Creative Gun Control Proposal
 

On the one hand, Americans want their citizens to be armed, to protect themselves collectively from government tyranny and individually against crime.

On the other hand, they want people to be disarmed so as to prevent both ongoing gun crime and occasional killing sprees.

I notice that in all the major killing sprees since Columbine, the perpetrators had one thing in common: a Y-chromosome.

Yep, they were all male. And the vast majority of other shootings are also done by males.

So here's the proposal.

By default, women automatically have the right to gun ownership (and maybe public carry? item for discussion), although they can lose this right, for example if convicted of a serious crime.

Men must earn the right to own (& carry) a gun. This can be done by any one of:
* military or police service
* voluntary psychological and background checks
* reaching a set age (25? 30?) without criminal conviction
* other stuff you suggest...
This right could be lost by misbehaviour.

There would be enough armed women and mature men to prevent tyranny, and it would make it much harder for the unstable, depressed loner to obtain weapons, since these seem to frequently be young males. It would give grounds for arresting and disarming those who had not earned the right.

Ibby ... I can hear you already ;) . Yes, you have a point. I'm not sure what to do about that.

So ... what do y'all think?

I like.

Penis size should be a factor. :bolt:

Well, the nameless loser who committed the most recent school shooting used his mother's semiautomatic from their mobile home to do it.[/party pooper]

Was there another shooting after Sandy Hook?

Adam Lanza did indeed use his mother's semiautomatic, from their very nice house in an affluent neighborhood.

Maybe i missed something?

G. Gordon Liddy's wife owns all his guns.

By Tom Curry, NBC News national affairs writer
Updated 9:30 a.m. ET:

Unfortunately for the NRA, this self-proclamation of insanity immediately puts
Wayne into the NCP (National Crazy People) database,
and he can no longer purchase guns legally.

But not to worry... he can keep all the guns he already has or owns.

If they have to earn it, it isn't a right, it's a privilege like a driver's license and can be taken away at will.

There'll always be some dipshit female in love who'll get weapons for them and she'll probably be a lonely school teacher.

This wouldn't provide an ounce of prevention; unless, accompanied by unreasonable search and seizure before incidents can occur.

NOT. One can already hear the domino effect of people's rights falling. I've heard of better bladder control proposals. But, thanks for tryin'.

We could pass a law mandating that all new clothing be made bulletproof. The heavier clothing would also take more physical effort to move around in and help solve the nation's obesity problem ... a twofer.

It happens every week. SUVs run over children between 50 and 60 times a week. Killing about 30 kids every week.

Sandy Hook is only news because the deaths all happened in one place. Making the story more emotional. Same emotions that also justify guns whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people.

Logically shocking and emotionally irrelevant would be to deal with children deaths logically.

But there haven't been any school shootings since Newtown. So i don't know who the nameless guy in the mobile home is.

Let's see if this works ...
 

Sandy Hook was just an accident?

I have never been able to get the first part. While individual protection against crime is perfectly understandable, the thinking that guns will protect anyone from so-called U.S. government tyranny is looney.

Just talking a separate government entity, like SWAT or the FBI--if they need to take an armed someone or a group of armed someones out, they have the means and it will/has happen(ed).

As for our government being able to gather itself together and become one mass thing that violently terrorizes its citizens...if that were to somehow happen, mere guns aren't going to save anybody.

Car crashes are not accidents. They are directly traceable to human failure.

SUVs killing children are a perfect example. I cannot see a kid behind me. So it is safe to back up. Reality. SUVs drivers have no idea what is behind them when they back up.

Volvo now replaces steel with glass on a new SUV design. Because the death of so many kids every week is no accident. "I do not see the kid so the kid is not there." The only question - is that manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide?

Meanwhile the mother knew she had a kid with serious problems. So what did she do? All guns with trigger locks? Guns locked in a safe? Guns removed to some other building? What did she do? Nothing? At what point do we hold people with guns responsible for their actions - as we should with SUV drivers who also kill so many kids every week.

Oh, except for you. I wouldn't let you near a goddamn pea shooter. You're nutso. but we love you!

Well if women could use their brains and secure their firearms adequately ... seriously, she was an idiot. She knew her son was mentally ill, but instead of taking him to a counsellor, she took him to a shooting range.
No guns for her.

Semantics, but if you like. Privilege.

Don't agree, many of the spree shooters are such loners that they don't have
this option, and if they did get a girlfriend, they'd be less likely to go a-shootin'.

See, that's where the woman dobs him in when he tries to get her guns.

Slippery slope argument. Invalid. Next...

Yeah, I'm just pissing in the wind, aren't I? :lol:

Brilliant! AND it would stimulate the economy as all those new clothes are made.


Sorry, guys, but TW is right (although I haven't checked the SUV stats.) Kids get killed all the time, and it was only the concentrated nature of these killings that has broken through the "business as usual" facade and made people react emotionally. If the ongoing death toll does not make you change, neither should the Sandy hook incident.

You are seriously comparing a series of unconnected traffic 'incidents' with a case of mass murder? I'll back out now, I'm out of my depth here.

On the contrary, those who would make a power grab bleed just like anyone else. Those trained in insurgency operations know how to take down the US government which is why our special operations forces are the first ones to be downsized after every conflict in which they are used.

If that were true, law enforcement wouldn't be so anxious to disarm civilians. They have also failed.

A red herring, what ifs usually are, governments are typically divided and mere guns in the hands of certain individuals have made history. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. May I ask what credentials in unconventional warfare you have? You sound kind of loony.

Smarticus Pants!

I'm glad you love me, but you obviously don't really know me. All bark, very little bite...that's me in a tortoise shell. ;)

At what point are actions by a completely irresponsible adult considered only an accident? Murder of 30 kids every week is less bad than 20 murdered in one room? Killing 30 kids weekly is not mass murder? Why a difference because so many are only emotional about 20 deaths?

In each case, adults were irresponsible. That is criminal. Since 30 deaths occur every week, it is only an accident? Unworthy of emotion distress? Those 30 weekly deaths were the easiest to avert. And yet so many want to be emotional only about a rarer event.

Calling them 'incidents' emotionally downplays reality. Is it manslaughter or criminally negligent homcide? Called an accident when emotions replace adult reasoning.

We have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of privileges. That may seem like semantics to upside down thinkers; but, I assure you that's not the case in our legalese.

I was being facetious, guns will always be available from outside sources as readily as drugs. Your agreement/disagreement is not required.

It's the crux of what our Constitutional protections are about. [Schwarzenegger] YOU'RE INVALID! [/Schwarzenegger]

Yeah, you being upside down means it's just coming back in your face; but, for all I know you may like golden showers! :p:

Look, if this issue was easy, it'd be called Your Mom*, right? :p:

Seriously, limiting guns to women and men over 30 or otherwise worthy would leave enough guns to defend your civil rights.

And I think this limit would make it harder - not impossible, of course - to get or keep guns if you're not supposed to have them. Of course, serious well connected criminals will have guns no matter what the law says. It's the fringe nutters, the show off teens, who this will restrict.

If you were worried about slippery slopes and your civil rights, you're far too late for that with all the secret surveillance and warrantless tapping going on and such :tinfoil:

*apologies to Sexobon's actual mum.

Aside from violating the equal rights provisions of the Constitution, and being yet another (pretty funny though!) knee jerk suggestion -- it's just fine! :eek:

It took 21 posts for someone to mention equal rights. :right:

Luckily, Sexobon has already answered that. Gun ownership wouldn't be a right (anymore), just a widely held privilege. Nothing about equal privileges. No issue. :D

Dang, that was easy. Next! :D

Half-seriously, young males pay more for car insurance because they're more likely to have expensive crashes. If you can make it harder for them to get insurance, why can't you make it harder for them to get guns?

It can be done with car insurance because owning and driving cars is a privilege, not a right. It can't be done the same way with guns because it is a right and to "make it harder for them" constitutes infringement. This doesn't mean it can't be done, just that it requires a change to the Constitution and there's a process for doing that. Those who want to circumvent the process are simply un-American.

BTW, what is it with you repeating the phrase "make it harder for them" when referring to "young males"? Freud? Freud? Anyone? Anyone?

:lol: Come on, we know that at least half the thrill of gun ownership is phallic extension fantasy.

Maybe we could do a program where men can trade their guns in for padded underpants.

Oh...well, I'd say the difference between the SUV deaths and Sandy Hook is that the SUV drivers didn't get in their cars and go looking for a crowd of kids to back over. Repeatedly.

I just love apples and oranges.

If an SUV backs up multiple times every day only assuming no kid is behind, well, that IS looking to run over a kid.

A responsible SUV driver must have someone stand behind watching. *Assuming* a kid is not there is akin to pointing a gun at someone because you just *know* the gun is not loaded. How many kids have been killed by unloaded guns? More or less than kids killed by SUVs?

We must never point an unloaded gun at someone because it kills so often. But we routinely backup SUVs by only *assuming* the SUV "is not loaded".

Emotion says Newtown is a much worse event. Numbers and facts (devoid of emotion) define an SUV driver's attitude as a greater threat. Because SUV drivers back up only *assuming* nobody is there. And therefore kill 30 kids per week. Only 20 kids died in Newtown.

Fundamental. Do you think emotionally and see Newtown as worse? Or think logically, view the numbers, and see SUVs as a greater threat?

First we'll have to conduct a government funded study in which half the male gun owners are given live ammunition (control group) and the other half are given blanks. We'll see whether or not those shooting blanks experience a decrease in virility, relative to control, to support or refute your hypothesis.

:lol: yeah, I was trying to work a shooting blanks reference in. Pardon me while I go polish my ramrod.

Back to the semi-serious ... you don't let four year olds have guns, because they can't be trusted not to misuse them.
Nor five year olds.
Nor six year olds ... (I hope) ...
There is a minimum age*.


I'm just suggesting you increase the minimum age further. Say, 30.


* too lazy to check, but I recall seeing 12 as a minimum age for buying a shotgun in some states.

For the record, I'm not un-American.

I'm un-Australian.


I'm anti-American. ;)


Except most of youse guys in the cellar, some how you're pretty cool.
And I still like y'all better than Russia or China. :)

Best of luck to you, my friend. Please just stay far, far away from anyone else with your arsenal and your paranoia.

I was referring to those who can vote here, not non-Americans.

The age of majority, at which one fully realizes their rights across the board, seems to be moving in the other direction with children here suing their parents for emancipation.

It's a free country. I've served in US military special operations to help keep it that way. My arsenal consists of direct knowledge and experience. Paranoia is for been nowhere, done nothing people such as yourself. Your request is not favorably considered.

You go with your bad self, sexobon-ay!

"Free Country"? free from what?

Free from...um...give me a second here...free from....

Free from...

Godzillas. Yeti's we have; Godzillas not so much.




YET.

It's lookin' kinda squatchy, though.

This thread hurts my brain.

TW, good to see you maintaining form.

sexobon has done a fine job outlining the flaws in the plan so I don't need to add anything there.

There is a difference between rights and privileges and if you want to read on the subject, radar, while nuts on some issues, covered that ground very well and you may want to read some of his writings.

I find it interesting that the same people who scoff at the idea of citizens defending themselves against a tyrannical government are the first in line to reinterpret rights as privileges. My fear of growing governmental powers is rooted in the knowledge that the government is full of people with the same beliefs. To be fair, your fear is likely that it is full of people like me.

"It's a free country." is an idiomatic expression often used in reply to someone who proposes an unwelcome, unlawful restriction. Blue made the request "Please just stay far, far away from anyone else... ." My reply infers that I'm free to go where I wish (within the limits of the law) and fully intend to do so.

Truly ignorant people think they know what's best for everyone else which is why Blue asked that I stay away "from anyone else" instead of just asking that I stay away from her. Had she been less arrogant, I would have been more cordial.

All right, it's my turn to call you some names.

Sexobon, you are an insecure gun freak. It is better for you to stay away from everyone, because no one wants to be shot, accidentally or otherwise, by someone running around bragging about his guns and supposed special military knowledge.

At this point, it doesn't make a difference to me whether you are cordial or not. You seem to prefer to be a jackass, anyway.

Blue you ignorant slut, you lost your looks awhile ago and it's about time you wised up and realized that they're not going to get you by on the losing end of an argument anymore. I've previously stated in the Cellar that I'm not a member of the NRA. I'll state now that I don't own any shotguns; or, rifles let alone anything that could be construed as an assault weapon. All I've mentioned are two handguns, neither of which have high capacity magazines, in response to a related inquiry by Ibby. Your paranoia has made you delusional to the point that you wouldn't know the difference between bragging and simply relating information with the confidence that comes from experience even if the facts of a matter came up and bit you on your lazy ass. You present as being so burnt out that you either can't remember; or, can't be bothered to refresh you memory as to which dweller said what; or, has what. Typical crackpot, all mouth no brains.

Let's give the government all the guns and they'll take good care of us.
Look how well that worked for the Indians.

Blue, you are good people. Let the ranting maniac be a ranting maniac. I love that it seems to be women who aren't afraid to call a jackass (read: troll) a jackass. Keep on keepin' on, sistuh. :)

Meanwhile, i can't wait to see the militia they'll need to bring in to guard the hundreds of entrances where i work. Or maybe they'll try to herd 25,000 folks in one or two doors. Sure, that's the solution.

Oh wait, our middle name is 'community' and we can't make access to education in any way more difficult...we're practically doing their homework for them as it is.

:lol:

And then someone armed the Indians too and it still didn't work! :D

Wow, you just keep peeling back new layers of crazy. How in the hell does one use 'looks' in an argument just typing on a keyboard?

And aren't you living in your own little self-absorbed world. I'd never paid you any mind before this thread. Why would I, when there are so many nicer, more fascinating people on the Cellar than you.

Take a step back and read what you wrote--you sound exactly like an NRA nutjob. Might as well join up, jerk.

You're good people, too, monkey. :)

I hope you don't end up working in a fortress...

You're the dishonorable liar who cried "gun freak", "arsenal", and "bragging about his guns" when none of those are objectively true. You're grasping at straws like an aging whore who's lost her looks. You've disgraced yourself and discredited any subjective opinions you hold. It's sad that you're so desperate for attention from some such person as my "bad self"; yet, so caught up in denial that thou has protested too much and given yourself away with "I'd never paid you any mind before this thread. Why would I, ... " It's quite obvious that you're no longer getting satisfied at home and had to antagonize some supposed bad boy here in hopes of getting buttfucked in the mouth since that's what seems to get you off now. No need to thank me for rendering this community based service ... the entertainment a dingbat like you provides is reward enough.

Uh...you don't seem to realize that when I said "you go with your bad self," I was being sarcastic. You are obviously not a 'bad boy' by any stretch of the imagination.

Feel free to keep your dreams of badassness alive...just don't include me in them, you rude, gross li'l bastid. :greenface

Why do those, with an honest concern for big guns, use logic? Adults who are still children, instead, cannot use a prefrontal cortex. Logic is only found in adults who are adult. Who do not reply emotionally.

Posting cheapshots is routine in this thread. By posters enthralled by big guns. Sexobon demonstrates why those who need unrestricted big guns typically act like adult children. An adult, using the brain that forms after age 16, would not post personal attacks. Adults reply with logic; not with the emotional brain that characterizes children.

The emotional (adults who are still children) will adamently deny that reality.

Science also says some adults never form / use their pre-frontal cortex. But then my father fully enjoyed manipulating them with brainwashing. Children and adults who are still children can be told how to think. Will reply with anger, emotion, and cheapshots when manipulation is exposed. As Sexobon has done to bluecuracao.

Why is Sexobon so easily manipulated by the NRA? By not replying as an adult, he identifies himself as easily manipulated by advertising and other forms of brainwashing. The most easily brainwashed may ferocously attack others who are logical (adult). Just like a kid having a meltdown. Sexobon did just that.

Adults who are still children were told that cigarette smoking increases health. They believed it. That big guns increase safety. Another obvious myth. Adults, who still act like kids, are why guns have created so many massacres. The least adult among us need more and bigger guns. Hollow point bullets. NATO caliber assault rifles. And weapons that only serve one purpose - to hunt humans.

Why do adult children need that? The emotional, inspired by big guns and the thrill, would also post that personal attack on bluecuracao.

Sexobon demonstrates why gun violence is increasing. I expect Sexobon to reply again like an adult child. By not using what should have formed at age 16 - a prefrontal cortex. If using a prefrontal cortex, we would not be discussing why so many gun fanactics post cheapshots.

Adults using logic are not posting cheapshots. Adults recognize why unrestricted ownership of big dics - sorry - big guns only decreases safety. As statistics and history repeatedly demonstrate.

Let's see how many gun fanatics will try to use their prefrontal cortex. A logical Sexobon (engaging the prefrontal cortex) will post a serious and detailed aplogoy to bluecuracao. If not, well, that is why unrestricted gun ownership increases gun violence.

It's not that complicated tw, it really isn't. There are some people, who when it comes to some issues, see things in black and white with nothing in between. When I presented an opinion that differed from Blue's, she erroneously attributed being a "gun freak", having an "arsenal", and "bragging about his guns" to me in a fraudulent attempt at sensationalism to deceive others. It's no different from when others misquote statistics to support their position. Each person decides for them self whether the erroneous information was presented accidentally; or, deliberately. If I believe that erroneous information was presented deliberately, I no longer take such people seriously and treat them as fodder for my entertainment. The issues no longer attach; therefore, neither do outside influences on my position on them.

A logical sexobon recognizes that this approach, of separating the two, is vastly superior to tw's routine mixing of "big dic", "brainwashed", "children", "so easily manipulated by... [Rush Limbaugh, Dubya, NRA...etc.] into serious discussions just because someone disagrees with him. Employing your usual modus operandi here suggests your reply wasn't for Blue's benefit; rather, you just used her situation to further your own agenda. That's where an apology is owed.

Sorry about your father. :hug:

OK. If statistics were wrong, then where are correct numbers in your post? Adult logic demonstrated wrong numbers by posting correct numbers. Meanwhile, I don't see anything from bluecuracao that justifies your cheapshots. But I do see plenty of child-like insults directed at bluecuracao because big guns fascinate you. You have demonstrated a big dic attitude. No insult. Just fact.

bluecuracao posted what was clearly reasonable: You replied: Why do special forces have relevance? Then you speculate wildly, without any facts, of federal agents attempting to disarm Americans. A conspiracy to enslave us all?

Only sentence missing in that paragraph was a UN scheming to occupy America. Classic doctrine from the Michigan Militia. Even the Michigan Militia eventualy learned how to replace paranoia with reality.

Paranoia of federal agents explains an appropriate reply from bluecuracao: Your phobia of government conspiracy was followed by this obviously illogical and emotional outburst: So that your outburst does not obfuscate what is relevant. You still have not posted those statistics. Adults provide hard facts. Children disparage.

Adults who are children also claim to have been special forces. You are obviously too emotional to qualify. Your integrity is clearly questionable.

"Blue you ignorant slut ..." is not from a stable adult. Unfortunately many who post emotional - who demonstrate no prefrontal cortex - also need big guns. To defend against a government conspiring to ... well, what exactly is government conspiring to do? Or were 1st graders also complicit in your conspiracy?

Just so you do not get confused by upwelling anger. Where are statistics that prove we all need big guns? Where, using hard facts, is an actual threat?

My agenda was clear. Honestly means facts and numbers. Your statistics exist only in allegations. Big weapons needed because government - as best I can tell from your post - is conspiring to enslave us all. Fear proves we all need weapons designed only to hunt people.

Rather than post statistics; you posted this lucid comment: Wow. While you were at it, why did you not also post "Jane you ignorant slut." Or do you also fear the crime of plagiarism?

So that you need not get confused by primordial anger - where are your statistics? Honesty means hard facts and numbers. You belittled bluecuracao for no logical reason. Because you were accurately categorized. Show us how you know something without insulting anyone. Post those statistics that you fear to share.

ssshhhhhh! merc has been secretly replaced by sexobon - let's see if anyone notices!

btw, doing an ad hominem attack on a woman about her attractiveness/whorishness in an argument is like yelling Nazi.

You automatically lose. AND you get the 8th grade boys trophy for douche-bagness.


and I've seen your pic, sexobon. You're not much to look at, honey, so try to keep your mouth shut on that front. It'll just backfire on you. Like it did now.

No solutions yet, this is what I think

I've been giving the "gun ban law" some thought, and here it is: this person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).
And there are people in this country that somehow think passing another ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this. If you haven't noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws - they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda. The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect ourselves.

>going to hide behind my Detroit riot rifle bought in the 70's never used for anything really<

Speaking of existing laws, it's a federal offense to even try to buy a gun if you know you are not eligible. Yet of the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) that have tried and been rejected, not one has ever been prosecuted.

tw asks... Don't all posters, on any subject, post what's most relevant to their personal situation, what they're most familiar with?

Seems nobody has noticed before, that Sexobon is a most excellent shit stirrer when he wants to be. Probably too subtle, usually. :haha:

Some people have and always will try to kill others. Some people will always be mentally unstable. Neither peers nor the system have or will identify many of these people.

So what has changed? One thing. Suddenly these people are equipped and encouraged to arm themselves with unrestricted access to military grade weapons.

Nobody was saying anything about a gun ban no matter how often extremists insist that is being promoted. Only change is the intensity of weapons that have no purpose but to hunt and kill people in mass numbers.

So far we have been lucky. Attacks even back to Columbine were with weapons and ammunition intended to kill over 100. In so many cases, only weapon failure resulted in so few deaths.

Need protection? A .22 was always sufficient. A Darringer was easily could ward off a threat. But that does not do enough damage to satisfy the emotional. They need NATO rounds, hollow point bullets, 50 caliber rifles, and 155 mm howitzers. And then need sandbags, bullet proof glass, security guards with armoured vests, unrestricted wiretapping, hate of immigrants, and fear. Because the solution is only more weapons and a bunker mentality.

After is, it was always about them verses us - according to those who subvert an honest discussion.

Details to undermine so much gun violence is simple if only adults using a prefrontal cortex are negotiating a solution. But today, with tea party, Rush Limbaugh, NRA, professional propaganda machines massacrading as think tanks, and even the Chamber of Commerce all now promoted extremist rhetoric to the emotional, then a logical (adult) discussion is impossible.

Step one to a solution is to first identify the problem. Problem is so many now armed with numerous military style weapons and ammunition. Even clips that carry 100 rounds. These were not readily available and encouraged 20 years ago. A problem not just apparent in the US. These 'big dic' concepts are the primary reason for so much recent violence in Mexico. Where same criminals were not a major problem until the US started arming them with NRA promoted "protection".

Eliminate the soundbytes. Then the problem is traceable to what weapons a civilian needs. Why do we know need weapons that only have one purpose - to hunt and masscre herds of people? That is the only thing that has changed.

Not an extremist > just saying

Clarification >I don't think anyone needs semi automatics or more than 10 rounds of ammo in a clip.

If you can't hit what you are aiming for with that number, you need target practice. Fuck whoever thinks they are going to rob me or my family or do us bodily harm in our own home. I don't mind my 8 shot limit, I think the hole would be the size of Texas...

Attachment 42295

I should say I live in the middle of nowhere 35 miles east of Gary IN and 16 miles north of one of the meth capitols in the US. The nearest police are 5 miles east but won't come here as they are city and I have to call county or state which would take 30 mins at least. I have had people/assholes come here shoot and gut my cattle before and then realize that they could not move a 1500 lb animal when it was dead. What if I would have walked up on them? Would they have shot me too? F that....

And so you have what was good and sufficient 40 years ago when gun violence and massacres were not so routine. Your gun is good for hunting and for personal protection. Only wacko extremists say "liberals will ban shotguns". Only extremists say hunters need hollow point bullets and armour piecing rounds. Same people also say we need 100 round clips. Only wackos will advocate hand grenades, 100 round clips, and 155 mm howitzers to increase safety.

If a gun is illegal for hunting, then that gun is probably unacceptable even for personal protection. Nobody needs a gun designed only for hunting herds of people. But the NRA and its disciples say otherwise.

I agree, and I'm waiting for that apology.

You posted on New Year's Eve, that you're waiting on me. Things are as they should be. Tw is dismally trying to analyze what his father left him incapable of understanding in an pathetic effort to get into blue's pants. Trilby says "... and I've seen your pic, ..." when I've never posted my pic on the internet! It's good to know the Cellar jesters are alive and still so easily riled as to provide me with continuing entertainment throughout the New Year. Carry on ... :moon:


ETA:
Mea culpa. The place was getting boring towards the end of the year.

Nice Mossberg Nirvana.