Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
Jim, again you put the "dis" in Cognitive Dissonance.
I re-read Griffin's letter, and he doesn't say there is a linear relationship between guns and crime, he says Lott's unqualified statement implies only a linear relationship.
And I'm not sure how you got from his "differential equation" to "DIFFERENCE EQUATION", but I bet there was spittle flying when you modified it.
Keep up the good work.
P.S. It's worth noting here that the word "state" in the 2nd Amendment is not the word "nation" only because of the fears of the southern states that once the Constitutional ban on laws banning slavery ran out in 1808 the federal government would disarm the slave patrols, which at the time were the militia pressed into doing something useful with their militia training and duty time, that being hunting down runaway slaves and going from slave quarters to slave quarters searching for weapons to confiscate... So there's a pretty heaping helping of hypocrisy in the way the 2nd Amendment came to be what it is. It's anachronistic. Almost nobody needs a gun to hunt to survive any more; and they're far more dangerous in the home than they are helpful in protecting the home; and they're completely useless against the government, which, if you're doing your job as a citizen, won't even get the idea to try to seize you or your property illegally; that's why we created democracy and it works, and the weapon you need there isn't a gun it's a lawyer. It's about time we repealed the 2nd Amendment and let the states decide whether to allow gun ownership within their borders, and let the Congress, President, and Supreme Court decide how to regulate trafficking in weapons across state and national borders. And we get to elect them (and they get to appoint the rest), so insisting that we need the 2nd Amendment to prevent tyranny is admitting you don't trust democracy at all.3 months ago