Mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando Florida: Political Discussion [SPLIT]

[offthewall14420]

Re: NRA is responsible for the Orlando killings

But the only people who say that are on the left.



Since "assault weapon" is a meaningless term, any statement using it is meaningless.



Guns don't pose a public health hazard -- they're non-infectious inanimate objects.



Guns are more inherently protective than they are dangerous: merely seeing one can make a bad guy back down, whereas they actually have to be fired to be dangerous.

You sound like a tobacco lawyer in the early 90's. Same arguments. Same bullshit. A cigarette doesn't pose a health hazard until smoked. A manufacturer ignores the inherent danger of their product and funds lobbying groups (NRA) is the equivalent of what tobacco companies were found to have done by numerous juries and judges.

A gun is an inherently dangerous object. Marketing weapons of war to civilians in the homeland has caused enormous damage to our society in the form of physical injury, death, and psychological trauma.

My argument is very conservative because I want gun companies to pay for the externalities they create.

 

[frankfrank]

Re: NRA is responsible for the Orlando killings

assault weapon is a meaningless term

Meaningless term, yes (even if I've been guilty using it sometimes)...a knife, a baseball bat, a box cutter...any of THOSE can be assault weapons as well. And, yes, even fists or feet.

A cigarette doesn't pose a health hazard until smoked. A manufacturer ignores the inherent danger of their product and funds lobbying groups (NRA) is the equivalent of what tobacco companies were found to have done by numerous juries and judges.

Not quite equivalent.

Cigarette companies were out there, despite known risks, claiming that cigarettes were wonderful, and completely safe, and way cool to smoke...even though the science was already showing otherwise. They were hiding and obfuscating the risks which were already becoming well-known in the medical community. I even remember the ad that went "More doctors smoke CAMEL than any other cigarette."

Gun manufacturers don't talk about the harm that guns can do (and even Kulindahr will admit that guns are not *ALWAYS* good and never misused). But, in the case of guns, the manufacturers are using the strategy of "omission" - and, in fact, they generally also don't claim that guns are the weapon of choice to protect you, either. They don't advertise or mention the "consequences," good or bad, of having guns. They talk about attributes like accuracy, durability, portability, etc. as they should.

Gun manufacturers don't run ads saying something like "Four out of five law enforcement officers say that the Glock handgun is the best weapon to protect you from the bad guys." THAT would be equivalent to the old Camel ads...so, yes, gun and tobacco promotions have not been the same.

 

[Kabluey]

Not quite equivalent.

Cigarette companies were out there, despite known risks, claiming that cigarettes were wonderful, and completely safe, and way cool to smoke...even though the science was already showing otherwise. They were hiding and obfuscating the risks which were already becoming well-known in the medical community.

In the past, maybe.
Now, cigarette companies aren't even allowed to advertise in most English speaking countries. For my lifetime it's been accepted that smoking kills.
Yet the cigarette industry still lobbies for reduced laws, looser controls on purchasing, and they talk about personal freedom.

The modern cigarette lobbyist has much in common with the modern gun lobbyist.

While gun manufacturers keep their advertising dry and legal, they're waging a PR war using third parties who are very prepared to say things no law abiding corporate citizen would.

 

[jbrown329]

Given current federal law that would mean instituting a draft into the National Guard and then sending the Guard to fight. Given federal court rulings, that would mean a random draft, since we are all members of the militia.

OTOH, state governors can call up the militia in their states. I keep thinking Texas' governor should call up militia to secure the border, starting with those currently armed, starting with those who practice regularly.
That, BTW, is one of the aspects of the militia concept that Wayne La Pierre is unwilling to face: the responsibility that is the flip side of the right.

The Nat Guard can be federalized. Meaning that the President can call them up. Why do you think that there have been members in Iraq?

 

[jbrown329]

There's now over 300 millions guns in the United States for about 330 million people. Close to 100 people die from gunshots every day- someone dies from a gunshot wound every 16 minutes in the US.

So, how many more guns will be needed before the protection begins? Another million? Another 100 million?

Only 300 million? Gee, I thought there would be more. /snark

 

[jbrown329]

Under the meaning of the language the Framers use,d yes, citizens should be able to own the latest in military technology.

The problem, is not that the technology has changed, it is that Americans have become more reliant on government and less responsible about taking care of themselves. If we can no longer allow citizens to own the latest military presonal arms, it is not because of a failure in the Amendment, but because of a failure in Americans.


BTW, use of the term "ammosexual" reveals the immaturity of the user, not anything about the people allegedly described.

So a semi-auto handgun or 410 shotgun isn't enough to protect you?

 

[KaraBulut]

Protection is already in place: someone uses a gun for protection in the U.S. better than once a minute, according to the CDC -- possibly several times a minute.

The CDC source you cite is a study called Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013). It's about 120 pages and very few people who cite it have actually read it.

Since I have read it, here's what it actually says:

• The study was commissioned by the CDC. Because of pressure from Congress, the CDC no longer directly studies gun violence, so the study was actually done by the IOM and the NRC.
• The study defines gun violence in the US as a serious threat to public health and advocates the need for studying. From page 11:

In the past decade, firearm-related violence has claimed the lives of more than a quarter-million people in the United States. By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem.
Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such tragedies. All these events occur in the context of a civil society that has millions of guns lawfully owned by citizens who use them for protection, hunting, sport, or work. There are also an unknown number of guns in the hands of criminals and others who are prohibited by law from possessing them.

• "Protection" is a red-herring since over half of the gun deaths in the US are from suicide. From page 13:

Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States

• And on page 16 is the statement that you cited. What it actually says is that the studies of defensive gun use are indirect studies since defensive gun use can vary from criminals returning fire when attacked to defensive positions taken by the general public when attacked. The studies that the IOM reviewed varied wildly- one study said 108,000 defensive uses and on the other extreme, another study said 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses (the high of which would mean that 1% of the US population fires a gun in defense each year- a highly improbable conclusion). Because there is a limited number of studies and the findings vary so much, the IOM advocates for further research to determine the true number. The bold sections below were added by me:

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use. Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

This last page of posts in the thread is exactly what the gun lobby wants to happen- they want to put the discussion into the theoretical speculation about what the "Founding Fathers' intended and into discussions about "Rights".

Let's go back to the original subject of this thread.

No one has a right to slaughter 49 in cold blooded murder.

AR-15s, long barrel rifles with pinpoint accuracy, semi-automatic weapons and clips with 30 rounds of ammunition did not exist in the late 18th century. It is true that one of the tenets of US law is that some people were allowed to have weapons whose purpose was to kill other people. It's illogical to assert historical information in an effort to justify the possession of high-accuracy, high-capacity, military grade weapons by the general populace.

These mass shootings are still rare, especially outside the realm of domestic violence. The real issue is proliferation, ease of access and the blocking of prevent measures that protect the general public. If this one person were unable to gain access to the armament that he obtained, 49 people would still be alive, over 50 people would have not had injuries and 25 people would not be facing large hospital bills and extended recovery because they just happened to be in the sights of a crazed person exercising his constitutional rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes Heller was paid for by the NRA,

Only at the end. La Pierre opposed the case being in the courts at all. He only brought the NRA in at the end so he could claim some credit for it.

no, Individual Rights were not ALWAYS assumed, you don't want to accept the last and want to ignore the first, so be it.

The Second as an individual right is assumed in both the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. Thew Second is listed as an individual right in over a dozen cases before Miller. These are facts of history.

You've said all of this ad nauseum and further argument is pointless.

Argument is pointless because you want to have your own facts, not just your own opinion.

Your most quixotic fantasy is that everyone having guns will mean fewer dead people because of guns. That really beats the one about how responsible gun owners actually are.

Stop lying. You either know you're lying or you have serious issues.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: NRA is responsible for the Orlando killings

You sound like a tobacco lawyer in the early 90's. Same arguments. Same bullshit. A cigarette doesn't pose a health hazard until smoked. A manufacturer ignores the inherent danger of their product and funds lobbying groups (NRA) is the equivalent of what tobacco companies were found to have done by numerous juries and judges.

A cigarette, used as the manufacturer intended, does harm, always. A gun, used as the manufacturer intended, does harm rarely.

The harm of the cigaret is built into the product. Harm from a gun comes only from a user, generally when a user decides to do harm. So the danger of a gun is no greater than that of a baseball bat.

A gun is an inherently dangerous object. Marketing weapons of war to civilians in the homeland has caused enormous damage to our society in the form of physical injury, death, and psychological trauma.

Guns just sit there -- they're no more inherently dangerous than a paperweight.

Weapons of war cannot be sold to civilians -- that's federal law. Of course it's contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment, which was to provide a foundation for exercising the right of insurrection against tyranny.

My argument is very conservative because I want gun companies to pay for the externalities they create.

Gun companies aren't creating any externalities; only people misusing their products are. If you're concerned about the misuse or accidental use of products resulting in harm, guns are also low down the list -- automobiles should be your primary target, and beer and wine companies, etc.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: NRA is responsible for the Orlando killings

Meaningless term, yes (even if I've been guilty using it sometimes)...a knife, a baseball bat, a box cutter...any of THOSE can be assault weapons as well. And, yes, even fists or feet.

I've been trying to think of a term that isn't emotionally-driven but objective. Yes, there's a significant difference between an AR-15 and the .300 rifle I used for hunting, but "assault weapon" isn't it; with an extended clip I have managed get off eight accurate shots at fifty yards in five seconds with my rifle even though it's bolt action, but that's uncommon because it takes practice, practice, practice, while a semiautomatic is designed to do that.

I'm wondering if there's a way to rig a semi-auto to have a 0.5 second delay built in after ejecting the recently fired round (with my semi-auto rifles, I could get off five accurate shots in five seconds as a mater of course, but never matched my bolt-action record for a simple reason: the semi-autos are designed to be lighter and it's harder to keep them on target -- which points up something not mentioned in any of this yet, namely that the real determining factor is how fast someone can acquire targets with accurate aim), or even a one-second delay. I'm more a bolt and revolver guy, so I dopn't know the mechanics of a semi-auto as well.

Not quite equivalent.

Cigarette companies were out there, despite known risks, claiming that cigarettes were wonderful, and completely safe, and way cool to smoke...even though the science was already showing otherwise. They were hiding and obfuscating the risks which were already becoming well-known in the medical community. I even remember the ad that went "More doctors smoke CAMEL than any other cigarette."

Gun manufacturers don't talk about the harm that guns can do (and even Kulindahr will admit that guns are not *ALWAYS* good and never misused). But, in the case of guns, the manufacturers are using the strategy of "omission" - and, in fact, they generally also don't claim that guns are the weapon of choice to protect you, either. They don't advertise or mention the "consequences," good or bad, of having guns. They talk about attributes like accuracy, durability, portability, etc. as they should.

Gun manufacturers don't run ads saying something like "Four out of five law enforcement officers say that the Glock handgun is the best weapon to protect you from the bad guys." THAT would be equivalent to the old Camel ads...so, yes, gun and tobacco promotions have not been the same.

Actually gun manufacturers DO talk about the harm guns can do; they even provide instructional videos to certified instructors that show the destructiveness (or they used to; I haven't seen one in fifteen years). Ruger won't sell you a gun without a bunch of safety material and warnings, but they were the first IIRC and others have copied them. They just don't go advertising it, any more than automobile manufacturers go advertising the gruesome things cars and trucks can do to human bodies (and having been first or second responder to a handful of auto accidents, I am far more afraid of what a car can do to a human than what a gun can do -- it's gory).

BTW, for saying what gun is better, there are groups whose only work is to compare and evaluate. But the common consensus is that which gun is more effective for what depends hugely on the individual; one of my Pink Pistols friends likes a .45 for self-defense, which for a couple of reasons would be totally unsuitable for me, while I like a .357, which would be unsuitable for a couple of other members.

 

[Kulindahr]

In the past, maybe.
Now, cigarette companies aren't even allowed to advertise in most English speaking countries. For my lifetime it's been accepted that smoking kills.
Yet the cigarette industry still lobbies for reduced laws, looser controls on purchasing, and they talk about personal freedom.

The modern cigarette lobbyist has much in common with the modern gun lobbyist.

While gun manufacturers keep their advertising dry and legal, they're waging a PR war using third parties who are very prepared to say things no law abiding corporate citizen would.

Gun manufacturers used to have such commercials, but mostly in print; I'm not sure any ever made it to television (there are sites that post images from old ads, and ask people to caption them before revealing what they are).

Insofar as gun manufacturers use third parties in a "PR war", it's the same way a lot of companies with the same sort of products do, through trade associations. Too many manufacturers have been burned by the NRA to have much to do with them except help fund programs in actual training, marksmanship, and competition (manufacturers tend to stick to funding the original things the NRA was for before it got dragged into politics).

Which reminds me: the NRA still spends more time and money on gun safety than just about all other organizations combined; it just doesn't get much press for that. That's one reason I'd have them in every school in the country, doing their safety programs, bringing back middle school and high school shooting competitions -- just not allowing any political activity mixed in. There's nothing like hands-on experience to get across to someone how dangerous guns can be when misused, and good training to wash away the Hollywood misrepresentation of guns as something glorious.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Nat Guard can be federalized. Meaning that the President can call them up. Why do you think that there have been members in Iraq?

Um, yeah -- that's what I said.

But you can't pick and choose who gets into the Guard.

 

[Kulindahr]

Only 300 million? Gee, I thought there would be more. /snark

It's the standard guesstimate for working firearms. I've seen figures as high as 380 million, as low as 270 million.

 

[Kulindahr]

So a semi-auto handgun or 410 shotgun isn't enough to protect you?

Huh? Self-defense was not originally included in the Second Amendment; the Framers thought it so self-evident that a person can be armed as he chooses to defend self and others they didn't even bother with an amendment to protect that. The Second was meant to protect the right to insurrection and ensure a well-armed and well-trained citizenry should the country need defending.

That's why Miller correctly said that it applies to military weapons, while being very weird about deciding that a shotgun isn't a military weapon (they're used on bases for security).

For home defense, I have a bolt-action rifle stowed hidden in one location, a shotgun in another, and a revolver near my bed. An AR-15 would be a good home defense weapon, but I haven't seen any reason to acquire one (though it might be a good replacement for my current deer rifle).

 

[Kulindahr]

The CDC source you cite is a study called Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013). It's about 120 pages and very few people who cite it have actually read it.

Since I have read it, here's what it actually says:

• The study was commissioned by the CDC. Because of pressure from Congress, the CDC no longer directly studies gun violence, so the study was actually done by the IOM and the NRC.
• The study defines gun violence in the US as a serious threat to public health and advocates the need for studying. From page 11:

• "Protection" is a red-herring since over half of the gun deaths in the US are from suicide. From page 13:

• And on page 16 is the statement that you cited. What it actually says is that the studies of defensive gun use are indirect studies since defensive gun use can vary from criminals returning fire when attacked to defensive positions taken by the general public when attacked. The studies that the IOM reviewed varied wildly- one study said 108,000 defensive uses and on the other extreme, another study said 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses (the high of which would mean that 1% of the US population fires a gun in defense each year- a highly improbable conclusion). Because there is a limited number of studies and the findings vary so much, the IOM advocates for further research to determine the true number. The bold sections below were added by me:

This last page of posts in the thread is exactly what the gun lobby wants to happen- they want to put the discussion into the theoretical speculation about what the "Founding Fathers' intended and into discussions about "Rights".

I've read it, twice straight through. I'm not going to bother correcting your misrepresentations, except where you correlate "defense gin use" with firing a gun -- that's silly, and neither the CDC study nor most of those it looked at do so. Lots of sources show that nine out of ten times, a bad guy seeing a gun in the hands of an intended victim suddenly realizes he has somewhere else to be.

As for rights, that's what it should be about -- that's the whole point of the United States, that the rights of individuals are primary, and all government is an artificial construct that has only what authority citizens cede it. The ONLY reason any government agent/employee may be armed is because the citizens have ceded a small portion of the right to keep and bear arms, under the concept on which the U.S. was founded.

Let's go back to the original subject of this thread.

No one has a right to slaughter 49 in cold blooded murder.

AR-15s, long barrel rifles with pinpoint accuracy, semi-automatic weapons and clips with 30 rounds of ammunition did not exist in the late 18th century. It is true that one of the tenets of US law is that some people were allowed to have weapons whose purpose was to kill other people. It's illogical to assert historical information in an effort to justify the possession of high-accuracy, high-capacity, military grade weapons by the general populace.

These mass shootings are still rare, especially outside the realm of domestic violence. The real issue is proliferation, ease of access and the blocking of prevent measures that protect the general public. If this one person were unable to gain access to the armament that he obtained, 49 people would still be alive, over 50 people would have not had injuries and 25 people would not be facing large hospital bills and extended recovery because they just happened to be in the sights of a crazed person exercising his constitutional rights.

The Framers were aware of fully automatic weapons, so a semi-auto would have been no big leap for them (the British actually had machine guns; look up the [IIRC] Puckle gun). There were revolvers in existence, and a revolver is just a different form of a semi-automatic, using a different system to bring up the next shot every time one is fired.

In the colonies, EVERYONE was expected to have military weapons; it was considered a tragedy that not everyone could. The only real difference was that there were almost no purely military weapons in existence. George Washington lamented that some of the militia sent to him by some of the colonies were not well-regulated because not all were armed, or had primitive weapons -- indicating that a proper militia, which was considered to be all the people, was able to show up when needed with the proper military arms.

They were quite aware that some people would misuse firearms, but considered that part of the cost of liberty. At the same time, they recognized that some weapons were not meant for common use, e.g. grenades, which they expected the military to have but not individual citizens under ordinary circumstances (which is why I still think that there's a solution to this situation by going through the militia concept).

 

[Mariatenebre]

Re: Florida Gay Club PULSE has been attacked with injuries, and possible hostage situation.

Yes you are trying to define their religion for them. A bunch of them say those passages are apocryphal or antiquated or some other disqualifier and are no part of the religion they practice, then you come along and tell them that because it's in the book they aren't "real" whatever. I certainly think they should explain WHY the things they ignore are ignored, but that isn't the same as insisting to some Christian that because the bible says so, he must believe the world was created in 7 days or he isn't a Christian.

Every one of the "book" religions has things in the book they ignore, some this thing others that thing, that isn't part of the religion they or their denomination practice. This has never been different. It's just a lie to say that every Christian or Muslim is a Fundamentalist who believers everything in the book is 100% true. That's just not the case. Then you went right on to do what you say you don't do, and define what a "Book" religion has to be in order to what? What is the point in insisting all Jews/Christians/Muslims meet your definition or they are apostate?

That's just fucking arrogance on your part, and stinks of agenda, and you chose the false analogy with the Nazis because they were abhorrent and you wanted to equate them with religious people - despite the fact that they aren't the same thing at all.

No I am critiquing the texts that they claim to follow. Christians claim that their Bible is their moral guide and ditto for Muslims and the Quran. Both books are pretty clear that you can not question them otherwise you are an apostate. The Quran for instance even says it clearly that those people who accept some of the Quran but not all are basically apostates and will go to hell. They are free to deny aspects of these texts if they want to but still cling to these religions but according to these texts and even to their religious authorities they are not true Christians or true Muslims. I have never claimed that all Christians or all Muslims are fundamentalists but the books they follow mandate fundamentalism.

As for the Nazi comparison I think it is spot on. Nazism was inspired by Christianity especially Christian Jew hatred. The even had God with us on their belt buckles, Hitler was a devout Catholic etc. As for the Islamic connection Hitler allied himself with the Mufti of Jerusalem who supplied Hitler with Muslim troops and even wanted to bring the concentration camps to the Middle East oh and as for the gay thing both Nazism, Christianity and Islam hates homosexuals. Plus Christianity and Islam have done just as much evil to the world as Nazism.

 

[Kabluey]

Huh? Self-defense was not originally included in the Second Amendment; the Framers thought it so self-evident that a person can be armed as he chooses to defend self and others they didn't even bother with an amendment to protect that. The Second was meant to protect the right to insurrection and ensure a well-armed and well-trained citizenry should the country need defending.

Every country has had a wild-west period.

The protection against insurrection fantasy is just that. Gun enthusiasts versus the world's most powerful army (assumedly being led by the world's most ruthless leader)? Not a hope. That kind of fantasy is where the 'ammosexual' slur comes from - it's delusional thinking.

Statistically speaking, that bedside gun of yours is more likely to be used against a family member than any intruder.

m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

We know you'll never agree with us, but understand why we disagree.

 

[frankfrank]

Only 300 million? Gee, I thought there would be more. /snark

There's 300,000,001. THAT is more...

Every country has had a wild-west period.

Statistically speaking, that bedside gun of yours is more likely to be used against a family member than any intruder.

Even the Vatican City had a wild-west period?

As Kulindahr is a gun owner who actually knows about (and respects) gun safety and protocol, unlike some entirely-clueless and untrained gun owners out there, his gun is less likely to be used that way than implied with statistics.

Not to mention, also, that there are no children in the household, so there won't be any kids (too young to know differently) finding a loaded gun and playing with it.

 

[TX-Beau]

There's 300,000,001. THAT is more...


Even the Vatican City had a wild-west period?

As Kulindahr is a gun owner who actually knows about (and respects) gun safety and protocol, unlike some entirely-clueless and untrained gun owners out there, his gun is less likely to be used that way than implied with statistics.

Not to mention, also, that there are no children in the household, so there won't be any kids (too young to know differently) finding a loaded gun and playing with it.

I am also a gun owner. grew up with gun owners, everyone in my family are pretty much gun owners, and Kuli's fantasy about how responsible gun owners are is massive.

 

[TX-Beau]

Only at the end. La Pierre opposed the case being in the courts at all. He only brought the NRA in at the end so he could claim some credit for it.



The Second as an individual right is assumed in both the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. Thew Second is listed as an individual right in over a dozen cases before Miller. These are facts of history.



Argument is pointless because you want to have your own facts, not just your own opinion.



Stop lying. You either know you're lying or you have serious issues.

What the fuck ever. I'm done making allowances for suburban commandos and their Rambo fantasies, I'm done putting up with 2nd amendment cultists and their Minuteman fantasies.

HOW FUCKING HIGH DO THE BODIES HAVE TO PILE before you admit we have a problem? I think they could pile to the sky and there you'd be, spewing mealy mouthed platitudes desperately ignoring the 500 Pound gorilla right there on the couch next to you.

Guess what, YOU WILL NEVER have the kind of armament necessary to topple the government - because you CAN'T HAVE IT!

Because it's REGULATED, which is perfectly CONSTITUTIONAL!

Go ahead, tell me firearm regulation is illegal, you always ignore this point, why is that?

END. OF. STORY.

I'm sorry that you live in paranoia, I can't help you with that.

You rattle on and on about "unalienable rights," like some kind of Moony, but lets face it, you only have the right to life, until there is some good reason to take it away from you, you only have the right to liberty, until there is good reason to incarcerate you, and there are myriad reason you can be required to do things that deprive you of the pursuit of happiness - and they are ALL LEGAL! Because there is no such thing as an absolute right no matter how much you insist there is.

I will give you credit for convincing me of one thing, Your kind - the cultists, and the tiny penised kind, have been hiding behind the 2nd Amendment and forcing this plague on all of the rest of us, time for it to go, and just like you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you do not have the right to force the rest of us to put up with this.