Pam. I cannot recall how many times I have read or heard on the news the same story you shared with all of us today.The names,ages and circumstance may differ but it all ends with deep pain for us all. Back in the 1980s a wonderful old couple were tortured and murdered in their own home with the very guns they owned. Understand this couple were not militants, just a couple who liked to hunt, fish and go to the various sporting events that we enjoy here in Utah Today we still grieve the loss of this couple as I am sure you still grieve the loss of your friend. I think we should get more agressive when it comes to intervention. By that I mean, lets start reading the signals and act. Lets consider any threat of violence a promise not just a threat.

And Bush still pays lip-service to the NRA by saying "America has the right to bear arms." Sadly this is the only group still supporting this s--t-for-brains.

Pam Bignardi: It may be the law in California that requires any person carrying a firearm to have a license, but one must define the distinction between "carrying a weapon" and "carrying a concealed weapon". It is not against the law, in PA and many other states, to carry a firearm in plain view and not have a "permit to carry a concealed weapon". The key word here is "concealed", and a weapon carried in plain sight is not concealed. One usually reads about a "permit to carry", which is incorrect, and is used because most reporters are too lazy to properly complete the phrase with "a concealed weapon". It seems like splitting hairs, but it is not. I do have to admit it is frowned upon by society in general, and by law enforcement in particular, but carrying a weapon in plain sight is not against the law, in most states. It is not uncommon in the area where I live to see folks walking down the street carrying a rifle or shotgun during the hunting seasons, and I myself have done so. We have been raised to respect the power of firearms, and the responsibility that we have earned from years of education and practice among our elders and peers, and we have been raised to reject and report those individuals who do not follow the strict code of ethics necessary when dealing with firearms. You are right about your friends not having their weapons available to protect their lives and homes after they shipped them out-of-state. But, those firearms are still their firearms, and cannot be confiscated by officials in California, since the firearms are not physically in California. Many of the firearms laws in place in California seem, to me, to be tilted in favor of those who would commit crimes, knowing that many people do not own firearms because of the strict licensing of them, making them easy targets for those who have no regard for the firearms laws, and are more than willing to use them while committing a crime. I think you will find that California's armed crime rate is the equal of most any other state in the Union, ranking right there with D.C., while having some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country. I think, that if you quizzed your friends with the proper respect, you would find that they still have at least one firearm available, albeit well-hidden and rarely discussed. Criminals are not afraid to use anything to their advantage, and will happily carry a firearm, knowing that it will give them an advantage over those who do not have one. Breaking the laws is what they do; one more broken law "bothers them not". Theirs is a different reasoning, one born of desperation, lack of success in the "normal" world, or just plain hatred of people who have those things that the know they will never be able to afford. Poor people don't get robbed; they have nothing to steal. Rich people don't get robbed; they can afford protections against robbery. It is the middle class that gets robbed because a) there are many more of them, b) they are much more likely to adhere to restrictive laws such as the firearms laws in California or D.C., c) they believe that "it won't happen to me", and d) they believe that the police will catch the crook, and the crook will be punished. Of those four reasons, d is the most unbelievable of them all. Very few armed robberies are solved, and those where the crook is caught usually have the firearms charges plea-bargained away by their attorneys. Check your local statistics, and you will find this to be true: Very few people who have commited crimes with a firearm have firearms convictions on their records. Why? Because crimes commited with a firearm carry some of the most severe punishments, and are ALWAYS the first to be plea-bargained away. Blame the public prosecutors, whose wages you pay, for being lazy and not protecting the tax-paying public from these gun-wielding criminals. Those are the ones I blame for the state of firearms crime in this country, and no one else. It has been going on for decades, longer than I've been alive (52 years), and has become an entrenched "way of life" in prosecuting armed criminals. The laws are on the books, but are rarely enforced, and even more rarely brought to trial. A bit long, but I could go on more. There are over 15,000 (probably more) firearms laws on the books in this country, and the legal system REFUSES TO ENFORCE THEM. That is where our problem lies, and no where else......

Pam, you (and most of your comrades here) use a variety of fallacious argument tactics. One of your favorites appears to be ad hominem, but there are several others you use. For example you (and others) set up an argument no one is making – “Iraq was involved in 9-11”, in fact I don’t see anyone making that argument – that is the straw man. Another tactic is the Ambiguous Assertion such as “Bush is trampling on the Bill of Rights or the Constitution” – this claim is made without specifics. One that drives me personally crazy is the Argument by Slogan – “Bush lied people died”, as if repeating something over and over makes it true. The list goes on and on.

Darrel In Edinboro, PA - Your post is extremely well written, and I again thank you your thorough response, in addition to taking that much time to respond to me. I sincerely appreciate. I do have many things to ask you, or make points and feel you deserve the same thoughtful response, which will take time. I am preparing for a meeting; however, I will respond to you later or this evening. Thank you and you extremely reasonable, as I said yesterday. We may disagree; however, I respect the way you debate and your knowledge (although some lack of California laws though). Again, thank you.

True to prediction, I see that various representatives of foreign governments are chastising the U.S. for "lax" gun restrictions. Of course, the Chinese, whose country is a bastion of freedoms and civil rights, has chimed in, too. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! China, the country where peasant farmers are routinely shot for protesting the fact that the land they have farmed for generations is stolen and sold by corrupt and unscrupulous politicians, backed by the "police" and government. To them I say, "clean up your own house before you criticize mine!" Sanctimonious children of unknown fatherhood! Great Britain chimes in, where gun crimes are increasing at an exponential rate that dwarfs any such increase in this country! Where no civilian is allowed to keep any kind of gun, except for the moneyed elite, who can keep theirs at the "club". Traitorous cretins! It was American riflemen, who learned to shoot accurately and efficiently at home, who helped save your country during the so-destructive World Wars. Australia, where the actions of one deranged moron resulted in the total ban on all weapons for everyone but the police and military, nearly resulting in violent civil unrest and riots. The results of that very-recent experiment remain to be seen, as the Australians are starting to experience the rise of radical Islam in their immediate neighborhood. I repeat what I said at the end of my previous post: This country would not be experiencing the level of firearms crime we have if the laws on the books were being enforced by our legal system. As it is, over 90 percent of firearms crimes are bargained away by prosecutors eager to get any conviction that will add to the numbers they can display to the public at election time. To you prosecutors who do such bargaining, I say it is your fault, and totally yuour fault, and no one else's. Your failure to uphold and enforce the law, and your abject willingness to bargain these firearms crimes away, will be the death of many more innocent civilians in this country. Your panty-waist philosophies regarding prosecution of firearms crimes shows to me just what you are: selfish, pandering, statistic-wielding politicians who have no respect for the average American citizen, and really don't care what really happens to us, as long as you get to keep your paid-by-the-tax-payer police protections. I'm starting to get a little ******-off, so I'm going to stop now. Anyone who can rebut this, go ahead and try. First, examine the numbers of crimes committed with a firearm in your community, and then compare that to the number of actual firearm-crime convictions in your community. Then talk to me.

Scott, Nevada - PS: After you complete your assigned homework, and in particular, my assignment to read The Geneva Convention, please write a five-paragraph essay on how George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld illegally treated prisoners of war at Gitmo!! Fact Scottie, not fiction - sorry son. Also, please report on both the illegal and numerous accounts of abuse and torture of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq!! After your essay is completed, please submit it to this blog. It will either be riddled with LIES, or maybe, you will FINALLLY see George W. Bush and his Administration for the criminals they are!!

Scott and Pam: The Constitution reads" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution reads We the People, not I George W. Bush. The Constitution says We the People shall establish what is just, what we believe is needed to insure domestic tranquility and to provide common defence of our nation. Not George W. Bush. We the People shall decide what promotes general Welfare of its citizens and what is required to secure for its citizens the blessings of Liberty. Not George W. Bush. And We the People do ordain and establish the Constitution under which We the People wish to govern ourselves. Not George W. Bush. George W. Bush holds the office of President which is an instrument of the Constitution, an instrument of the People to insure that what We the People hold true for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is administered properly by this instrument of the Constitution, the Presidency. The only right George W. Bush has is the same as the rest of the people of the United States. A single voice or vote or opinion as to how we the People should and will be governed. He does not have the right to over-ride and/or to make decisions affecting the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the People that is in direct conflict with their wishes. This is how George W. Bush is trampling on the Constition. The People have spoken and the majority want our troops out of this conflict in Iraq. As an instrument of the People's wishes and not "the" sole decision maker under the Constitution George W. Bush has defied and ignored the People who created, own and administer this Constitution, and remains in Iraq with some of our citizens, some of which are losing their lives which is not promoting their general welfare. He won't even give the People whom the majority wish to leave Iraq a time frame as to when their wishes (and instructions) will be followed. If that is not trampling on "OUR" Constituion I don't know what is. That is fact. It is not made up. It is not an illusion. Bush needs to be impeached.

Scott is on to something here.Ad hominum attack is a routine device used by Bush critics aimed at not only the administration[the lying urban legend now making the rounds in the blogosphere[see:above post by P.T.et al] that Bush uttered comments bearing upon 'the right of Americans to possess arms'the moment he learned of the VT tragedy when he said no such thing],but those who have rightly supported the nation through GOP AND Democrat administrations who sought to lessen its fracturing.I was aligned against the GOP in its impeachment of Clinton and I oppose it now with Bush as it is not enough to base 'evidence'of 'lies'upon emotion,which is a fragile,mallable,totally exploitable thing.Easy to make the claim of 'criminality'eminating from a president.Harder to actually prove it and to date,the Pams of the world have been utterly defficient in their responsibility to bring forth unfettered,irrefutable facts that would support their opinions which range from the bizzare['wars for oil'] to the vapid['the destruction of an entire nation'],which is in no way the case.Their allegiances to the Constitution are phonier than a counterfeit nickel.Such individuals set up their 'NRA'strawman in order to circumvent and destroy an enshrined Amendment to that Document,not merely in a portion,but in its entirety.'Fairness Doctrines'are cooked up by liberals who think that one FOX is too many,taking the 1st Amendment and throttling it at their leisure,desiring to control all that we hear,watch or see.Again,strawman arguments are devised in order to further their goals.If the mavens of FOX are 'liars'then they deserve to be silenced,yet every non-partisan study of the media even including that of far leftwinged Noam Chomskeys masterpiece 'Maunufacturing Dissent',finds that dishonesty abounds in ALL media,not merely those enclaves staked out by the conservative right.[I can,off the top of my head, list ten recent examples,in order,in just the last several months,from other-than-FOX networks,radio,and print-media,from left to center,which have been judged to be false from respected non-partisan news watchdogs that have no axe to grind except getting to the facts].Screaming at a president and inventing lies in order to support your own viewpoint,particularly at the height of a national tragedy, makes one no better than a Reign of Terror Jacobin,childish,unstable,unsophistcated,and in some cases,quite dangerous.

Pam Bignardi, San Pedro, California (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:46 PM) I don't know what your education level is and would rather not unkindly speculate, but you really do need to work on your argument tactics. You tend to make rather generalized statements which you assert as true with no backup, another tendency is to use ad homonym (if you are unsure what this is let me know) a tactic that tells me you are on the defensive, the straw man arguments are pointless. I can give you reading suggestions if you are interested in working on your weaknesses. CA – where do you get this stuff it’s just silly “we the people, not I George Bush”?? I guess this is argument by absurdity. Are you suggesting that the President has no constitutional authority, that he has to get the permission of the majority to make a decision??

Scott Henderson, NV: '“Bush lied people died”, as if repeating something over and over makes it true.' I just about dropped my laptop reading that little diddy of yours. HAH! I know hearing there were WMD in Iraq over and over and over and over again, isn't repetition, is it? How about 'staying the course,' over and over and over again. Good grief. As my brother is getting ready to redploy, please keep him,his children and all of our military in your prayers, because God help all those that started this war if my brother dies. Over 3,300 Americans DEAD! Why? Because BUSH LIED and PEOPLE DIED! Saddle up boy, raise your right hand, and go fight the fight!

CA Your opinion is unsound.The same Framers which represented ''We The People''are the same ones who granted the Executive Branch its array of powers that have been utilized by all from Lincoln to Bush.It is for the Founders other source of power,the Judicial,to determine whether or not Bush has in actuality,rather than emotive opinion,'trampled'the Constitution.In the lack of this,it becomes the people who have retained the vested right awarded by the Document to toss 'their bums'out every four years.Presidents down through all of the nations history have acted in defiance of 'peoples wishes'which have no place of respect within the Constitution outside of the sole regions of the vote,and the means to craft amendment based upon such votes.The 'people'speak through these votes.Anything else[i.e.-''wishes'',or''desires''or ''demands''] is to promote a mobocracy which ,as the Founders themselves observed[in their lifetimes as they were all witnesses to the French Revolution and its horrific use of the 'Vox Populi'],has no place dwelling within the bounds of the Document.Your desires do not a case for 'impeachment'make.You know full well what the Constitution in its actuality demands in order to go foward with such a proceeding, and unless and until you can present irrevocable proof of 'high crimes and misdemenours'',Bush will finish his presidency undeterred by the threat of impeachment.All that critics of the war can do within constitutional bounds at this particular time is to demand that,like Vietnam,and through their elected officials,funding for the war be cut away entirely.Yet the Documents third source of power,the Legislative,will not go down this penultimate road.They made this scene when they gave Bush what he asked.And now,acting within the bounds of the Document that ties them all,they must live with the results of their decision.Thus,it becomes less an issue of a Bushian 'trampling'of the Constitution and more of congressional spinelessness.

Lee & Scott: I am well aware of the powers of the Executive Branch, but no President was authorized by the founding fathers the right to play king or dictator and completely ignore the wishes of the citizens of this country. And if those holding the office take this country down a path of destruction that requires more immediate action rather than waiting 4, 3, 2 years to vote them out, don't tell me the people of this country do not have the right to take such action. To remove if necessary those powers extended to the office in the first place. The same holds true for a weak'kneed congress who fail to take action on behalf of their constiuents, the people of this country. It's amazing to me how those who argue against gun control do so because they feel they have the right to bear arms to protect themselves against a corrupt and unjust central government that wishes to take away their rights yet at the same time they want to give Geroge W. Bush all the support and room he needs to destroy the principles on which this country was founded. My opinion is very sound. I suppose Lee and Scott both would suggest that no matter what a President does, as long as it is not illegal, the people of this country have to suffer the consequences of this person's decisions even if in violation of the people's alienable rights under the Constitution. I don't think so. And don't forget, our Constitution was created and drafted with just as much passion (perhaps more) than your tendency to argue every point with what you consider cold hard facts. At the time, I'm sure both would have been Tories spouting out details of what is right and what is wrong while the people tarred and feathered you before they shipped you back to your King.

Lee: Besides, our founding fathers provided the Presidency with certain Executive Powers for those who hold the office who are competent, mature and act in the best interest of this country. We do not have such a President in office at this time. I need no law or specific Constitutional authority no matter how detailed to tell me this President needs to be removed from office. And Scott: "We the People" may sound silly to you, but I think most Americans take it very seriously. And no President who does not serve "We the People" no matter their Constitutional authority should be allowed to take this country down a road of destruction. The basis of their authority lies within the competent and responsible manner in which they exercise this authority. A Principal has authority in a school, but you wouldn't want to place such authority into the hands of a 2 year old and then claim they have the authority to determine school policy. Authority can only be granted and maintained when that authority is used in a responsible manner that represents the desires of the collective. Other Monarchs in history have also had authority, some even claiming given to them by God, but many also met a quick demise at the hands of their constituents for abusing such authority.

Jamie, Chula Vista, CA - My prayers, from this point on will be with your brother, your family members and you. God bless you!! Pay absolutely no attention to Scott. He is really 14 years old, and knows absolutely nothing and his comments don't just border on insanity, they are insane!! I am so sorry to hear your brother must go back to the hell created by George W. Bush. Your family will be added to my prayer list.

Jamie-Chula Vista, CA: I pray and hope your brother returns home well and in good health. You have to understand that people like Scott and Lee are so hung up on protecting this President and his corrupt war loving administration that they have little regard for the American soldier being sent overseas to participate in this conflict. Although against our role in this conflict I will and do support your brother fully until such time we can somehow force this President to bring our soldiers home out of harms way and to do so in a manner that is safe and quick. It's a shame that those of us who want your brother home safe and sound are attacked by those who want to support this President in his desire to send more troops over. Yet they argue they are the one's who supoport the troops. Now that is an argument by absurdity. Tell your brother from one vet to another I wish him well and Gods-speed.

CA.You assertions are based in opinion.The Document does not move on mere opinion but the law.That you believe the president 'must'be removed by impeachment is based upon opinion,not the laws that the Document demands in order for such proceedings to go forward.Our nation is not a committee.It is a constitutional republic.Even the Founders readily knew that the idiot governs along with the brilliant.Just because there are those who believe that we are suffering an 'idiot'does not make your case.Bear in mind that your next presidential desire,may be the next mans idiot.Above you all,as long as there is America,there will also be the Document,which will govern the brilliant and the dullwitted alike.

Scott Henderson NV; No one set up an argument that Scott are his administration he loves said Irag Was Involved With 911, the point not the argument being made is that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 so why are we there, you twist word's for your benefit. Let's talk about generalized statement's, you over & over state It does not matter what the motivation of the DEMOCRAT'S & ANTI WAR ACTIVIST are they have in effect aligned themselves with the terrorist! All democrat's how general, & how twisted [Sick] is that. You again tried to justify that general statement this way, & i quote you "If you prevail in keeping "THE Serial Killer Alive" regardless of your motivation, you bear some of the responsibility for future murder's he might commit so no matter what the motivation of the DEMOCRAT'S & ANTI WAR ACTIVIST are they in effect aligned themselves with the terrorist, the road to hell is paved on good intention's" un quote. President Bush said & i quote "I don't even think about Osama Bin Laden anymore" un quote, so in your word's he himself [BUSH] has prevailed in keeping " THE SERIAL KILLER ALIVE "

Don Oubre, Paulina, Louisiana - No matter how Scott tries to slice and dice his words, he has said on several occasions on these blogs that Iraq was tied to 9/11. It's on old threads, and he knows it. He apparently has come to the conclusion that a.) He was wrong, and multiple times, yet refuses to admit it, or b.) He is back-peddling faster than Alberto Gonzalez has been doing!! You are much kinder than me my friend, as my patience cannot tolerate such false statements and I come back with both barrels!!

Lee: Of course much of what I say is opinion. Don't try and get me into a debate on constitutional law. I am quite aware of constitutional law and the powers of the executive branch. I am here to express my feelings as are a lot of people here. Feelings and passion and opinion is what shaped this country. As well as men and women who had the guts to say enough is enough without worrying that they were violating any English laws that made them subjects of King George. In fact they were considered traitors to Great Britain. And I have no doubt when writing the constitution if they could have foreseen someone as incompetent as GW holding the office of President of the United States they would have been a little more supportive of the guillotine introduced in the French revolution. You make some good points Lee if one were here to dicsuss the technical qualities of the atom. If you would express some passion with your detailed accounts as to why GW is safe under the current constitution they would carry more weight with those who have passion for their beliefs. I'm sure that when Patrick Henry claimed with a clear loud voice give me liberty of give me death he was not concerned at the time for English laws that made him a knotraitor to the King. And Frankly Lee, I think you too feel deep down inside that GW has poorly executed this conflict in Iraq after the initial destruction of Saddams military forces. You just don't want to admit it. If this is not true then thank Jamie's brother from CA for going to Iraq to keep you safe here at home, and hope and pray he comes back unharmed.

Pam Bignardi, San Pedro, California (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:54 PM) Pam, That is simply a lie, I never made an attempt to tie 9-11 to Iraq. This is argument by deception a common tactic of the left.

CA-Nonsense.I have generously observed Bushs failings in post-invasion Iraq,particularly in his failure to distance himself from the Wolfowitzian neo-conservatives and paying more atention to McCain and [back when he was more honest],Joe Biden who urged the president to send more troops in order to deal with the rising terrorist insurgency.Bushs refusal at the behest of Rumsfeld was a huge strategic error on his portion.Yet what his opposites demand is no better a deal and leaves America considering a Hobsons Choice.Take this ''stopdate''.Even the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group,that the Democrats were using as a bludgeon with which to beat Bush,argued strenuously against such a manouvre.[essentially taking a backwards-ticking LED time clock a la Times Square,placing it in the desert between Ramadi and Mosul,and advertising the exact time and date that we were to retreat from Iraq].Nor is treating with terrorist regimes amounting to any good.Within days of Pelosis ''path to peace running through Damascus'',the United Nations Secretary General Ki-Moon came into possession of recon photos showing arms moving across the Syrian border into Lebanon ,bound for the terrorist group HEZBOLLAH,a blatant violation of the cease-fire accords and UN Resolution 1701.As we speak,the Security Council is deciding upon what action to take regarding Syria.I warned this audience that Pelosi was being played as a rube and in this I was correct in the light of these new events.The Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met last week in Cairo with leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood,whose military arm is HAMAS,already implicated in the murders of several of their own people in Gaza,terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians including rape and torture,the kidnapping and possible murder of a BBC journalist,and its entry into Iraq to fight as militants whose government refuses to recognize the legitimate pre-1967 state of Israel.Though still in dispute,a branch of this 'brotherhood'may have been responsible for the formation of a new group,al Qaeda In North Africa,that bombed targets in Algeria and Morocco last week threatening to go after Spain and France next.The Democrat leadership has already proven itself not simply dilatory in coming up with concrete solutions in Iraq and the wider war on terror which is now moving across entire continents[it's whole presidential candidate team has simply no new ideas and this goes for frontrunners Clinton and Obama],but it is willfully allowing itself to be gulled by terrocracies that have no designs for actual peace in the region,indeed,are playing us long enough to get us out so that they may take over and expand.Nothing good for the entire human race can come from such plans,and this does not even allow for a nuclear-tipped Iran.If Bush needs to grow a 'brain',Democrats need to grow a spine.As my nephew is serving with the 82d and has already been to Iraq along with many of my closest friends in the USMC,a day does not go by where I do not send prayers for their safe return.This includes all who serve.

Pam Bignardi, San Pedro, California (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:54 PM) Pam if I have tried to link 9/11 and Iraq in any way several times, surely you can find one post and refer to it. If you can't then I expect an apology for the error (lie?). I think this is what happens to Bush, his administration, conservative talk show hosts, etc. People just assume things without thought about the truth of the assumption.

Lee Holmes: You have made some good points. I also respect you for you and your nephew's service. I served in Nam three tours and now have two sons in Iraq. I may disagree with you on many points, but I also have labeled the Dems spineless on many occasions. I do not think (my opinion) that this conflict is going to result in anything but more problems for the US and the middle east if we stay the course. And based on that I am one who thinks that we should place not one more American life on the line.

Why haven't we heard from Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpten...oh I think I know why.

I would like someone to address how the Bush administration is exploiting the symphathies of the American Public to legitimize the escalation of a failed occupation in Iraq. This administration doesn't care if a million Iraqis die in a civil war. As well they could care less if a million Iraqis died under their incompetent occupation, escalation, and permanent base installation. You have John McCain singing like a vodka drunk about stumbling into Iran while the Boob World Order surrounds Persia from the Caspian to the British book market. Aren't we Freeworlders swell. Oh and nice job today Mr. Attorney General, America is so proud. ps. no nukes at all in the middle east and no more kukes running WESTERN CIVILIZATION!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):