Ukraine and Russia are not the same country.

My family is firmly in the "Here they beat you up for the Russian language" territory. Nationalist relations prevented my gaining Polish citizenship. Amusingly, I am not sure if I qualify for Ukrainian citizenship, which would be analogous to denying one of the Kennedy clan (ya know, JFK, RFK, etc.) Irish citizenship. I saw an interesting comparison of Ukraine and Ireland, which I sort of agree with. And why I compare myself to the Kennedys.

 

That sounds like Russian, but I can't understand it...

This is pretty good on the differences between the two languages. 

Or Just because a language belongs to a particular family doesn't mean that they will sound alike since English is a Germanic language. It shares a lot of similarities with Dutch, but most English speakers can't understand spoken Dutch.

The Cyrillic Alphabet

I'm reposting this here since Wordpress stinks for editing. There's a quote in here which it doesn't do. I also wanted to add a video. That said:

I made a comment about how people in Europe kill each other over what religion they practise or language they speak. Slavic languages have the added factor of varying alphabets, which is interesting when you deal with the pan-Slavic crowd. They sort of have a point in that the languages are similar enough that you can be understood about the way most Scandanavians can understand each other. Then you get to the Alphabets. The former Yugoslavia was torn apart by religion and differences in Alphabets. Likewise, Polish and Ukrainian are fairly similar until you get to the Alphabet.

This is the Polish alphabet.

The Ł is pronounced like Elmer Fudd saying the letter "W". So, Wrocław is pronounced like Vroswav. In my opinion, the German transliteration of Breslaw (with a German accent) works better for non-Poles. The alphabet is a romanised version of Ukrainian/cyrillic.

Ukrainian and Russian both use the Cyrillic alphabet, but slightly different versions. There are four letters in Ukrainian missing from Russian (ґ, є, і, ї), and four letters in Russian missing from Ukrainian (ё, ъ, ы, э). Also:

One frequently cited figure is that Ukrainian and Russian share about 62% of their vocabulary. This is about the same amount of shared vocabulary that English has with Dutch, according to the same calculations. If you expand your sample by scraping internet data to compare a broader range of words than just those 200 ancient “core” words, the proportion of shared words declines. One computational model suggests that Russian and Ukrainian share about 55% of their vocabulary.

Using that higher figure of 62%, though, a Russian with no knowledge of Ukrainian (or vice versa) would understand roughly five in eight words. To understand this, have a friend cross out three out of every eight words in a newspaper and see how much of the text you can follow.

from Ukrainian and Russian: how similar are the two languages? https://theconversation.com/ukrainian-and-russian-how-similar-are-the-two-languages-178456

Anyway, the Cyrillic alphabet also was a force which prevented Russians from invading a good part of Western Europe. I mean, can most people read Cyrillic? Now, turn it around to the Roman alphabet for the average Slavic language speaker. You don't need guns to prevent a Russian invasion--Road signs work quite well.

On the other hand, these nations have different enough cultures that it requires a certain amount of sensitivity toward that fact which gets into how one transliterates Kyiv (or pronounces it for that matter).

 

More like Kew, or the "ł" in Polish, which I learned from my Ukrainian cousin.

My "slavic" heritage is more western (Ukraine, Poland, "Czechoslovakia"{1}, etc.) with my ancestors being definitely Austro-Hungarian. This is why I was musing on this topic: way more variation in Slavic languages outside of Russia.

Footnote:

{1} this saves listing a bunch of former and current countries due to European cartographical changes.

Fear of a "militarised police" is a cultural issue

I used a picture of a costume Gendarme the last time I did this post on this subject. This time I am using actual material from the French Gendarmerie Nationale. Those who do not understand French can turn on autotranslated English subtitles.

The Maréchaussée, a precursor to the Gendarmerie Nationale dates back to the Middle Ages. Some historians tracing it back to the early 12th century around the commencement of the Hundred Years War.. The Current version of the Gendarmerie dates to when Maréchaussée was organised in 1536, or, formally, the Constabulary and Marshalcy of France (connétablie et maréchaussée de France).  Gens d'Armes (men at arms) is a term used in even older sources. That's why I included "Second Amendment History" as a subject here. The Gendarmerie is a force of the nation for the protection and security of the people. It has been a military force since its inception. This is different from the Anglo-American sense of the police, and military, as being subordinate to the citizenry.

 The basics:

The National Gendarmerie is one of two national law enforcement forces of France, along with the National Police. The Gendarmerie is a branch of the French Armed Forces placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, with additional duties from the Ministry of Armed Forces.

In short, it is an internal army, which is a no-no in Anglo-American, especially American, tradition.

The first video is a short video on the history of the Gendarmerie Nationale:

The next clip requires some explanation since there are two different branches of the Gendarmerie Nationale: the Gendarmerie Départementale and the Gendarmerie Mobile (OK, three if you count the Garde Républicaine).  The next video has more than you ever wanted to know about the organisation of the Gendarmerie Nationale. It does a lot of things.

Now, let's get specific as to the two main groups

The Gendarmerie Départementale is best explained by comparing it to US state police forces. It is in charge of policing small towns and rural areas. The Departmental Gendarmerie carries out the general public order duties in municipalities with a population of up to 20,000 citizens. When that limit is exceeded, the jurisdiction over the municipality is turned over to the National Police. 

The Gendarmerie Mobile is an internal military force organized into the seven regions of the Mobile Gendarmerie (one for each of the seven military regions of metropolitan France, called (Zones de Défense). It comprises 18 Groups (Groupements de Gendarmerie mobile) featuring 109 squadrons for a total of approximately 11,300 personnel.  Its main responsibilities are:

• crowd and riot control
• general security in support of the Departmental Gendarmerie
• military and defense missions
• missions that require large amounts of personnel (Vigipirate counter-terrorism patrols, searches in the countryside...) 

Nearly 20% of the Mobile Gendarmerie squadrons are permanently deployed on a rotational basis in the French overseas territories. Other units deploy occasionally abroad alongside French troops engaged in military operations (OPEX or external operations). 

The Mobile Gendarmerie includes GBGM (Groupement Blindé de la Gendarmerie Nationale), an armored grouping composed of seven squadrons equipped with VXB armoured personnel carriers, better known in the Gendarmerie as VBRG (Véhicule Blindé à Roues de la Gendarmerie, "Gendarmerie armoured wheeled vehicle"). It is based at Versailles-Satory. This unit also specializes in Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense (CBRN) defense.

This system is unlike the US, which has the Posse Comitatus Act  a United States law which limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States, France has a professional military which works internally with no issues to that. To some extent, the British also use their military for civil defence. The Militia in the United States, which is now the National Guard, and has the powers to enforce internal order given to it under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The founders' intent was to have a civilian force, instead of a professional military one, to handle the tasks which are delegated to the Gendarmerie Mobile in France. This is due to a cultural difference where the Anglo-American tendency is to dislike large standing military forces. Or as the Virginia Constitution of 1776 states in its Bill of Rights:

Sec. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

I should add that modern police forces are a new thing in Anglo-American tradition dating back to the early to mid 19th Century. There were night watches and other non-professional forms of law enforcement early on.  Modern policing only began to emerge in the U.S. in the mid-nineteenth century, influenced by the British model of policing established in 1829 based on the principles of Sir Robert Peel.

Sir Robert Peel created what is termed an ethical police force. The approach expressed in these principles is commonly known as policing by consent in the United Kingdom and other countries such as Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. 

In this model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.

The first organized, publicly-funded professional full-time police services were established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854.

As I said, the difference in attitude is based upon cultural differences.

Russell Brand on Tucker Declares WAR On Fox News

This is interesting. I wouldn't say that I am a total Tucker Carlson fan, but I did start watching him during the Covid. This is an interesting take on him and his show. I have to agree with this since I feel the same way as Russell Brand does and he makes a lot of very interesting points.

Meanwhile as you are panicking about Robots and AI...

I found this article which pretty much confirms my suspicions: https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2016/feb/25/how-real-is-that-atlas-robot-boston-dynamics-video.

 Anyway...

This pretty much sums up the current situation:

These videos are more press release than research paper, designed to show the subject in the best possible light. I doubt we’ll see Atlas running cross-country races any time soon, and there are a whole host of limitations, from battery life to noisiness, which would need to be overcome for success in the wild, or even a warehouse. Still, if you’re in any doubt as to what its creators have accomplished, or how hard this is to do, I’ll leave you with a compilation of some of its peers.

 This one is pretty good too!

More on the failure of Artificial Intelligence

Sure, it's neat to see videos of robots jumping up and down while doing things that would be impossible for most people. On the other hand, I wonder how fake those happen to be. Are the interviews with AI chatbots staged by people who know what to ask.

Yes, yet another attempt to get information from a computer "gatekeeper" which ended in failure.

You can't really complain to the company since the AI won't let you talk to a person: especially if your query isn't in their menu of options. This is why a human is far better than a machine--no matter how "intelligent" it may appear.

In this current case--I have received notice that a shipment is on its way from a company I am not familiar with. I contacted the company, but this shipment appears to be a mistake. So, I thought I would try to find out more from the carrier.

Unfortunately, the AI works as a gatekeeper to prevent me from actually getting help with my issue.

As I said, AI is more useless than trying to talk to someone in a call centre who happens to speak my language as a second language: if even that. At least the person in the call centre will make some effort. The machine lacks empathy and understanding of the actual issue.

The only thing to worry about artificial intelligence is that there isn't some form of human check to keep if from doing what it does best.

Fuck things up.

J'ai brexitais!

It was very weird for me to watch the coronations of Charles and Camilla on French TV. There was the distance caused by the language and commentary. Also, it seemed like something from the past, which it is. But it seemed even more anachronistic.

Toss in that it is way more ostentatious than any of the other European monarchies, there are 12 of them, six of which are members of the EU (Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden). Things have changed quite a bit since at the start of the 20th century only France, Switzerland and San Marino were the only European nations to have a republican form of government.

Unfortunately for the people who want to say the US is a republic, not a democracy, the only real difference between those two systems of government are that democracy has the ability to be a monarchy. Euronews has an interesting article: Politics and popularity: Why are there still so many monarchies in Europe? It's not the only news source discussing European monarchies.

I'm not sure how I feel about monarchy these days. Although I do side with the comment that “There is no contradiction between a country being a monarchy and being an advanced democracy”. Also, “One of the roles for the royal family is to be a symbol for the nation as a whole and therefore the monarch as an institution has to strive to represent the whole of the nation.”

Monarchy unifies a nation as Clement Atlee said: “Far less danger under a constitutional monarchy of being carried away by a Hitler, a Mussolini or even a de Gaulle.” That's an interesting thought to ponder in light of US politics.

Anyway, another interesting article from Euronews: The Kings who never were: the living heirs of Europe's abolished monarchies

Luddite v Technology

Hang around me and start talking about technology and you will hear the term Luddite. The Luddites were people in early 19th Century England who hated technology. They are the ones who put the spanner in the machine. These days, they would just unplug the thing. Or to quote History.com:

“Luddite” is now a blanket term used to describe people who dislike new technology, but its origins date back to an early 19th-century labor movement that railed against the ways that mechanized manufactures and their unskilled laborers undermined the skilled craftsmen of the day.

I'm not exactly sure where I stand in this spectrum, but I am less enthusiastic, or frightened, about AI than most people. On the other hand, it does tend to replace humans who are actually much better at interacting with other humans than a machine. 

Machines are like people who have a limited understanding of a language, yet are working where they need total fluency and proficiency. Sometimes, they don't even rise to that level as the Comcast "intelligent assistant demonstrates". I kept asking it the same question and wanting to speak to a human, but it ended up disconnecting me.

I find interactions with Artificial Intelligence to be more frustrating than helpful. And once one sees past the illusion, AI proves to be totally useless. One doesn't need Luddites to smash the machine: the machine is useless. Still, the bosses would prefer to spend the money on technological toys than hire people to actually do the job.

I was going to give ChatGPT a try to see how long it would take to show it isn't worth the hype, but I would need to sign up for an account. That doesn't make me trust it since there is no disclaimer as to what this company will do with my information.

I have tinkered with AI art programmes with varying results: most of which I would consider crap. Of course, some people find the results to be incredible.

On the other hand, AI is worse than the call centres in some country where they do not speak my language as a first language. Although, in reality, they are both pretty bad. At least the human is making an effort to communicate.

A computer can't.

It cannot truly empathise with your situation. It doesn't really understand what is happening. It only compares what it is being told to possible scripts, but life is not scripted.

So, don't worry--just unplug the thing. And hope that business will realise that it isn't saving money in the long run--especially if they start haemorraging customers.

Netflix's Queen Cleopatra

I saw this article in Al Jazeera about Netflix Queen Cleopatra by Islam Issa and it resonated with me for a few reasons.

 As I detail in my book, DNA samples recovered in Egypt from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period reveal that Egyptians had predominantly southern European and Near Eastern ancestry; sub-Saharan African ancestry didn’t exceed 15 percent in the ancient times and doesn’t exceed 21 percent in Egypt today. So it’s safe to say that even with some Egyptian heritage, in today’s terms she wouldn’t have been Black but biracial.

There are quite a few important things to keep in mind here since the Mediterranean is surrounded by three continents: Europe, Africa, and Asia and there was trade between those continents from pre-historic times (yes). OK, this map is modern, but the geography is pretty much timeless.

You might be able to try and waffle that sub-Saharan Africa wasn't part of the trade, but the Gahanian and Malian Empires pretty much refute that: toss in the Kerma culture of Nubia for good measure.

It's simplistic to think of Europe as being this island in the upper  parts of the Eastern (and some Western) Hemisphere isolated from the rest of the "known world": especially when you think of "here be monsters" on old maps. But the Hereford Mappa Mundi includes India.

I have no problem with the actress playing Cleopatra since she pretty much looks like what I would expect a Cleopatra to look like, instead of Elizabeth Taylor. Biracial and lighter complected.

Just because I identify with the Eastern Hemisphere, and Europe, doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that other cultures haven't been influential in Europe. It's hard to deny when Africa is touching Iberia at the west.

Hang On, Was It RIGGED??!

I am very familiar with Antrim County, MI. Something had to be wrong when Biden somehow "won" the election in 2020.

Wouldn't the Libertarians be out of the duopoly?  nwmichiganlibertarians.org/2020-election-who-knows-what-really-happened-in-antrim-county-michigan/

Anyway.

Don't question US elections!

Biden COLLUDED With Deep State To SMEAR Hunter Biden Laptop Story Before...

I know the person who repaired Hunter's laptop--this sucker is real.

It's not Russian disinformation.

The same thing applies to my lack of support for Hillary Clinton. I was an early Sanders supporter and I considered it a joke since I knew the Democrats would never allow him to run.

The nice thing is that the Democrats can continue to neglect the problems with their party, but I will never vote for the duopoly.

It's time for a change.

 

Woah, This Does NOT Look Good For Biden

Russell Brand hits the nail on the head about Biden, Trump, and the fake US elections. The stories about Biden's corruption would be everywhere if it had been Trump. 

Crickets for Biden. 

You can fix an election by controlling the information the voters have to make their decisions. 

And I don't trust the US media one bit.

Is PBS Credible anymore?

I am going to make a disclaimer that I believe in true public broadcasting, but US public broadcasting is commercial. It has commercials in the form of "underwriting" by large corporations, which is pretty much the same thing as being commercial. Yes, the fact that it is not free of big money influence make it a part of the rest of US media. Big business can threaten to take away its money and PBS is SCREWED--BIG TIME!

Which takes us to this clip from PBS News Hour where one of the commentators says "There hasn't been any obvious gaffes, big scandals, or anything like that."

Funny how Hunter's Laptop has been missing from the media (and I never heard back from Burisma about my job application).

It will probably also be missing again this election cycle (PBS shut off comments to this).

  

I should add that these two clowns are from the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos who would be eating 50 cent burritos if the duopoly wasn't in power and was whacked by someone vaguely like Bernie Sanders enforcing US competition laws.

I live in hope for that day.

But this gets to where Fox News is wrong: The Democrats are nowhere near left wing. In fact, the Republicans have also strayed from their true populist roots, which makes it even funnier when I read Shot in the Foot's blog: they might want to look up Minnesota Justice Harry Blackmun. Or even better, look up Richard Nixon's comments about firearms ownership.

As I like to say, I was rather shocked when I watched a documentary about Nixon (on PBS) and realised how lefty he seemed in the early 1990s!

Sorry for the digression, but US Politics has moved to the right. The Democratic Party has pretty much extinguished anything vaguely New Deal-Roosevelt, which means that someone like Bernie Sanders has no part in that party. Which is why I distrust anyone who claims to be to the left and is associated with that party. It cannot be fixed from within.

The reason that Biden is president is that he appeals to the big donors, which is why the Tech giants can deny the existance of Hunter's laptop and what it means to Joe Biden. So, that really wasn't that much of a digression. 

There isn't much of a "lefty media" in the US other than some things on the internet (E.g.: Real News Network and Democracy Now), but they don't have much of an audience. Which means we are left with Fox News and Sky News Australia who get only part of the story, and are taken about as seriously as Democracy Now.

I feel like someone in occupied Europe trying to get reliable information when I look at the US media because it isn't there.

"All the News fit to Print" is propaganda, or at least explains their editorial policy in that they only feel they need to print what they believe should be printed. 

And Hunter's laptop and associated scandal is nowhere to be seen.

Russell Brand on why blindly ignoring Fox news is wrong

I hate that both sides are failing to acknowledge that there are problems with the system and "bickering about which propagandist network is the worse isn't going to save an American life, or improve the life of a single American child."

 

Bill Maher defines "woke"

I normally don't agree with him, but he's pretty on the money here. Woke seems to be a way to stop any serious debate or conversation of the issues.

 

Flygsam och Tågskryt

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is making dire predictions about the need for addressing climate change. It's 2023 Climate Change report highlights the need for serious action NOW!

More than a century of burning fossil fuels as well as unequal and unsustainable energy and land use have led to global warming of 1.1°C above pre -industrial levels. This has resulted in more frequent and more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly dangerous impacts on nature and people in every region of the world. But there are multiple, feasible and effective options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to human-caused climate change, and they are available now, said scientists in this IPCC report. Taking effective and equitable climate action will not only reduce losses and damages for nature and people, it will also provide wider benefits, the report points out, underscoring the urgency of taking more ambitious action now to secure a livable sustainable future for all.

The US bizarrely holds onto the car as a practical form of transportation while pretty much neglecting high speed rail. The reason I say bizarrely is that the US was once on the vanguard of train technology, but cars were subsidised and have led to the destruction of cities, which is another post, and are enviornmentally unfriendly.

The French are incredibly train friendly with the National Assembly voting to abolish certain domestic air routes, in case of alternatives by train of less than 2h30. This climate bill intends to eliminate links between Paris (Orly) and Nantes, Lyon or Bordeaux, but provides for exceptions for connecting journeys. The Citizens' Climate Convention had called for domestic flights to be waived in the case of alternatives of less than 4 hours by train, not 2.5 hours.

Transposing that onto the US, transportation on the east coast would be pretty much transformed to primarily rail: especially if the four hours by high speed train limit were imposed. Fortunately, US trains are pretty slow compared to those in other countries. Even Acela is pokey by the standards of other countries.

Again, there are other issues here in how environmentally and socially unfriendly modes of transport have been supported, which don't make sense here. What I really want to talk about is the concepts of Flygsam and Tågskryt, or flight shame and train pride. Greta Thunberg hasn't flown since 2015 in order to reduce her carbon footprint. Some Swedes are trying to emulate her. I would like to do so, but unfortunately, I have to fly sometimes, but I buy carbon offsets and have been doing so for a while now.

On the other hand, she has the option of taking the train in Europe. The US continues to invest in technologies which are soon to be obsolete, if they haven't been obsoleted based upon their harm to the planet. Yes, people can pretend that change is unnecessary until it becomes obvious to even the most ignorant.

The US needs to reassess itself in the light of reality.

Trigger Warning--Literally!!!

I've been thinking about posting this video clip since I first saw it. 

I have a weird feeling this post will be pulled by the overly sensitive pro-gun crowd: which is why I titled it what I did. 

This video is (1) A good reason to check out the words to a foreign song...and also the video (2) disturbing. 

"Tu me Manques" is French for I miss you. Of course, It can also mean "missing" in the context of "missing the target".  She misses him in the first sense, but not the other.  It's a nice song if you just listen to the lyrics and music. 

The video is something else. 

 

It's weird how even "progunners" when pressed begin to realise that maybe the right they believe to exist is actually limited. 

It would be nicer if they would just use their brains and do some serious research. But that would mean that they would have to admit that they have been living a lie.

It would be nice if I gave a translation of the words:

I'm wasting my time and my spring
Wandering around Paris
I don't care about the people who are always telling me
You gotta forget about him

I should erase your face
I'm not sure what to do, I'm not sure what to do
But your words are echoing
I'm drowning in them

I'm drowning in it

And I miss you
I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me
And I miss you
I'd like to forget you but you haunt me

I'm pretending, absent gaze
To fill my boredom
I don't care about the people who keep telling me
You gotta forget about her
I should erase you
And go straight to the front
But there's your words that resonate
I get lost in it

I get lost in it

And I miss you
I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me
And I miss you
I'd like to forget you but you haunt me

We've got our whole life to do over
We're wasting time, we're wasting time
I don't care about the whole world
I'm not pretending, I'm not pretending
I'm ready to do anything to please you
I'm not gonna let you down, I'm not gonna let you down
And you're gone in a flash
I'm waiting for you

And I miss you
I'd have to forget about you but you haunt me
And I miss you
I'd have to forget you but you haunt me

℗ & © Dorcas 2023

Hey, Mitch, change your blog's name to "a shot in the foot".

Wow! Thanks. I've screen capped the Good Guys And Gals With Guns?  post since you just made the argument for why the relaxing of concealed carry is bullshit from a practical point of view.

According to some reports, the Nashville Covenant school was not a gun free zone...

Some of the usual suspects are already trying to use this factoid to indict the idea of armed school staff:...

Even in “Stand your Ground” states, self-defense law doesn’t as a rule allow citizens to close with and engage perpetrators, acting as cops or infantry.

The proper role for an armed staffer, according to the way actual self-defense law works, is to barricade themselves and the kids they’re responsible for into a room, and be ready to shoot at a perp who comes through the door with mayhem in mind.

So, really armed citizens are as ineffective as unarmed ones since as you point out the only people who should be going after the "orcs"are the first responders. Armed citizens with handguns can only hope to stop someone with a long gun which is going to be far more accurate and have a higer velocity than their weapon. 

So, the armed citizen hopes they might get a shot off before being turned to hamburger by someone with an AR-15 or similar weapon. Which does jackshit since the progunners neglect that sometimes mass shooters have shoot outs with real trained professionals to go on to further carnage as was the case with the Columbine Shooters.

Quite likely a mass shooter could have a bullet proof vest which would protect against handgun rounds as well.

Let's toss in the armed citizen could be confused with the active shooter for good measure as to WHY someone has to have shit for brains for even buying this argument for concealed carry in the first place. Nothing like adding to the confusion by being a halfwit with a gun. 

Alas, the dumbfucks who have bought into the "pro-gun" horseshit have probably bred and are not candidates for Darwin Awards. They have progeny which we can only hope will be smarter than their parents. Emphasis on hope since I would hope most people would use their brains, but most people, especially Amerloques, tend to be intellectually challenged.

It would be nice if other pro-gunners were as honest as you. Although, it would be nice if you took your statements to their logical conclusion and realise that you are just full of shit. Also that you have been lied to by the people you see as "leaders". You are one of the sheep if you have bought into this without question.

As I like to say, the pro-gun arguments don't stand scrutiny.

And you just shot yourself in the foot.

Stop shooting in the dark, Mitch. 

And thank you from all the anti-gun organisations who now have copies of this post. You are going to be the anti-gunner poster child for this statement against interest.

You should have a serious rethink of the "pro-gun" position since deep in your subconscious you know it's a pile of horsehit.

Oh, and stop using the word "ignorant" since you obviously have no idea what it means, or you would understand the irony of your posts: this one post in particular.

Russell is right!

I couldn't agree more with what Russell is saying here: 

One thing is for sure – the Democrats more interested in bringing him down than understanding what led to his rise.

Toss in addressing the issues surrounding this mess brought to us by the duopoly.