J.C.MacSwell

I realize that Phi. You however are very good at it, much better than I ever hope to become. Not only are they all claiming it, many are actually doing it Are you careful with yours? (I don't own one) Sometimes it is. I hope that's the case for your ownership of one.(no pun intended) I do have this weird idea that there is good and bad on all parts of the political spectrum, and often feel that the baby needs protection, even if the bathwater stinks. I do admit to struggling to keep up with all the politically motivated Orwellian shifts in language. The NRA would be more than pleased to quote you on that... For your politics? Or for gun control?

It's the basis for a political cartoon in some right wing publication you would never read. Brought to you by far right gaslighting, and supported by left wing overstatements.

P1: May I have a campfire if I'm careful and the risk of forest fire is low. P2: What are you? Some kind of arsonist? Do you have any idea of the costs of forest fires? Forest fires kill people, and unlike me, you are responsible for the many deaths!

To be fair, I only took exception to the nope. Phi said conservatives (truth to it but attacking conservatives more than the actual thinking behind the gun laws he suggests 80 percent of conservatives, 46 percent of independents, and 8 percent of democrats support). I said Americans (more truth to it...do the math...but intentionally equally unhelpful...I guess no one got it...my bad, but I certainly don't regret the blunt clarification) I have no doubt you held a reasonable gun control sign and might have lamented a few of the signs held on behalf of the same effort. No. Those people are are at best ill advised and at worst PsOS. Whining about cancel culture is pretty much everyone not busy virtue signalling. +1 for the above post though. I would be frustrated as well on many fronts, and have held my nose while voting here more than once.

If you think that was the point then no, you don't get it. To be blunt...I wasn't taking a shot at all Americans, I was mocking your polarizing methodology...which at best gets you votes...but at worst ensures little progress gets made. Not exactly sure what was asked, but if true you already have 94 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of independents, and 20 percent of Republicans likely onside, and perhaps many others open to being convinced if you make rational arguments and don't scare them all off with your BS. So get it done. Even if you have to compromise a bit. You don't get a pass just for insisting you're right. Or just get out of the way and let a new moderate party take over.

Unless you are talking about the far right in some other country... Yep. (note how cheap and easy that was)

Americans in the US are allowing shots to be taken at their children.

Exactly. Not the factor you claimed. Just a shot at conservatives that does nothing to focus on the problem. I'm sure the NRA appreciates that type of unintended support.

Some dyslexic insomniac, who stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog.

Certainly some of the beliefs generally categorized as right wing are a huge part of the problem. The one you keyed in on certainly has it's issues, but it's pretty low on the list with regard to gun control IMO.

It's always tough to turn to respecting the good in people that have deservingly lost respect. It's one of the reasons I think those incarcerated or on parole should be allowed to vote, at least provincially or nationally (and it is allowed in Canada, though I doubt it will come any time soon in the US, for reasons that have nothing to do with democratic fairness)

More on topic. Haven't paid attention other than hearing the score was 15-2 or something...but I think best to include anyone subject to abuse in the public discourse is to respect known facts as they emerge, and stay open minded otherwise...even if you want to pick sides.

From your link: "Even worse, perhaps, he pretended to be an undergraduate student to deceive younger women into sleeping with him." These obviously weren't his students (so no conflict of interest I would expect) . He was 27 (he said he looked younger IIRC from SYJ, and often told the truth in a smartass way...no doubt expecting to be disbelieved) when the war ended and there were many undergraduates that age after coming back from the war. Not exemplary behaviour, but if that is the "worst perhaps"...probably not the worst example of misogyny...certainly not "I think I'll vote for him for POTUS level"

Never thought I'd say this...but Go cancer Go!

Are these still along the lines of what the second amendment was written to protect ownership of?

Right. As I said I understand the sentiment. Tea and biscuits can't be taken for granted.

I understand the sentiment. If you can't trust your neighbours you need to match, or exceed, any potential force you suspect they might have. Quite the dilemma. Seek to build more trust or more and better weapons. Statistically, is it not true that the more guns you own the more you are likely to be killed by one?

Corollary 1. When doing the math, count the ones your neighbour uses for sport shooting, hunting, and training for insurrections, but don't count them for yourself.

Other than using firearms for sport shooting, hunting, and training for any upcoming insurrections, there is no reason anyone in America should need any more guns than their neighbours have in their everyday lives.

But is the rumour true that the turret hasn't blown off it yet?

+1 for an interesting concept. Buildings are approaching that. No doubt you are correct with regard to expense, but consider if the landscape allowed a significant head start. It need not be air tight, or angled, to provide a significant effect. Simply increasing the thickness of a boundary layer increases the effective shape. The pressure difference is almost negligible in terms of the head of water required to move a substantial amount of water any distance.

Okay Beecee. I can understand your placing your framed photo on your wall...but how did your wife feel about your four guests?

You are correct of course in your implication. But it doesn't mean they are not either. If Bruce Jenner had transitioned in 1976 she would still been able to compete in the male decathlon and obviously had the potential to break the World and Olympic record for what is often considered "World's greatest athlete". Now, could she have won the women's heptathlon, after a 2 year drug induced testosterone reduction to closer to female than male range? My opinion is yes, and I am more than certain Caitlyn Jenner would agree. But I am also pretty confident 1976 Bruce Jenner was not using steroids to get his World record results, and would not have agreed to any testosterone reducing treatment to compete in the female category.

Isn't She/He ultimately responsible for the abortions as well? (Hello, this is JCM's wife: He just got hit by a lightning bolt and won't be posting...oh wait...no...he's getting up...carry on)

I guess no one really expects it with your two party system, Moderates from both parties seem at times to be the ones ostracized the most. But one can hope.