until GOD can be spoken of openly and with dignity in ALL educational institutions----everywhere & anywhere, there is no way events like that which occurred at Virginia Tech will improve. In fact, as more and more time passes before such a reality happens, things will only get far worse.

 

[Relic]

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone? ...

... Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"
If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

My heart goes out to all the families and friends of these victims of this mass murder, this genocide that one crazed man premeditated and commited to preform! :


That Gunman, Cho, had an advantage because he knew he was the only one carrying guns! He knew he would not meet with much resistance! :x and he knew like any hunter knows, the one being hunted has no weapon of defence!
This crazed insane man Cho, planned his attack well in advance! On his left arm was written in red letter Ax.Ishamel, and on the return address lable on the envelope of the manifesto he sent to NBC was the name A. Ishamel. Clearly! This crazy man Cho was no different than the crazed Nazi's who knew the unarmed people have no defence!

How soon people forget History!

People who are FOR gun control and restrictions on gun carrying fall short of retaining knowledge of what Hitler did to coutnries in order gain his initial stance on commiting genocide! Hitler ordered a total surrender of all guns! He ordered that no person be armed for defence, that they would be put to death for owning a weapon or imprisoned!

Read the following article which explains the "what IF" people had used defence against the Nazi's by holding onto their fire arms, by NOT turning them over to the Nazi's!


Read the exerpts I present here from an Article written by Stephen P. Halbrook, PhD., J.D.:

by Stephen P. Halbrook, PhD., J.D.


New research on the Nazi confiscation
of registered guns--and execution of
gun owners--provides a poignant lesson
on why Americans have always opposed
the registration of peaceable firearms owners.

President Bill Clinton has come out in favor of the registration of all law-abiding American gun owners. "People ought to have to register guns like they register their cars," he said.1 Already, the Clinton-Gore administration is misusing the national instant check system to retain the identities of firearms purchasers. Government records on gun owners supposedly protect society.

It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people. ...

After invading, Nazis used pre-war lists of gun owners to confiscate firearms and many gun owners simply disappeared. Following confiscation, the Nazis were free to wreak their evil on the disarmed populace, such as on these helpless Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. ...

"The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment." ...

... Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed 6 million Jews. It was self-evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin. ...

... Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.

Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents. ...


... Imagine that you are sitting in a movie house in Germany in May 1940. The German Weekly Newsreel comes on to show you the attack on Holland, Belgium and France. The minute Wehrmacht troops and tanks cross the Dutch border, the film shows German soldiers nailing up a poster about 2-ft. by 3-ft. in size. It is entitled "Regulations on Arms Possession in the Occupied Zone" ("Verordnung über Waffenbesitz im besetzen Gebiet").6 The camera scans the top of the double-columned poster, written in German on the left and Flemish on the right, with an eagle and swastika in the middle. It commands that all firearms be surrendered to the German commander within 24 hours. The full text is not in view, but similar posters threatened the death penalty for violation. ...

There was a fallacy to the threat. No blank existed on the poster to write in the time and date of posting so one would know when the 24-hour "waiting period" began or ended. Perhaps the Nazis would shoot someone who was an hour late. Indeed, gun owners even without guns were dangerous because they knew how to use guns and tended to be resourceful, independent-minded persons. A Swiss manual on armed resistance stated with such experiences in mind...

... "Should you be so trusting and turn over your weapons you will be put on a 'black list' in spite of everything. The enemy will always need hostages or forced laborers later on (read: 'work slaves') and will gladly make use of the 'black lists.' You see once again that you cannot escape his net and had better die fighting. After the deadline, raids coupled with house searches and street checks will be conducted." ...
...

Jews Forbidden to Possess Weapons
By Order of SS Reichsfuhrer Himmler
Munich, November 19 [1938]

The SS Reichsfuhrer and German Police Chief has issued the following Order:
Persons who, according to the Nuremberg law, are regarded as Jews, are forbidden to possess any weapon. Violators will be condemned to a concentration camp and imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years.

Meanwhile Hitler unleashed killing squads called the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe and Russia. As Raul Hilberg observes, "The killers were well armed . The victims were unarmed."

... Armed citizens were hurting the Nazis, who took the sternest measures. ...

Given the above facts, it is not difficult to understand why the National Rifle Association opposed gun registration at the time and still does. The American Rifleman for February 1942 reported:

"From Berlin on January 6th the German official radio broadcastÃÂ'The German military commander for Belgium and Northern France announced yesterday that the population would be given a last opportunity to surrender firearms without penalty up to January 20th and after that date anyone found in possession of arms would be executed.'

"So the Nazi invaders set a deadline similar to that announced months ago in Czechoslovakia, in Poland, in Norway, in Romania, in Yugoslavia, in Greece.

"How often have we read the familiar dispatches 'Gestapo agents accompanied by Nazi troopers swooped down on shops and homes and confiscated all privately owned firearms!'


Out of all the acts of armed citizen resisters in the war, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 is difficult to surpass in its heroism. Beginning with just a few handguns, armed Jews put a temporary stop to the deportations to extermination camps, frightened the Nazis out of the ghetto, stood off assaults for days on end, and escaped to the forests to continue the struggle. What if there had been two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?

The NRA trained hundreds of thousands of Americans in rifle marksmanship during World War II. President Harry Truman wrote that NRA's firearms training programs "materially aided our war effort" and that he hoped "the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a century will be continued."21 By helping defeat the Nazi and Fascist terror regimes, the NRA helped end the Holocaust, slave labor and the severest oppression.

Those tiny pacifist organizations of the era that called for gun registration and confiscation contributed nothing to winning the war or to stopping the genocide. Their counterparts today have nothing to offer that would enable citizens to resist genocide.[/b]

Individual criminals wreak their carnage on individuals or small numbers of people. As this century has shown, terrorist governments have the capacity to commit genocide against millions of people, provided that the people are unarmed. Schemes to confiscate firearms kept by peaceable citizens have historically been associated with some of the world's most insidious tyrannies. Given this reality, it is not surprising that law-abiding gun owners oppose being objects of registration.
~ end of excerps from article~

I have taken only small exerpts from the above article to present here. Read the whole article at this link:
http://www.xmission.com/~ranthon/hitler-and-guns.htm


The insanity Cho did was a commited act of genocide on a small scale compared to the Nazi's, but no less a horrid act of genocide ! He knew that unarmed people have little resistance! :x

History should and must teach us all a lesson on HOW to be prepared and able to DEFEND ourselves from acts of genocide no matter how huge or small the scale from which they are performed!



.

 

[Relic]

Until GOD can be spoken of openly and with dignity in ALL educational institutions----everywhere & anywhere, there is no way events like that which occurred at Virginia Tech will improve. In fact, as more and more time passes before such a reality happens, things will only get far worse.

LittleNipper, That's a bleek outlook you have presented there. :-?


Contrary to what you presented, I believe that with proper corrective action things will only get better, not worse.



.

 

[Guest]

I have an honest simple question of which I do not completly know the answer, so it comes with no induendo attached:

There are nations in this world that have stricter gun control laws than we do - Britian and Australia that I know of as example - Do they have crimes like these and to the magnitude and proliferation that we do?

This is a National tradegy - for me, if I was involved in an incident like this - regardless of my beliefs for or against guns, or whatever the thing used - I would not want to see it so quickly used as a political tool either way. I believe there should be a decent time frame of mourning, reflection, and investigation, before it becomes fodder for the political talking heads.

 

[Relic]

I have an honest simple question of which I do not completly know the answer, so it comes with no induendo attached:

There are nations in this world that have stricter gun control laws than we do - Britian and Australia that I know of as example - Do they have crimes like these and to the magnitude and proliferation that we do?

This is a National tradegy - for me, if I was involved in an incident like this - regardless of my beliefs for or against guns, or whatever the thing used - I would not want to see it so quickly used as a political tool either way. I believe there should be a decent time frame of mourning, reflection, and investigation, before it becomes fodder for the political talking heads.

Mourning/grieving is a process which includes working through the pain of the present, it includes grieving the loss of loved ones, it includes hashing over the past/what happened, and it includes what can be done in the future. Mourning/greiving is not inclusive to YOUR idea of how one should behave or act, or talk about things or not talk about things.

Alien as it may seem to you, AlonVoice, People mourn/grieve and process in many ways. Whether you like it or not. people are going to bring up controversial issues in times of mourning. It is a way of processing, working through toward healing.

A time of mourning does not mean surpression. Mourning is processing what happened, it is processing the pain of it, and it is a means to healing.

Healing doesn't come without processing all that happened past present and future. Mourning is that process. It is processing all that happened past, present and future. Supressing expressing those things only slows the healing process.

Just because discussion of the above come into the foreground, does not mean grieving for the families and friends of the lost is cut short... It is far from that!

.

 

[Guest]

Mourning/grieving is a process which includes working through the pain of the present, it includes grieving the loss of loved ons, it includes hashing over the past/what happened, and it includes what can be done in the future.

A time of mourning does not mean surpression. Mourning is processing what happened, it is processing the pain of it, and it is a means to healing.
Healing doesn't come without processing all that happened past present and future. Mourning is that process. It is processing all that happened past, present and future. Supressing expressing those things only slows the healing process.

Just because discussion of the above come into the foreground, does not mean grieving for the families and friends of the lost is cut short... It is far from that!

.

Nor do I say or imply that it was or did. However, there are those with a political agenda that are attempting to use this issue - and that agenda is on BOTH sides of the aisle.

I was not asking for supression - nor implying it. Rather, as I stated, I believe there should be a decent time frame - that is all. As far as I know, there are still memorial services, victims recovering, and burials to happen.

 

[Relic]

Nor do I say or imply that it was or did. However, there are those with a political agenda that are attempting to use this issue - and that agenda is on BOTH sides of the aisle.

I was not asking for supression - nor implying it. Rather, as I stated, I believe there should be a decent time frame - that is all. As far as I know, there are still memorial services, victims recovering, and burials to happen.

Decent time frame? What is considered dencent for you may be a snails pace for others.

Dont' know about you, but I've been through recovery from the loss of loved ones who died sudden death. And I've been to plenty of memorial services, funerals,and burials. Also, having been involved with Veterans and attending memorial services doesn't mean they are not without a variety of discussion. Niether does the memorial services of those who have lost others to violent acts outside of war. During that whole process, people talk and bring up all kinds of issues, issues which do not exclude discussion of what happened, what is happening and what can and should happen.

Time does not stand still, nor does the time of Healing go without discussion of various sorts be them of sympathy, or of painful things to hear. Times of mourning and Vigils are not all the same.
That doesn't mean there is no respect to the families who have suffered loss. No one here is taking advantage or exploiting the situation.

.

 

[Guest]

Relic - why do you assume that I was talking abot you or anyone else, personally, here on the forum?

What I was referring to was the talking political heads on radio and print that are using this tradegy to fuel an agenda - be it pro-gun control or anti-gun control.

Period. If you feel that I was personally attacking or singleling you out - I am sorry - but I wasn't - unless you are attempting to use this tradegy to fuel an agenda. If you are, then no, I am not sorry.

 

[Relic]

Relic - why do you assume that I was talking abot you or anyone else, personally, here on the forum?

What I was referring to was the talking political heads on radio and print that are using this tradegy to fuel an agenda - be it pro-gun control or anti-gun control.

Period. If you feel that I was personally attacking or singleling you out - I am sorry - but I wasn't - unless you are attempting to use this tradegy to fuel an agenda. If you are, then no, I am not sorry.

Sorry, you were not specific enough. The term "political talking heads" can be seen as a general term. And NO I am not fueling any agenda.

.

 

[Guest]

Sorry, you were not specific enough. The term "political talking heads" can be seen as a general term. And NO I am not fueling any agenda.

.

Then my mistake for not first being specific enough - I have only ever heard the term or personally used the term "policial talking heads" to refer to those like Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Sharpton, etc, etc.

 

[stranger]

Hi gentlemen,


Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

USA Homicide 4.08 (1999) Suicide 6.08 (1999) Unintentional 0.42 (1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World Report on Violence and Health, published by the World Health Organization on 3 October 2002.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

US gun law and regulation in comparison to gun laws in other countries dirsectly have a direct bearing upon the statisitics of firearm offences.

Note that the US figures are more than three times the total of firearm offences committed in Canada, Switzerland, England, Wales, Scotland and Japan combined.

 

[stranger]

aLoneVoice wrote:

There are nations in this world that have stricter gun control laws than we do - Britian and Australia that I know of as example - Do they have crimes like these and to the magnitude and proliferation that we do?

Hi,

A citizen in Australia would not feel the need to carry a firearm for self defense, in fact it would be against the law. Adjusting for a smaller population statistically fewer guns means fewer deaths by guns - its that simple.

 

[Rick W]

I have an honest simple question of which I do not completly know the answer, so it comes with no induendo attached:

There are nations in this world that have stricter gun control laws than we do - Britian and Australia that I know of as example - Do they have crimes like these and to the magnitude and proliferation that we do?

This is a National tradegy - for me, if I was involved in an incident like this - regardless of my beliefs for or against guns, or whatever the thing used - I would not want to see it so quickly used as a political tool either way. I believe there should be a decent time frame of mourning, reflection, and investigation, before it becomes fodder for the political talking heads.

"There are nations in this world that have stricter gun control laws than we do - Britian and Australia that I know of as example - Do they have crimes like these and to the magnitude and proliferation that we do? "

I don't know but it doesn't seem like it. I've not researched the issue since I really haven't heard much of that sort of behavior from those countries.

Another question is have they kicked God out of the public square as we have? I was never a believer until '98 but even so there was still an uneasy feeling in my heart about doing things bad to people and I know it was because I felt God might be watching, if He existed at all. Which I wasn't sure of. And that's just it, I didn't believe yet there was that certain something none-the-less.

I think it may have been the possibility of a higher authority than just those around me or even the cops, courts, jail, fines... etc. Getting caught may be a deterrent but there's another deterrent when you think there may be "someone" else that sees all you do regardless how you try to hide it. And it's THAT deterrent our society is casting onto the scrap heap. Regardless if you're a believer or not that possibility of God seeing all can have an influence on what you do. Even if it's a small influence. And that could be enough.

 

[lawhammer]

A citizen in Australia would not feel the need to carry a firearm for self defense, in fact it would be against the law. Adjusting for a smaller population statistically fewer guns means fewer deaths by guns - its that simple.

Whoop-de-doo for you then. This isn't Australia, there's this "thing" in our Constitution called "the Second Amendment". It's that simple.

 

[stranger]

Whoop-de-doo for you then. This isn't Australia, there's this "thing" in our Constitution called "the Second Amendment". It's that simple.

Hi Lawhammer,

So your saying something written by men cannot be changed? If this 'truth' were God revealed I would subscribe to it.

 

[stranger]

PotLuck wrote:

"There are nations in this world that have stricter gun control laws than we do - Britian and Australia that I know of as example - Do they have crimes like these and to the magnitude and proliferation that we do? "

I don't know but it doesn't seem like it. I've not researched the issue since I really haven't heard much of that sort of behavior from those countries.

The number of gun related deaths in Australia when compared with the US:
Rough figures:
US 300 million 32,000 deaths
Aust 20 million 60 deaths

Comparative estimate:
20 x 15 = 300 million
60 x 15 = 900 deaths.

Like Lawhammer said the US isn't Australia - but the right to bear arms has a price tag attached - the cost is about 31,000 American deaths each year. In a ten year projection that would be 310,000 deaths! I am astonished at figures like these.

Another question is have they kicked God out of the public square as we have? I was never a believer until '98 but even so there was still an uneasy feeling in my heart about doing things bad to people and I know it was because I felt God might be watching, if He existed at all. Which I wasn't sure of. And that's just it, I didn't believe yet there was that certain something none-the-less.

I think it may have been the possibility of a higher authority than just those around me or even the cops, courts, jail, fines... etc. Getting caught may be a deterrent but there's another deterrent when you think there may be "someone" else that sees all you do regardless how you try to hide it. And it's THAT deterrent our society is casting onto the scrap heap. Regardless if you're a believer or not that possibility of God seeing all can have an influence on what you do. Even if it's a small influence. And that could be enough.

The end time scenario predicts the revealing of the man of lawlessness. In this issue I see lawlessness at work that you allude to.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

lawhammer?

Welcome back dude!

 

[lawhammer]

Gabbylittleangle, Hi back to you and thank you.

Hi Lawhammer,

So your saying something written by men cannot be changed? If this 'truth' were God revealed I would subscribe to it.

'Ello,

I wasn't saying all that. What I mean is that it would just about take a new constitution amendment to nullify the Second, it couldn't have been written clearer. And that would never pass here, never.

From your sentence deux, are you referring to the Holy Bible being inherently fallibe because it was written by a bunch of men? That's another matter, you seem to be one unhappy atheist. Is there some reason(s)?

I wanna be a cowboy...out here, in the Wild, Wild West, it's the old joke that we think gun control means "how steady is your aim?" I just shot at a coyote that was too close to the back porch to scare the thing off.

It did run.