How about R-tard? Mentally incapacitated? Sorry, I'll try Laura, but you must admit that intelligence in many voters is threadbare. Delete the post if it offends you. I certainly have no bone to pick with the developmentally disabled. It does not offend me to see the post go..

Trollop - Sounds as though you are being threatened with your RIGHT to the 1st Amendment - We Know - the FREEDOM of SPEECH and Expression - Seems as though the TROLLS are being defended and Protected and WE are Being Singled-out - You know - Separately - an Un-American and Un-constitutional Imbalance of FREE-SPEECH ! I Guess that WE had Best Watch Ourselves and LIMIT OUR FREEDOM Of SPEECH ?????? Does It Appear that Way to ANYONE ELSE ????

Lolita, not to me it doesn't. I used to talk like a sailor around here, and Laura gave me a talking to. I'm a big fan of George Carlin, but I recognize that there are some dirty words you can't say on television. And I can understand that using said words on a blog connected with a television show would be frowned upon by some of the people running that show. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Yes, Alva they are coming for ALL of your guns. Everyone must surrender their guns NOW.

*sheesh!*

One has to ask why so many gun owners flip their lids on this issue. Is it because the love of guns is so profound that you want to put a ring on the AK 47? Or do they feel naked without a machine gun? Or is it an overcompensation for not having a big glock?

People who own guns and want nothing done about gun control really need to breathe, get a grip, and be prepared to think about someone other than themselves. Perhaps putting down that weapon may clear your head allowing you to think straight and get some perspective that they may be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Something must be done. Or we keep what we got which is more dead children.

Looks good to me, maybe Missouri will be the safest place in America!http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20130214/school.closing/

Happy Valentines Alva! Happy Valentines dead kid!

Donna, you didn't address the issue. Do you think that I should be considered a felon for owning this:

http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/mahgun.jpg

Because that is precisely what this Missouri bill would do. It would make anyone owning a standard pistol a felon if they refused to hand over their personal property to the authorities.

Trollop, speaking of making schools safer places...

http://www.examiner.com/article/70-year-old-coach-uses-gun-to-protect-female-players-shoots-two-attackers

Alva,

I don't need to: you fanatically cover it for the rest of us.

BTW: I think it is a wonderful thing.

Donna, do you think that it's a good thing to blatantly violate the 4th amendment right to be secure in your property against unreasonable searches and seizures? Do you think it's a good idea to enact ex-post-facto laws?

False equivalencies presented as questions don't deserve an answer.

You are hiding behind your irrational love of guns.

How in the blue hell is that a false equivalency? Let's look at the text of this bill.

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

Now, let's look at the text of the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now let's look Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

So, you're telling me that all this is null and void because you disagree with me on the gun issue?

This proposed bill in Missouri is unconstitutional in two different ways, without even bringing up the 2nd amendment. Gov't is strictly forbidden from taking your property if it was legal to own that property when you bought it. They can prohibit future sales, but they can't take your property.

Alva,

Everyone here knows that you go all LaPierre when talking about guns. And it is a false equivalency but you don't want to see it as such because your gun is so far up your ass you can't think straight when it comes to this topic.

And I am telling you your argument is null and void and we can disagree on this gun issue.

More guns = more dead children.

And you can post anything you like but it just makes you look like someone who supports more children getting shot.

Donna,

Come on, now. We can agree to disagree on the gun issue generally. But are you really telling me that our rights should be on the chopping block? I'm not talking about the 2nd amendment, mind you.

Do you understand what legal precedents are? If Missouri can pass a law that dictates that government can take your property, regardless of the 4th amendment, and regardless that it was legal for you to own said property at the time that you bought it, then do you not understand that opens up a pandora's box by which other laws could be enacted that do the same thing, regardless of whether it's related to guns?

Do you think, that if you buy a car, and a law is passed that said you have to give up your car in 90 days or you're a criminal, would be just?

This has nothing to do with whether you believe gun ownership is a good idea or a bad idea, whether it leads to dead children or not. This has to do with the wholesale violation of a number of Constitutional provisions that aren't even related to guns.

Do you really think that is a good idea? And would you please address the issue.

Alva,

Come on, now. We can agree to disagree on the gun issue. But are you really telling me that your right to own a gun is more important than dead children?

And I do understand what legal precedents are. I understand that people use that term to justify the unjustifiable and to ease their conscience.

And your car argument is just plain bullsh*t.

This has everything to do with gun ownership and dead children, both of which are bad ideas.

I really think really curbing gun ownership is a good idea. There, I addressed the issue. And you know what? I am not the one who looks like some sort of monster who places their rights over the bodies of dead children.

I think we should curb gun ownership as well. But you seriously telling me that it's worth ripping the Constitution to shreds to do it?

Do you know what an ex-post-facto law is? It is making something illegal after the fact. It is prosecuting people for engaging in legal activity in the past. That is completely and totally unconstitutional.

The car argument isn't bull pucky. It's the same thing. The different utilities of cars and guns is not the issue. I use the car as an example simply because you don't feel the same way about cars as you do guns.

If you own a car, and it was legal for you to buy a car, and a law was passed that said it's illegal to own a car and you have 90 days to turn your car over to the authorities, then would you not be bothered by that? Would you not be disturbed that this is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. Not the 2nd. The 4th amendment.

The 5th amendment's last clause explicitly states:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So, the question is, is it justified to rip up the Constitution to shreds because you think you're right on the gun issue? Or should we discard the Constitution, and throw it in the trashcan whenever we feel like it?

Here's a link for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Alva,

Nothing you have written to date shows that you think gun ownership should be curbed.

And I know what an ex-post-facto is. And I know exactly why you are trying to use this and your bullsh*t car example to hide behind the fact that you think your rights trumps the rights of dead children.

You can cite the 4th amendment. You can cite the 2nd, 1st, and 10th amendments as well. It is just justification of the fact that you care about guns more than the lives lost due to gun violence.

So the question is, is it justified to use the Constitution to hide behind, to justify the callousness, just to own a gun?

Dead kids killed by guns is not right. Hiding behind the Constitution is not right. And you are not right. No matter how you try to explain it away. You just look like a monster who doesn't care about dead children.

Donna is fully irrational right now. WOW! Why don't you take a deep breath, and reread the discussion, because I found Alva's arguments to be very well defined, understandable, and sound. Additionally I find her concern valid as we should not allow unconstitutional laws to pass in the first place: this sets up a dangerous precedence.

Donna, I have outright said that weapons like grenade launchers, flame throwers, tanks, chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons should all be illegal. I have outright said that certain guns like the Armalite AR-50 and the FN Herstal 5.7 should be illegal. I have said that full auto weapons should be illegal. I have said exploding projectile rounds should be illegal. I have used reason to explain why they should be illegal, and that is they have little legitimate purpose as a defensive weapon.

But what you seem to be telling me that it makes no difference if we violate the Constitution so long as we get rid of guns. Tell me, how is that any better morally, than Dubya deciding that it makes no difference if we violate the Constitution, so long as we fight terrorists? Would you really tell me that it's wrong to object to torture because the ends justify the means?

There are a lot of ways to get rid of guns. You can have gun buy backs. You can give people tax breaks for handing over their guns. You could make it illegal to sell ammo. But you cannot take people's property against their will.

Tim,

You are the one who is not operating with a full deck. Why don't you take a deep breath, back the f*ck up, and get a grip.

Alva's argument can be well reasoned, but in the end, he only cares about his right to own guns, and cares very little about children killed by guns.

You two can hide behind your constitutional rights all you'd like but the fact remains: both you two care about your right to own guns over the rights to dead children.

Donna, that is completely unfair. That IS the moral equivalent of justifying an illegal war, torture, and the Patriot Act by saying, "you care more about the rights of terrorists than you do about those who dead on 9/11".

Do you really think so little of me that you think that I'm in favor of children being killed by gun fire?

Alva,

Life isn't fair. Your mother should have told you that by now.

Wrap yourself up in the Constitution; let it shield you from the monstrous fact that you value guns over children's lives. I don't care. Go for it.

And as for your 9/11 analogy: MAJOR FAIL. Just another attempt to shield yourself from looking like a callus person.

And I don't think of you at all.

And judging by your posts that show your rabid love of guns, I say you don't care about dead children. I have all ready stated that you don't. I have all ready stated that you are wrong. I can't say it any other way.

Believe what ever you want to believe. Justify it how ever you want. That's fine. Whatever. But when you wrap your f*ed up position in righteousness, I will call you on that. At least have the courage to own that position and the consequences of what that position really means.

Donna, I didn't get into the purpose of gun ownership here. The only thing I talked about here are blatant violations of the Constitution. But to say that my position is that I'm in favor of dead children is simply a very poor attempt by you to demonize me, nothing more. It seems the only thing you're interested in is forcing your beliefs on others, for the sole reason that you think you're right.

But since that is what you want to accuse me of, then let me ask you: Do you think that this 15 year old boy should have been killed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE

Do you think this woman should have been killed or raped?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Ps1ZC1-Qw

Do you think these convenience store clerks deserved to die?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi7_uiAUEa4

Do you think these two high school girls and their coach should have been killed?

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-shot-near-martin-luther-king-jr-high-school-in-detroit

Do you think this 12 year old should have been killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfz7ENFUB0

Do you think this old man should have been robbed and killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbarunzTtc

Do you think this woman should have been robbed and raped?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o0CyqZ2D-g

Do you think this 14 year old boy deserved to die?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQcoNr6ZIEc

Do you think this 84 year old woman should have been killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxC4_ew4YA

Do you think this woman should have been robbed and killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1zZGe3f0mc

Do you think this woman should have been robbed or killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv1KvThjqV8

Do you think these people should have died in a shooting spree?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPYu4Mu2dto

Do you think this 7-11 clerk deserved to die on Christmas?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUff31LRPE4

Alva,

You don't need to; your position about gun ownership comes through loud and clear.

And in all of those instances you post you seem to think that having a gun would have made a difference. That is a sophomoric position to take, which is surprising, considering you like to think of yourself as quite an experienced debater.

And you can LaPierre post all you want to, but the fact remains: you care more about owning a gun than dead children.

So keep wrapping yourself in the Constitution, righteous indignation, and LaPierre tactic of FEAR FEAR FEAR and they are comin to get 'ur guns, but the fact remains: you care more about gun ownership than dead children.

And I will post this again:

Believe what ever you want to believe. Justify it how ever you want. That's fine. Whatever. But when you wrap your f*ed up position in righteousness, I will call you on that. At least have the courage to own that position and the consequences of what that position really means.

You can own a position all you like. But you seem wholly incapable of defending it.

I will ask you again:

Do you think that this 15 year old boy should have been killed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE

Do you think this woman should have been killed or raped?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Ps1ZC1-Qw

Do you think these convenience store clerks deserved to die?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi7_uiAUEa4

Do you think these two high school girls and their coach should have been killed?

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-shot-near-martin-luther-king-jr-high-school-in-detroit

Do you think this 12 year old should have been killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfz7ENFUB0

Do you think this old man should have been robbed and killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbarunzTtc

Do you think this woman should have been robbed and raped?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o0CyqZ2D-g

Do you think this 14 year old boy deserved to die?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQcoNr6ZIEc

Do you think this 84 year old woman should have been killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxC4_ew4YA

Do you think this woman should have been robbed and killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1zZGe3f0mc

Do you think this woman should have been robbed or killed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv1KvThjqV8

Do you think these people should have died in a shooting spree?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPYu4Mu2dto

Do you think this 7-11 clerk deserved to die on Christmas?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUff31LRPE4

Actually, I defended my position.

You just don't want to admit it.

And I will post my response to you again:

And in all of those instances you post you seem to think that having a gun would have made a difference. That is a sophomoric position to take, which is surprising, considering you like to think of yourself as quite an experienced debater.

And you can LaPierre post all you want to, but the fact remains: you care more about owning a gun than dead children.

So keep wrapping yourself in the Constitution, righteous indignation, and LaPierre tactic of FEAR FEAR FEAR and they are comin to get 'ur guns, but the fact remains: you care more about gun ownership than dead children.

And I will post this again:

Believe what ever you want to believe. Justify it how ever you want. That's fine. Whatever. But when you wrap your f*ed up position in righteousness, I will call you on that. At least have the courage to own that position and the consequences of what that position really means.

Now you are just replying with pure emotion, desperate to try to come off as some sort of good guy instead of the selfish monster only concerned about keeping his guns, regardless of how many children get shot and die.

Keep posting those links. It still won't change the fact that you care more about your guns than about dead children.

And in all of those instances you post you seem to think that having a gun would have made a difference.

Guns didn't make a difference? Did you click on any of those links?

Alva,

Yes guns make a difference. Guns kill. And that is the difference. Period. And you know exactly what I mean. Don't play dumb or I will assume that it isn't an act.

And I post this AGAIN:
Believe what ever you want to believe. Justify it how ever you want. That's fine. Whatever. But when you wrap your f*ed up position in righteousness, I will call you on that. At least have the courage to own that position and the consequences of what that position really means.

I see them just about every night on "Wheel of Fortune" (just before prime-time). I don't think it's as frequent as ads from last October, but it's the only political ad on the air now so I think it sticks in your head better.

(Sadly, Wheel of Fortune watching is next to no help in solving Decryptomaddows.)

Yes, I see them all day and a lot at night. They are being broadcast on CBS, NBC and ABC all day particularly around the evening news broadcasts between 4 pm and 7 pm. They are on some other local channels but I don't watch those channels on a regular basis.

I would add that no other candidate is doing ads on TV.

I could set my watch by them. Always during evening news drive. My hubby has even advised Debbie to her face that her position on guns was a non-starter, but she won't back off. And her polling now shows it. Cubby Mike is right that no one else is doing ads right now and we're 12 days out from the primary. Everyone is still fundraising.

Kelly is being endorsed by a group of black aldermen from the city as well as the Cook County Board president Toni Preckwinkle. These are weighty endorsements and the primary results will turn on which areas people turn out to vote. I think the city wards are going to have a big turnout (for Kelly), the suburban areas not so much.

Great idea lets eliminate all the NRA highly rated Democrats....should we start with Harry Reid, Mark Warner,Max Baucus, or Jon Tester???There's dozens more.Does ANYONE whos posts this gun banning stuff live in a state which doesn't already have highly restrictive gun laws so they're not giving up anything anyway.(CA,IL,NY,CT,MD,DC,WI,NJ shouldn't be allowed to post on this topic none of these states have permitted gun rights like the other 42 in years I may be off a state or two its late)

I think they are referring to an effort last year to pass a law that would mandate all states to honor other state CCW licenses. It did not go anywhere, but it was a cause celebre for a while. Right now there are arrangements between states concerning honoring each others CCW permits on a state by state basis.

As an aside, Martin Luther King was arrested in Georgia in 1960 for driving with an Alabama drivers license. This was a violation of his constitutional rights due to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution that forces states to recognize any contract between a citizen and another state (for some reason this has not applied to SSM, yet.) The law mentioned by Bloomberg would have made it clear that states have to extend the concealed permit of one state to all. Apparently the Bloomberg add is due to an interpretation of that law under which a "criminal", which in some states refers to traffic law violators, would be able to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois which is the only state without a concealed carry law.It is against federal law for a felon to possess or carry a firearm.

Concealed carry is not a right, it is a privilege, but so is driving, and all states recognize the drivers licenses of other states these days, in part thanks to the arrest of MLK in 1960.