Many a truth is said in jest and many a slight is slipped in at night. That is why I find such “jokes” without humor and to me construed as a way of slipping in cruel digs at others. That is my take on it. Some just call it “politically correct” and believe it is their right to besmirch others at their whim regardless of social convention or decency. Look at Limbaugh’s “Obama the magic negro” as a recent example of his “joking.”

If you didn’t mean to insult then fine. But please keep that in mind the next time you wish to joke in that way. Racists and haters love to do it, you shouldn’t. Thank you.

But I did nothing wrong, Ardee. It was a playful, amusing dig.

Fine; I don’t wish to discuss this any longer, either.

Paul_GA, June 21 at 12:44 pm #

Last comment on this subject as it appears futile. You are very, very wrong and, in the interest of decent debate and dialogue I would hope you refrain from posting any more hate speech, thanks much.

Your opinion of my rejection of your insult to homosexuals is a mirror into your mind and not into mine. The simple fact is that you fucked up and are not man enough to stand up and say you apologize.

Ardee, you also strike me as self-righteous.

One should really assess what one finds funny if that humor is tinged with bigotry in any form. Your comment , however slightly, perpetuates a stereotype, continues a second class status upon a group of people and has no place in the twenty first century.

You may make all the attempts you like to minimize the import of your out of place joke, but , in the end, it points only to your need to look inward and cast out the demons dwelling within, a useful endeavor that we all should partake in. I do not seek to single you out, or even accuse you of meaning the bigotry you so casually offer, only to try and get you to see the need to stop it.

To Ardee: with all due respect, mon ami, you strike me as humorless.

Paul_GA, June 20 at 9:32 am #

Ardee, didn’t you see the wink?  wink It was meant as a playful dig. If we’ve reached the point where we can’t even make playful digs at one another, then the country is in sad shape indeed.
......................

How incredibly insensitive of you Paul, what next a lawn jockey reference?

I have to lauph… radicals, extremists, etc….
The most important LINK you insist on overlooking, is that besides banning smoking… one of Hitler’s first moves was to disarm… the german people…
Please review HISTORY, I know it’s a stretch…
Lawbreakers are not concernced about rule of law…much like the left, who are only concerned about saying things they hope sound profound, while upping thier ravenous need for popularity.
The founding fathers insisted on giving free americans the right to bear arms… (that doesn’t mean we shave the things attached at our shoulders)
I want to keep it that way…

Considering the death toll among “leftists” by right wingers (that includes those the righties call leftist like Brunn) Yes that is one of their tacts these days. Just look at how Beck is making all of our present problems the fault of “Progressives” in his broadcasts.

The best defense is a good strategy and preparation.

hippie4ever:
’... Lets stop fighting about this, compromise by regulating assault weapons, and begin to build a better community where people aren’t so desperate and angry that they want to shoot somebody. ...’

Actually, I don’t think guns are very important.  But I think the debate about guns is useful and interesting, because in essence it’s a debate about the state, and instead of the enthusiasts of state power being on the Right, as they often are, they’re on the Left.  Exploring this paradox is at least interesting intellectually and from my point of view helps resist the tendency of leftists to get sucked into rightist modes of thinking, which I think have been pretty destructive on the whole—not only morally and intellectually but in the material world as well.

Ardee, didn’t you see the wink?  It was meant as a playful dig. If we’ve reached the point where we can’t even make playful digs at one another, then the country is in sad shape indeed.

Paul_GA, June 19 at 9:43 pm #

If , by your comment regarding “fruits and nuts”, you refer to the bounteous harvest of California agriculture then I agree with your assessment. If you intended it to be a slur upon homosexuals and political choices in the state then I sadly assume that your thinking is the result of your Georgia education and not really your fault.

Suits me, Mr. Boggs. Whatever floats your boat. To be sure, I’d prefer not to live in or even visit “the land of fruits and nuts”. 

Paul_GA, now maybe if I had to travel in the redneck state of GA or even Texas, I maybe would want a gun.
I have driven the highways of CA for 72 years and have never needed a weapon, for that matter I have never needed one to defend my home either.
Hmmm, precarious situation prevails, to carry or not to carry. How about if you would just carry a cell phone instead? Just a thought, I know you will have a very good reason, why not!
I will continue down our HAPPY CA highways without heat.

Whatever happened to the idea of guns having “intelligent” locks preventing unwarranted use? I thought it was a reasonable compromise—I hate guns but I know people who feel otherwise & they aren’t willing to go “gun free.” And who knows? Maybe some day we’ll be glad they did. Or not.

Lets stop fighting about this, compromise by regulating assault weapons, and begin to build a better community where people aren’t so desperate and angry that they want to shoot somebody. Getting shot, if you survive, is excruciating and often leads to other health problems later; living in a community where gun violence is an accepted fact of life, really sucks.

Mr. Boggs, I’m not an NRA member. I quit them a long time ago because all they are is a money-pit for the GOP—I quit the GOP a long time ago, too. Call me a disillusioned former conservative turned libertarian.

Besides, there’s a difference between cowardice and looking plain foolish. I carry a handgun with me at all times in my car’s console box (perfectly legal here in Georgia) for the same reason folks buy insurance—better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I am not afraid of guns, I own 5. But with me it is not an obsession. I don’t carry one with me everywhere I go, because I am not afraid. Which takes me back to “who is the real coward?”
You gun people are so wrapped up in fighting the good fight for the NRA that you don’t have a clue what the real issues are.

Mr. Boggs, that’s why it’s called “hoplophobia”.

Even if we had the toughest gun control laws in the world, I believe if someone wants to find a gun, they will find a way to get one. Many guns, of all variations, are floating around on the street market, and all it takes to get one is a phonecall.

The core problem here is not the guns, it is the society. We live in a society of fear. The government and media are constantly preaching a doctrine of dangers all around us; a cruel, terrible, and hateful world. They make us insecure and distrusting of each other in order to isolate us and break community bonds, because ultimately they will have the most control over us that way. It is the same old “divide and conquer” technique. If the people in this country weren’t constantly at fear for their own and their family’s safety, would we as a nation have tolerated the countless horrible decisions made in the last 8 years? For example, everytime the government wanted to make an especially irrational move, or some dissent against the right’s decisions started to stir, the Homeland Security’s color-coded threat level would rise to “orange” or “red,” simply to scare everyone enough to make them shut up and comply. This fear, coupled with the “us against them” mentality that so many Americans have learned to adopt, is a recipe for disaster. You turn on Fox any day and you see figures whom many others follow simply SEETHING with hatred and complete intolerance towards many different groups of people. And then we wonder why so many people are killing each other? We’re surprised?? I’m not.

Something in the core, fundamental mentality and society of this nation needs to change. It is a sad place we are in.

Mr. Harvey, sir, with all due respect, it is your kind who demand the right to own and bear your weapons who frighten many of us. We see you as the TYRANTS in TYRANNY. You are precisely the nuts we have to think about when we send our children off to college or a day at a museum.

I’m not a member of the NRA or of any other “gun-lobby” organization, Nickmammano; I just know bad law and feel-good, knee-jerk reactions to unfortunate happenings when I see them. The country needs GREATER freedom, not less, as I see it.

Judging by the tone of so many of the comments about Cocco’s column, I have the impression that the gun lobby takes aim at any column that suggests that guns should be restricted.  It could be described as the “grass roots” points of view, but my guess is that the posting of these many “comments” is orchestrated.  It convinces me of the futility of bucking the gun lobby.

So what, then, keeps Switzerland so crime free, Paolo?  Health care?  Jobs?  The Swiss Banks?

I love Switzerland, the people, the Alps, the clean fresh air and the down quilts. When we were there, life seemed refreshing and uncomplicated. How can one become a crazed gunman amidst all that gorgeous scenary and tasty cheese?

The country doesn’t need an army (except for Hans..or is Hans in the navy..old joke) becuz no one can invade it physically - not easily -  It can’t have a navy, doesn’t need an airforce.

Ah…....maybe the Swiss have a low crime rate becuz they don’t go to war. The national psyche hasn’t been killed by killing and plundering others.

Size doesn’t seem to matter, since Canada also has a low crime rate, health insurance and doesn’t try and spread democracy abroad. Canadians have an aversion to being killed in ME wars. Nor do they have to fear being invaded or bombed since they leave others alone, for the most part.

I suspect religious extremism also has a lot to do with crime, as discussed before.  I’ve said for years that the disenchantment and fall of organized religion would be a blessing for the world.

We’ve been warmongering and rapaciously grabbing land ever since our buckle-shoed, be-hatted ancestors stepped ashore off the “Maria,” the “Pinta” and the “Small-Poxia.”

In Switzerland, all adult males are required to own guns, as part of their duty to serve in the militia. These guns are kept in the home, and include fully automatic weapons, assault rifles, and various other guns.

In Switzerland, murder is so rare that a single murder still warrants a story on the front page of their newspapers. Property crimes are also extremely rare.

If the mere existence of guns somehow caused crime, then Switzerland should be one of the worst hell-holes of crime on the planet. But the opposite is true.

lmg—My understanding is that the Soviet Union, throughout most of its history, had a great deal of crime.  Lack of freedom often makes criminal behavior more attractive, since it is indistinguishable politically and legally from normal, harmless behavior.
The sort of acts we normally consider to be crimes were often ignored or not reported, because the energy of the state was concentrated on rooting out infidels even when they didn’t exist.  However, when the Soviet Union collapsed, mafias were suddenly all over the place.  They didn’t come from nowhere.

Boggs, with respect, the AK-47s readily available to American shootists are NOT “assault rifles”; they just LOOK like them. To qualify as an “assault rifle”, a shoulder-fired weapon must meet the following four criteria: (a) it must be a carbine, with a barrel no longer than 21 inches (the barrel of the AK is 16.3 inches long—the legal limit for civilian rifles is 16 inches exact); (b) it must utilize an intermediate cartridge, i.e., a cartridge between a pistol cartridge and a full-powered rifle cartridge in power; (c) it must be fed by a high-capacity detachable box magazine; and (d) it must be selective-fire.

The AK you see on racks in gun shops is NOT selective-fire, nor can it easily be converted so. Thus, what most civilians have are “paramilitary carbines”, NOT “assault rifles”. To own a real (selective-fire) assault rifle, one must pay a $200 transfer tax to the US government and present a pair of passport-type photos and a complete set of fingerprints, and pass a thorough background check.

I might add that real assault rifles are incredibly expensive—$10,000 and up.

Wow, where to start?  I was in college at the time the “1968 Omnibus Crime Bill and Safe Streets Act” was passed, purportedly to make us all “safe” from crime!  Ah, all these years later and we still grapple with the same issues - how to allow citizens their full constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights while preserving a sense of order and safety.  Well, how about this approach - ENFORCE THE GD LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS TODAY!  If any of a number of these laws were enforced, many of the crimes mentioned by the (for want of another descriptive term) author of the article would never have occurred.  The freer the society, the more crime you have.  If you want no crime, quickly reverse back to the good old USSR!  A very crime free country (also devoid of certain basic human rights as well).  So, love it or leave it, we are where we are.  Banning “assault weapons”  (another name for rifles that look evil, but are really no different than Pa’s hunting rifle, and a lot less accurate than that old Remington 700) never accomplished any reduction in crime according to the ATF statistics.  Arming our society might help since over one million documented uses of firearms to prevent or stop a crime occur each year.  I’m certain the students at Virginia Tech would have been thrilled to have a competent adult among their midst who just happened to be legally carrying a concealed weapon that morning!  But as we speak, the sheeple of this Country continue to think of “gun free zones” as just that, while the nut cases (who should never have been allowed to own a firearm in the first place) see those same places as “easy pickings” since they rightfuly assume no one is there to stop them.

Remember - when seconds count, the police are minutes away!

nimblehuman, June 17 at 3:56 pm

Best to note that noone takes such postings seriously. Noting his crap only inflates his ego.

James P. Harvey, June 17 at 8:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

It has become embarrassing to acknowledge my citizenship due to the constant display of cognitive dissonance on web sites like this one, and that includes the comments also.

...........

What you should be embarrassed about is your lack of reading comprehension skills. Did you bother to note that most here are against the idea of gun control or did you just rush in where fools fear to tread?

Jason said:

There were more deaths attributed to traffic incidents than guns.

“...I find the whole debate from liberals a bit hypocritical anyway. I mean on one hand, you want to control people at a finite level for their safety and betterment. On the other, you kill babies and preach population control. Fail.”

That’s the stupidest statement I have ever heard.  Abortion doctors kill babies, not “liberals”.  Your argument is equivalent to lumping all people of your ideological ilk together with the KKK.

Don’t say stupid shit like this in a public forum, it just makes you look bad.

Well I don’t believe anyone is trying to outlaw the ownership of a 12 ga. shotgun.
The arguement is about the outlawing of assault rifles.

Some folks might prefer 12-gauge shotguns, Boggs. No problem; whatever floats your boat. One-size-fits-all laws are for the birds, anyway.

So Mr. Harvey, your reasoning has made it seem like the wise thing to do is get out and buy an AK47 for the protection of my home, and encourage everyone to do the same.
If it were not for fear mongering the right wing wouldn’t have a wing to fly by.
I sense this is kind of why they are crippled and are trying to grow a new wing.

The link isn’t with the weapondry (gasp!) but the people who wield them. I know this is hackneade and simple but sometimes it is that simple. If you are a bad person who believe so-and-so for any reason is against you and doesn’t have a right to life, liberty and happiness. Bad conditions both economically, culturally, and physically (food, water, shelter and work) all breed such extreme actions first by the most sensitive of us then affects more and more of the population as it gets worse. Look at Somalia for example.

Though I am for universal ownership and training in personal weapons. Guns, knives, swords, bolo, whatever is comfortable. In a calm controlled society of adults violence would be as rare as in the old west. Violence is rare in this country unless you want to count riots which are by definition group events. For a population of over 307 million we have very few violent acts with guns alone. Just criminal ones, don’t count suicides which are voluntary acts. (The numbers are cooked by including them every time.)

Question: do you trust your fellow human? Do you consider them a possible threat? Why? What prompts this idea? Now look at the likes of Brunn who had many enemies on his hit list. The only way in his mind to resolve it was by murder and mayhem. [Our gov’t over the years does the same thing on a larger scale. Just look at how Iran and Venezuela are treated.] Lucky for us he waited till he was so old. Imagine if he had done this right out of the army?

It’s a Statist program, Anarcissie, the purpose being to ensure the survival of the State against all possible internal threats. That, BTW, is why the infamous DHS terror-threat report cast its net so widely, naming virtually ANYONE, left or right, who disagrees with the State as a “possible or probable terrorist”.

hippie4ever:
‘This might sound odd coming from an old lefty like me, but I don’t believe guns are the main culprit. ...’

I don’t know how anti-gun politics got associated with the Left.  Forcibly taking weapons away from ordinary people and giving them to authoritarian rightist organizations like the military and the police, who get anything they want, hardly sounds like a leftist program to me.

This might sound odd coming from an old lefty like me, but I don’t believe guns are the main culprit. Americans are a violent and paranoid people because their wealth and sense of order is based upon colonialization, inequality and theft. Then there is the god of the forest religion that crows about the “one true god.”

An imperative of a materialist society is that there always be more stuff, which is finite, but that means someone else must do with less. Eventually those with less may try stealing from those with more, especially since the media barrages them with all wares they cannot afford to purchase. This is a primary rationalization for gun ownership, and along with alcohol-fueled domestic disputes, fuel the thousands of annual gun deaths.

To the Cherokee too much wealth is considered disgraceful and items must be given away to protect the owner’s reputation. Isn’t that a reasonable, compassionate and civilized idea? In Savage White Land the reverse is true, and while taking away the semi-automatics is never a bad idea, you’re still left with vicious, paranoid savages motivated by fear and greed.

I used to be very anti-gun; with the rise of our idiocratic state, not so much.

I don’t like the thought of strolling thru a national park, wondering if the guy at his campsite, on vacation, drinking himself silly has a gun and might mistake me for target practice.

Religion.  Yes.  I most definitely think there’s a connection but certainly not the only one. I don’t know what the latest stats are regarding an increase or not of nut-killings and religion, but I think it bears studying. 

Our citizens watch our gov’t slaughtering innocents in foreign countries.  This, IMO, is an example of top down role modeling…the implication being that it must be OK becuz we’re killing *them furriners.*  The ones who are *heathens.*

I agree we need “evolution.” Ånd education, at least thru high school.

By SwingDaddy, June 16 at 6:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Noneya - Notice how these angry gun advocates ignore your discussion.

————-

Well, no. How do you say something better than the way its already been said? The only thing that can be added is that the F.B.I. always add something when they’re profiling a serial killer, because all the serial killers seem to have this one same trait: Stern religious upbringing. The harsher and more unforgiving and Southern the upbringing, the more likely it seem to be that mass killers are bred from it. The greater majority (something like 98%) have religion-based motivations. The other 2% are killing because they’re pissed at all the religious fanatics.

I know people like to bring up England it’s utter lack of allowing guns to anyone, but Bobbies are now armed and dangerous, and the fact is that England DOES have much lower gun deaths than America. What people fail to bring up is that their murder rates due to drowning, bludgeoning, knife-related killings and poisoning deaths far, far surpass the kill rates of even guns and bludgeoning alone in America.

And yeah, it’s been a bad, bad year for slaughtering in America. But it ain’t the guns. It’s the lack of jobs, no money, watching your kids starve, and having to explain why the family has to pee in a bush because they don’t have a bathroom.

Sooo, if it makes you feel better, excellent post Noneya!

Well, this is one of the three most divisive domestic issues in the country, the other two being abortion and gay marriage. Where I stand is, let the states decide for themselves what to do about abortion and gay marriage; as for firearms, leave well enough alone and enforce the existing laws on the books. As one of my favorite libertarian heroes, the late Harry Browne, once said, “There already are 20,000 federal gun laws and regulations on the books. If those laws haven’t made America safe by now, why should we think 20,001 laws will suffice?”

Excuse me. Fahrenheit 451. I’ve got Mikey’s upcoming film on the brain.

There’s a saying. “Peace comes through superior fire power.”

Whoever said that was an idiot. I’m going to coin a new saying. “Give a guy a gun and he’s sure to go nuts and shoot someone.” I like guns well enough—they’re pretty and they’re fun. But I feel no need to protect them when I keep seeing horror stories involving idiots with guns. Kids with guns die at the hands of their parents and vice versa. People are gunned down every day as a result of careless gun operation. The wrong people get shot because people who are trained to use a gun have itchy fingers and bad eyesight. Let me invoke the mantra of the pro-gunners “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Get your heads out of the gunpowder folks. Guns DON’T kill people, PEOPLE kill people, with GUNS and KNIVES and BATS and BASEBALLS and TASERS.

We are all potentially killers, whether by unintentional accident or by calculated deliberation. I can’t say for sure that I will never shoot someone if I have a gun in the wrong situation and the wrong frame of mind, no matter how level headed and rational I may think I am. None of us can.

Our society has worshiped two things: God and Gun. As an advanced society, we need to drop this polytheistic kick we’ve been on for the past 1000+ decades and do something new. Let’s start by taking a cue from Fahrenheit 911 and dump our weapons in a bonfire.

Race you home to start sharpening all the broom handles and hammering nails in all the hairbrushes.

In Europe where I live, guns are not allowed, but all the criminele people have guns, rifles, granat trowers, its coming from the Albanian direction.

I think its good for the citizens if it is allowed to defend your self with an weapon,further more some body who could look in the future,made a rule, in favour of freedom and the citizen maby some time you have to defend your self against an to powerfull and enslaving kind of people who have the governement in their grip.

Oh, Christ, “spring of slaughter?”  In Afghanistan perhaps, and parts of Pakistan. 

Hysterical hyperbole to make an argument you were wanting to make all along? 

The numbers of deaths has not significantly changed in the U.S.  Blowing individual incidents up to national “crises” is what you are doing.  I reject this type of lame argument from the right and from the left (or anyone else for that matter).

Firearms are a complex issue.  Committing a crime with a firearm is of course outlawed.  Defending yourself from a criminal act, with a firearm, is basic self-defense (a human right).

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Dear Gun-Toting, Religion-Related Violence, Defenders of the 2nd Amendment:

BRAVO!!! Well said everyone!

Jackpine? I’m with Ardee on this one. Well spoken!

hello. people use guns to kill people. scary. the great equalizer. it is the need in people to kill other people that needs to evolve. do not attempt to take away my constitutional right to defend myself from attack, with a fifty caliber Smith and Wesson sweet handgun, that explodes power away from my fingertips: like the holocaust of a train going head-on into a semitruck; or you might get shot at. more guns for the good guys to overpower the bad guys until the evolution… so exactly which side are you on?

Christ, what a bunch of totally screwed up bloviators now post on Truthdig articles: read the crap from these people and you know they’ve got a screw loose. More than one.

Whoever buys a gun intends to use it. Whoever buys guns does it because he or she is scared to death of life.

Losers, the bunch of them.

There were more deaths attributed to traffic incidents than guns.

Under the guise of the co2 scam, you want to choose who gets to exhale. That is far more dangerous than someone’s gun!

I find the whole debate from liberals a bit hypocritical anyway. I mean on one hand, you want to control people at a finite level for their safety and betterment. On the other, you kill babies and preach population control. Fail.

Why don’t the hoplophobes call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, if they really are as irrationally scared of guns as they show themselves to be, and want new prohibitions on private gun ownership? No part of the Constitution is sacred; look at how the 18th Amendment (alcohol prohibition) was shot down after 13 years.

So I say to the hoplophobes, quit complaining to high heaven, and put your money where your mouth is; call for the 2nd Amendment’s repeal. Period.

jackpine savage:
’... You’re right, Ardee, this “liberal” meme serves to separate the left from a large portion of the country because the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners get lumped in with the nuts by what appears to be the transitive property of firearms. ...’

Actual leftists (socialists, communists, anarchists) have no interest in giving the government a monopoly on gun possession.  I doubt if it should even be considered a “liberal” position, although liberals (so-called—urban and suburban Democrats, mostly) seem to have been stuck with it.  It seems to me it closely resembles the drug prohibition thing, the imputation of a kind of witchy potency to inanimate objects.

I imagine the overall effect of gun control politics has been to get Republicans elected, most significantly Bush in 2000; a large number of people there were convinced that Gore was going to take their guns away.

In this country if you threaten to kill yourself, you can be detained by the police and if you have firearms they can be removed from you possession. In short order your sanity will be evaluated by a court if you resist.

The same rules should apply to those that make violent threats against others, they should be detained and evaluated by a court for a psychiatric hold until such time as they are mentally stable and pose no threat to the community. The police should be allowed to search you home and remove any firearms in your possession.

Right now in this counry someone goes crazy about twice a week and either kills their entire family, including their children, or someone at their office or church.

The only alternative to everyone carrying a firearm to protect themselves, is detention based on threats of violence and evidence of psychosis or impairment of reality, and access to firearms.

At some point people will have enough, and you’ll begin to see gun battles in the street, won’t that be lovely.

Gun Control is the new “Third Rail” in politics. Touch it and your done. Legal guns carried by lawfully sensored people protect our freedom and Liberty.

Damn, Jackpine, I wish I’d said that!

Brace youself for the onslaught certain to follow…...

So 18 people counts as a “slaughter”? I don’t mean to belittle any of those deaths at all, bet i’ll bet that 18 Iraqis have been killed since i got up this morning. How many people died in alcohol related automobile accidents since the “spring of slaughter” began?

You’re right, Ardee, this “liberal” meme serves to separate the left from a large portion of the country because the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners get lumped in with the nuts by what appears to be the transitive property of firearms.

Short of banning all guns (of course the government would grant itself an exemption and i’d be interested to hear Ms. Coco’s thoughts on government gun ownership), what are we supposed to do?

They say that freedom isn’t free, but it appears that the only cost Americans are willing to pay is denominated in brown corpses.

An article typical of the image of “liberals” I am sorry to say. Comments such as this:

He was convicted of several charges, including attempted kidnapping while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a banned weapon.

highlight the fuzzy thinking of the author on this subject. When it is plainly seen that this nut job was in violation of existing gun laws by possessing weapons without licenses a serious commentator might call for enforcement of laws already on the books, a rather rational position I believe.

Instead we read on to find a typically dramatic and emotional appeal which leads to banning guns. When all guns are banned people like the ones this author references will still have guns. This is what makes them criminals in the first place, ignoring laws.

This article will serve only to further widen the gap between the left and the center. Do I believe we have a problem with violence in our society, yes, I very firmly suggest that we do indeed. We have a govt that commits acts of violence daily, we have a culture in which the average child is exposed to thousands of simulated murders before reaching adulthood, movies, cartoons, television shows of every stripe all show murder and mayhem as ordinary every day facts of life.

But, instead of addressing the root cause of our violent world, the author deems it necessary to harangue us with a tired and trite view of a weapons free world, or rather one in which only the criminals and the govt have them.

This nation will never endorse the banning of gun ownership, it is woven into the very fabric of our belief system here, whether good or bad is not the point. I believe that it is long past time for bleeding heart liberals to understand that this view of theirs wins them no converts and only serves to isolate and separate them from mainstream America.

We desperately need to come together to resolve very serious and destructive policies and practices here in our nation, and addressing the root causes of violent culture is not well served by rehashing this overly dramatic and hyperbole filled rant by Ms. Coco, a rant guaranteed to go nowhere but serves only to further isolate the left.