Tim Blair

But that wasn't the rationale given by Bushaliburton and Co. for this violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

[here it comes] Bush Lied! People Died! [mindbending orgasm]

How do you get goo out from between the keys?

/LLL mode

...Entire Iraqi families have become couch potatoes, and fights commonly break out in households over who has the remote control.

Ain't Freedom great.

I'm not a Bush fan in particular....he's not conservative enough to suit me, but the Iraqis ought to be building shrines to him.

Hmm... I think this sums it all up.

‘It is total anarchy, but there is a beauty about it,’

That's democracry, America and Iraq in a nutshell.

I don't care how many of my cousins died. Any Iraqi in Iraq deserves to die for not rising up and overthrowing Saddam themselves.

Innocent Iraqis all deserve to die instead of the members of our armed forces.

If we have to kill 100K Iraqis, if we have to kill 250K (we killed 250K Phillipinos helping them out) so be it!

We should kill them all, and they should still love us. Freedom is precious. More precious than life.

You're absolutely right as far as your first sentence, Josh, you do deserve to die if you let a tyrant take over your country without resistance.

Here in America, we still have our guns. If every other country's citzens (or subjects, as most of them are) had theirs, there would be no discussion here. No Holocaust, no Killing Fields, no Idi Amin, no million dead in Rwanda, ....etc.

John Lennon couldn't have said it better...
"Imagine there's no tyrants,
cause we still all have our guns,
Imagine all the people,
joining Gun Owners of America (www.gunowners.com),

oh, oh, you may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
maybe someday you'll join us,
and the world will live as one.."

robert...
bush isnt conservative enough for you?
wtf.. you want jesus walking around with the head of reagan or something?

Ummm... hello? Can you say "Medicare"? can you say "Leave no child behind act"? Can you say "Massive increase in non-defense spending"? Can you say "pandering protectionism"? Can you say " refusing to call 'assault-weapon ban' for the huge load of tripe that it is"? Do you know anything about American politics?

"Iraq - after" is highly ironic considering al-Arabiya has just had its Baghdad bureau shut down.

Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy! Perhaps those are the "liberty, equality, fraternity" of the new Iraq. I hope so. But I fear that, to paraphrase an old Fred Allen joke, you could put all the sincerity in Hollywood into a thimble and still have room for an Arab's gratitude.

Fatfingers is at it again...

So the Governing Council stops al Arabiya from continuing its role as the new mouthpiece of Saddam...at least temporarily.

Here's the money quote from the CNN article:

"'We were not kicked out of Iraq,' he said. 'We were asked to stop covering for a certain period of time. We are in the process of clarifying that decision. "

What do you say, Fatfingers, is this "just as bad" as Saddam's thugs murdering anyone who failed to toe his despotic line? Is that what is "ironic" about it?

It is sad that America - or any proxy - is slammed when it isn't perfect but any third world thug gets a free pass (referring, in part, to other things that Fatfingers has written).

For Jimmy Antley - Iraqis have always had guns, you fucking shit for brains imbecile. I'm generally opposed to the idea of an armed populace, on the basis that only fuckwitted cretins like you would want a gun in the first place - but I can think of at least one reason to own a gun - so that I could shove it up your arse and smile as I pulled the trigger. It would be a mercy killing.

Timmy - LOVELY company you're keeping. What's that putrescent smell in the air?

Anyways, here's just a small dose of truth to dilute the concentrated bullshit above: Riverbend, 18 November 2003.

Difficult Days...
They've been bombing houses in Tikrit and other areas! Unbelievable… I'm so angry it makes me want to break something!!!! What the hell is going on?! What do the Americans think Tikrit is?! Some sort of city of monsters or beasts? The people there are simple people. Most of them make a living off of their land and their livestock- the rest are teachers, professors and merchants- they have lives and families… Tikrit is nothing more than a bunch of low buildings and a palace that was as inaccessible to the Tikritis as it was to everyone else!

People in Al Awja suffered as much as anyone, if not more- they weren't all related to Saddam and even those who were, suffered under his direct relatives. Granted, his bodyguards and others close to him were from Tikrit, but they aren't currently in Tikrit- the majority have struck up deals with the CPA and are bargaining for their safety and the safety of their families with information. The people currently in Tikrit are just ordinary people whose homes and children are as precious to them as American homes and children are precious to Americans! This is contemptible and everyone thinks so- Sunnis and Shi'a alike are shaking their heads incredulously.

And NO- I'm not Tikriti- I'm not even from the 'triangle'- but I know simple, decent people who ARE from there and just the thought that this is being done is so outrageous it makes me want to scream. How can that ass of a president say things are getting better in Iraq when his troops have stooped to destroying homes?! Is that a sign that things are getting better? When you destroy someone's home and detain their family, why would they want to go on with life? Why wouldn't they want to lob a bomb at some 19-year-old soldier from Missouri?!

The troops were pushing women and children shivering with fear out the door in the middle of the night. What do you think these children think to themselves- being dragged out of their homes, having their possessions and houses damaged and burned?! Who do you think is creating the 'terrorists'?!! Do you think these kids think to themselves, "Oh well- we learned our lesson. That's that. Yay troops!" It's like a vicious, moronic circle and people are outraged…

The troops are claiming that the attacks originate from these areas- the people in the areas claim the attacks are coming from somewhere else… I really am frightened of what this is going to turn into. People seem to think that Iraq is broken into zones and areas- ethnically and religiously divided. That's just not true- the majority of people have relatives all over Iraq. My relatives extend from Mosul, all the way down to Basrah- we all feel for each other and it makes decent people crazy to see this happening.

There have also been a string of raids all over Baghdad, but especially in Al-A'adhamiya. They've detained dozens of people with the excuse that they own more than one weapon. Who owns less than two weapons? Everyone has at least one Klashnikov and a couple of guns. Every male in the house is usually armed and sometimes the females are too. It's not because we love turning our homes into arsenals, but because the situation was so dangerous (and in some areas still is) that no one wants to take any risks. Imagine the scene: a blue mini-van pulls up… 10 dirty, long-haired men clamber out with Klashnikovs, pistols and grenades and demand all the gold and the kids (for ransom). Now imagine trying to face them all with a single handgun… if Baghdad were SECURE people would give up their weapons. I hate having weapons in the house.

I'm so tired. These last few days have been a strain on every single nerve in my body. The electricity has been out for the last three days and while the weather is pleasant, it really is depressing.

No one knows why the electricity is out- there are murmurings of storms and damage to generators and sabotage and punishment… no one knows exactly what's going on. There are explosions everywhere. Yesterday it was especially heavy. Today there was a huge explosion that felt like it was nearby but we can't really tell. How do you define a war? This sure as hell feels like war to me… no electricity, water at a trickle, planes, helicopters and explosions.

We didn't send the kids to school today. My cousin's wife spent last night talking about horrible premonitions and it didn't take much to convince my cousin that they would be better off at home.

It's hard for adults without electricity, but it's a torment for the kids. They refuse to leave the little pool of light provided by the kerosene lamps. We watch them nervously as they flit from candlelight to lamplight, trying to avoid the dark as much as possible. I have flashes of the children knocking down a candle, hot, burning wax, flames… I asked the 7-year-old the other night if she was afraid of 'monsters' when she shied away from a dark room. She looked at me like I was crazy- monsters are for losers who don't need to fear war, abductions and explosions.

We (5 houses in the neighborhood) all chipped in and bought a generator immediately after the war. What we do now is 2 houses get enough electricity for some neon lights, a television, a refrigerator and a freezer. We asked them to 'save our electricity up' and give us a couple of hours after futtoor and that's how I'm typing now. But my time is almost up and I'm afraid if the electricity goes off suddenly, it'll damage my computer.

E. and I hang out on the roof after futtoor and only duck inside when the helicopters begin hovering above. We watch the main street from the roof. One of the merchants has a little generator and he sets up chairs outside of his shop, in front of a small black and white tv. The guys in the neighborhood all stream towards the lights like ants towards a sticky spot. They sit around drinking tea, and chatting.

You really can't appreciate light until you look down upon a blackened city and your eyes are automatically drawn to the pinpoints of brightness provided by generators… it looks like the heavens have fallen and the stars are wandering the streets of Baghdad, lost and alone.

I have to go now. Hope the electricity is back tomorrow, at least.

You will not address Australia’s most popular weblogger in such a vulgar way!

Al Aribiya played the whole Saddam "call to action" tape in its entirety. Al Jazeera cut 4 minutes out of a 30 minute Bin Laden speech and claimed that all of it was newsworthy.

If I am in a country where up to 200,000 of my countymen are in the ground becuase of Saddam, and several hundred more because of Qaeda, I put some restrictions on both Arab networks inciting violence.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of propaganda.

Nemesis - No one said that life would be perfect once Saddam was deposed, but it has to be better now than living under the previous regime. And if the populace really want to stop the military activity then they can start taking positive action like informing on the terrorists and taking other actions to up hold the rule of law. The coalition forces will depart when the security situation allows them to. Note that even in East Timor we still have a coalition of forces operating there and Australia will probably have an indefinite military presence of some form well into the next couple of decades. Shouldn't they leave too? No, of course they shouldn't. All we ask for is logic and consistency in your view points - not much really.

For Nemesis, Truth is exactly equal to whatever spin he's predisposed to believe.

No, I don't particularly feel like tearing the idiocy he printed apart point-by-point. If its not self-evident to you, no amount of discussion will change your mind.

One example only: "It's hard for adults without electricity, but it's a torment for the kids." So Saddam runs people through shredders, no problem, but those evil U.S. troops are 'tormenting' little children with imprefect electricity service!

OH, NOOOOOOO! OHFUCKINGNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

What MONSTERS! And there are 'mutterings' that 'revenge' might be the sinister motive!

AYIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

Nemisis? Grow the fuck up. We'll be here when you get back.

Nemeses, my husband just moved to Bum fucking Tikret (he was on the scenic Iraq/Iran border)..he is living in a tent and hasn't had a shower in weeks. You've got one fucked-up country you ungrateful asshole. Instead of sitting around whining why don't you go out and try to make things better in YOUR country...Oh wait, you're use to someone doing all the thinking for you and throwing a fit about it later...but still not actually doing anything, right?

I hope you get electricity when my husband gets a shower and a decent meal, at least.

Jeez, Nemesis! One f***ing question. WHEN WERE YOU THERE, YOU MORON?! God, I hate typing in caps. Don't give me that load of pus poured out like you, who believe all the bull**** spewing from the dictator-apologist media, were there! I was, and the fact is that when the rockets landed, the mortars crumped in, the small arms fire came over the wall, the RPG's whizzed by the hummer, EVERY GODDAMNED DAY, then you gotta respond you pacifist piece of sh**. Soldiers are dying every damned day, all the while avoiding civilian casualties. When we were pinned down by a mob, we held our fire, but a couple of bursts from a SAW would have taken care of the problem. When the US targets insurgent safe-houses (oxymoron, kinda like bombproof bunker) we are not bombing some peaceful neighborhood. We are not gunning down innocent Iraqis, like the Fedayeen, Ansar Al-Islam, Al Quaida and the FRL are doing every damned day. When we put up a checkpoint, we have to fight off the KIDS, who come up and want to smile and laugh and try out their English with the Americans, because they may be hurt. When you get back from Iraq, then perhaps you may be allowed something resembling an informed opinion, but until then shut up and hide your f***ing ignorance.

Sorry Tim. Post Traumatic Stress and all that, you know.

Congratulations on the "Top Blogger" designation. Of course, as the article points out, you couldn't have done it without me.

What we need in this sort of "after" Iraq is an Iraqi leader who can actually speak to his people over all these vaunted new mediums and convince his brethren it is better to fight for what they have right now, by helping to rid the place of terrorists, than risk giving it all up.

Folks: Nemesis was quoting "Riverbend," who is suffering so greatly under US Imperialist Hegemonic Rule that she is able to upload her whiny blog entries regularly. I've read it speculated that she is part of the former Baathist upper-crust, and that's why she's so pissy, but I can't say whether or not that's true. Personally, I think she's actually a foreign correspondent and/or subversive spy, but that's just me.

By the way, Nemmy, learn how to quote another source. Hint: you use either these things called "quotation marks" (they are the double pointy things on either side of "quotation marks") or, for quotes longer than a couple of sentences, you indent -- on the web it's known as the "blockquote" tag. That tag is enabled in the comments; learn to use it. Your newbie allowance ran out some time ago.

By the way, here is the url for the person Nemmy was quoting. He doesn't know how to link, either.

I have never been personally to Iraq, and if I were to go, WHAT WOULD I REALLY SEE?

My question is, if I cannot sort through conflicting reports and allegations HERE, in the blogosphere; if I rely on my biases and my feelings to guide and blind me HERE, outside Iraq, then why should I think it would be any different once I were physically inside Iraq?

If I am unwilling to read first-person accounts of US troops holding back fire in order to protect unarmed civilians, why would I change there? Wouldn't I be predisposed to see that "US troops callously let Iraqi civilians come under murderous small-arms fire from Iraqi fedayeen" rather than "Wow! GIs tried to do something decent, even at greater risk to themselves..."?

Get on, Buster! You've said it better'n I could!

Nemesis opines:

"For Jimmy Antley - Iraqis have always had guns, you fucking shit for brains imbecile. I'm generally opposed to the idea of an armed populace, on the basis that only fuckwitted cretins like you would want a gun in the first place - but I can think of at least one reason to own a gun - so that I could shove it up your arse and smile as I pulled the trigger. It would be a mercy killing."

Well first off it's "ass", not "arse" - take a 3rd grade spelling class before you get into blogging.

No, you are wrong about Iraqis and guns. There's no way guys like Saddam, Hitler, etc. take over nations without first disarming the population. Read my post carefully. That is the way it happens.

Since you sound Australian, I wonder if you are part of the big gun-control fiasco going on down there now? In that case, there may be a tyrant in your future, Nemetode, and any blood spilled thereafter is partially on your hands.

Oh, and no more homo references about people's butts - this is in general a clean site. Your analyst may have something to say about your remarks, though ....

Ooops, big mistake. My link on my first post should be:

www.gunowner.org not .com

They're good people and more principaled (sp?)than the wimp-ass NRA.

Think about the tyrants/unarmed population thing Nematode, and you will soon come around to agree with me and understand that freedom is not free.

Dammit all to hell -- one more time:

www.gunowners.org (plural)

You've got some strong points there Antley, backed up by solid statistics and strong research. I'll tell you what, old chap, why don't you take your guns and your dictionary and get yourself comfortable in a bunker somewhere, and if we're all still here in, say, 2050, I'll knock three times to let you know it's safe to come out.

Well first off it's "ass", not "arse" - take a 3rd grade spelling class before you get into blogging."

Well Jimmy, you alimentary canal may end up in your ass, but outside North American, we call it arse.

It's a matter of dialect, not spelling.

Arse comes from old English earse, meaning "The buttocks, rump or hindquarters" (reference)

Sorry, Jimmy.

An ass, of course, is also distinct from a mule, viz.

A mule is an animal with long funny ears
He kicks up at anything he hears
His back is brawny but his brain is weak
He's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak
And by the way, if you hate to go to school
You may grow up to be a mule

Ring any bells, Jimmy?

I think fatfingers has a fat head! The al-Arabiya TV network was supplying targetting and being supplied with targetting information by terrorists who were killing Iraqis. Yes fat fingers your head is fat. Your ignorance is amazing. That is why we do not let people like you make decisions. You do not see simple connections and you think snarky comments convince people that you are intelligent. Let me burst your bubble, you are a dumb f*ck and every time you write something stupid like your post above you prove it. Ass Dart.

Sorry, Tim (brys0003-Tim, that is), but you may not be in any position to just leave Australia at that point. Your country is already headed in the wrong direction pretty quickly. You will likely have to suck someone in the Australian Politburo's dick to get your Visa stamped.

Oh, plus I'll be pretty old by then, and will have already left the bunker with my walker to bitch about my low increases in Medicair payments to president George Bush V (no, I'm not a fan of his, just wanted to get a dig in ;-) I'm assuming you'll be in the prime of your life then in 2050, Tim, as you write like a 5 year old.

I know, Peggy Sue, I wanted to get a response from the "tode" himself on that.... I do like pissing people off.

Uhh, an ass is a donkey, BTW, (Not a MULE ;-)

I'd have liked to give you links to web sites that discuss how may lives have been saved by self-defensive use of guns in America, and, more importantly, the history of disarmament of citizens, but I'd rather spend my time pissing people off directly ....

I'd have liked to give you links to web sites that discuss how may lives have been saved by self-defensive use of guns in America

I imagine they would be about as interesting to me as links to web sites that discuss how may lives have been saved by self-defensive use of terrorism in America.

Uhh, an ass is a donkey, BTW, (Not a MULE ;-)

That would be why I chose to describe them as distinct i.e. not alike;different from the latin distinctus "TO DISTINGUISH".

Let me know when we're done with the ass thing. ;-)

Rich: Sorry, but your comparison is invalid. Defending oneself with a firearm is nothing like terrorism. Try again.

Try again.

A short while, two girls in my country were murdered outside a nightclub. They died in the stray bullets of cross fire generated by one group of people "defending" themselves from another set.

Their deaths are noteworthy because they are rare events. They are rare events because few people in my country carry firearms.

Arming those girls would not have protected them. Increasing the number of people defending themselves with firearms from the increased number of people carrying firearms generated by such a policy would increase the number of people dying in the crossfire from such an activity.

I currently face almost no risk of being injured in general, and injured by gunshot wound in particular. I enjoy that privilege, and the freedom that comes from not having to conduct myself in such a way as to have to constantly guard against the possibility. If the carrying of firearms were to become the norm, I would lose that privilege and that freedom.

Terrorism reduces my freedom through the threat of violence. Firearms reduce my freedom through the threat of violence. I find the activities to be indistinguishable and indefensible, and their apologists repulsive.

What country is that? Who were the people you claim were defending themselves with BBC-esque sneer quotes?

Otherwise, all you really have is rabid emotionalism and blind hatred. Which is pretty pathetic.

What country is that? etc.

UK. These people.

Detectives believe the girls were the innocent victims of a bitter feud between two rival north Birmingham gangs.

Ah yes... I was certain it would be gang violence. Something no ban on firearms can prevent. Oh, and how dishonest of you to characterize this as a "defense". Sorry, but even in Texas killing an innocent bystander in a shootout would get the shooter brought up on charges of murder. But then, the typical gun owner in America is not a member of a criminal gang. Not that one like you would see the difference, of course.

So nice of you to smear everyone who owns a firearm or might own one as just like the gang members in question (or terrorists even). Far be it for you to simply be disgusted at the criminals in question, oh no, you have to blame an entire GROUP of people who did not commit the crimes and probably never will do such a thing. But then, berating gang members might be a bit dangerous so it's better to insult honest citizens who might get irked at you, but won't harm you. Though I wonder if you'll convince yourself that they will try to harm you and feel brave when you walk away unscathed.

Btw, "terrorism" is an act and "firearms" are objects. Objects have a difficult time threatening anyone unless someone uses them. Which is why your attempt at a comparison was invalid.

Not that I expect someone like you to ever think about it. But thanks for revealing your phobic hatred of firearms. It shows that you'll probably never be convinced and will most likely resort to even stronger insults than "apologist" when raging at those who dare to either own a firearm or have no problem with it.

Couldn't we all just carry around bowie knives? Less chance of stray bullets, and generally you have to get close enough to actually see who it is.

Apparently there are few deaths every year when hunter dressing in luninous orange mistaken for deer by other hunter.

Peggy Sue,

Won't ask you whether you've ever gone hunting. I'm guessing the answer. But what a great Texas, down-home name you have. Yeh, out of millions of hunter's (USA), some actually get shot, shoot themselves, offed by others stray bullets. All that being true, 'electric orange' cuts down on the hazard.

But let me ask you Peggy Sue, ah, do you drive an automobile? Much more dangerous than hunting as any search for statistics would tell you. Now you might say that hunting, or even cleaning firearms is fairly short term, while driving is pretty long term in our lives. But I think the comparison still holds. Driving will kill/injure you far more likely than gun use. So get and use a gun and stop driving. Safer. Jim Bowie loves you dear, but I advise you to trade up to a more dangerous mode - get and use a bicycle. G

Australian English 101

arse
noun (Sometimes offensive) 1. rump; bottom; buttocks; posterior. 2. a despised person. 3. impudence: What arse! 4. a person considered as a sex object: What a nice bit of arse! 5. good luck.
--phrase 6. arse about, in reverse or illogical order: He did the exercise completely arse about.
7. arse about (or around), to act like a fool; waste time.
8. arse over tit, a. upside down. b. fallen heavily and awkwardly usually in a forward direction.
9. arse up, to spoil; cause to fail.
10. cover one's arse, to protect oneself.
11. get one's arse into gear, to become organised and ready for action.
12. give (someone) the arse, a. to reject or rebuff (someone). b. to dismiss from employment.
13. kick arse, to be totally amazing; to really go off.
14. kick (someone's) arse, a. to beat convincingly. b. to reprimand severely; tell off.
15. kiss my arse!, an expression of derision.
16. not to care (or give) a rat's arse, not to care at all.
17. pain in the arse, an annoying person or thing.
18. talk (or speak) out of one's arse, to speak rubbish; to make stuff up; to bullshit.
19. think the sun shines out of one's arse, to have a very high opinion of oneself.
20. up your arse!, an exclamation indicating insolent or disgusted dismissal.
[from Middle English ers, from Old English aers]

ass1
noun a stupid person. [from ass donkey]

ass2
noun US (rare in Australia) arse. [originally a British dialect variant. In the US arse is often used as a euphemism]

http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/anonymous@FF875326253+0/-/p/dict/slang-a.html

My hunting (if you can call it that) has been restricted to trying to shoot feral cats.

Now let's be really silly with stats.
Car are definitely much more dangerous than guns.
In US, about 40,000 are killed by cars per year,
and only 30,000 by guns.

Car are less dangerous in Australia.
We kill about 1,750 per year on the road,
but deaths from guns are only 330 per year.
If we had US gun laws, perhaps we could probably raise that to around 1,300 gun deaths.

I was certain it would be gang violence. Something no ban on firearms can prevent

So, because something has only limiting effect, not a preventitive one, it is invalid? So you disapprove of vaccinations, transportation safety devices, drink driving laws, passive smoking protective measures for infants, etc, etc, etc? Reducing the availability of arms in general reduces the availability of arms to gangs in particular and therefore the probability of us being injured by an armed gang.

But then, the typical gun owner in America is not a member of a criminal gang ... it's better to insult honest citizens who might get irked at you, but won't harm you.

I have no reason to believe that the gentleman who shot one of my countrymen through the letterbox while the latter was asking the former for directions to a party was a criminal. He was just a regular guy to whom widespread gun ownership had given the means to shoot a person unseen, and who did so. Being within killing range of a "typical", "honest" gun owner, it seems, is no guarantee that you will survive the encounter.

Btw, "terrorism" is an act and "firearms" are objects

An utterly spurious and desperate distinction, on several counts. "Shooting" is the act that limits my freedom, not the existence of the firearm object. It is possible to separate the object of a nuclear weapon from the act of its use - nuclear weapons are used very infrequently. It is impossible to separate the object of a firearm from its use - kids kill each other with firearms in the US every week. The presence of terrorism in the world is sufficient to limit my freedom even though I have not yet been a victim of that terrorism. The presence of people shooting each other in the world is sufficient to limit my freedom etc.

It shows that you'll probably never be convinced

There are some reasonable arguments for the use of firearms. You have not presented any yet.

at those who dare to either own a firearm

dare: to challenge as proof of courage How brave of you. Have you considered that it might be evidence of a sense of inferiority?

I noticed that Riverbend was refering to Saddamite shelling in Tikrit then ascribing it to American troops. She has the puter working, but it might be a laptop with solar panels >(been meaning to get me one of those). She has a telephone line to upload it, unless she has gone digital and is using that pervasive cellular tech Iraq is known for.
One could mark her absence from the web from the 22th to the 25th as an evil scheme by the Coalition to turn off her power and telephone. Or it might have been to clean the House for Eid, as she decribes in her next post.
I just think she watchs some news and then jumps to conclusions based on her distrust of America. Thats pretty common these days.
Fairly certain the fact she is getting news is a positive sign.

forget politics, she also has a cooking website with a great name

So, because something has only limiting effect, not a preventitive one, it is invalid? So you disapprove of vaccinations, transportation safety devices, drink driving laws, passive smoking protective measures for infants, etc, etc, etc?

Oh look, strawmen being dragged out. The UN Representative from Strawmania will be displeased.

Reducing the availability of arms in general reduces the availability of arms to gangs in particular and therefore the probability of us being injured by an armed gang.

Actually, restrictions on firearms have no effect on criminals and only affect honest (no sneer quotes) citizens. Your handgun violence rate is going up, in case you didn't notice.

But keep clinging to your small-minded, emotion-driven prejudices and scapegoat those who do no harm. It's apparently easier for you than thinking.

I have no reason to believe that the gentleman who shot one of my countrymen through the letterbox while the latter was asking the former for directions to a party was a criminal. He was just a regular guy to whom widespread gun ownership had given the means to shoot a person unseen, and who did so. Being within killing range of a "typical", "honest" gun owner, it seems, is no guarantee that you will survive the encounter.

Oh, which bloody shirt are you waving now? Judging from previous screeds from people trying to exploit one incident as "proof" that gun owners are evil, I'm going to guess what you're alluding to probably left out some telling details that alters the context greatly.

re "terrorism" vs. "firearms"
An utterly spurious and desperate distinction, on several counts. "Shooting" is the act that limits my freedom, not the existence of the firearm object.

...yet more emotion-driven twaddle. No, Rich. "Terrorism" is always wrong in itself. "Shooting" isn't always wrong, and sometimes is even laudable. Say, someone shooting a rapist or mugger attacking them. You equating firearms ownership with the acts of criminals (or terrorists, even) only shows foolish paranoia, and a distrust of people including (via projection) yourself. The desperation is on your part.

dare: to challenge as proof of courage How brave of you. Have you considered that it might be evidence of a sense of inferiority?

Actually, it was more like a sarcastic slap at your antipathy towards the idea of gun ownership, but nice try.

Oh look, strawmen being dragged out.

Do you know what a straw man logical fallacy is? If you did, then you would know that that wasn't one. How would a point by point rebuttal process work, in your view, if each rebuttal was isolated and dismissed as a strawman argument?

restrictions on firearms have no effect on criminals

The penalty for being arrested with a firearm is greater than the penalty for being arrested without. So most criminals will only carry one if necessary. The you present by carrying a firearm increases that necessity. Conversely, a restriction on you carrying a firearm reduces that necessity. Your statement is clearly untrue.

Your handgun violence rate is going up,

... and the number of handguns in circulation is going up. I'm sensing causality here - help me out with my thinking.

"Terrorism" is always wrong in itself.

How interesting. So how would you classify the Boston tea party, and therefore the legitimacy of the state founded on it? Terrorism, like shooting, is as legitimate as the terrorist or shooter thinks it is.

heh heh. That would be "The risk you present"

Oh you were setting up a strawman. Because I object to bans on weapons you setup several, claiming it must mean I was against other things. It would be just like other people I've encountered who claimed that if one carries a gun as a precaution then they must carry a ridiculous assortment of other devices as a precaution.

Causality? Odd, since gun ownership (including handguns) in America has been going up and our violent crime rate is decreasing. Oh, and we do arrest criminals in some cities and states who have weapons, but the same locations don't restrict honest (-I guess you'd better insert your sneer quotes) citizens and their crime rates are lowering. Help me with what that means, especially if we don't restrict those icky awful (to you) people I call honest, but you call "honest" who own firearms.

....

Rich, if you think the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, then it is obvious that you live in your own little world and there is no point in discussing anything further with you. You've devalued the word "terrorism" to the point where an act of vandalism gets labeled as such... or the presence of people owning something you don't like gets the label. Makes you look foolish and overly paranoid.

Have a nice life, but one spent blaming scapegoats for ills in society doesn't look very nice. I guess if it makes you happy...

Because I object to bans on weapons you setup several, claiming it must mean I was against other things.

I'm sure if my claims were untrue, you would have rebutted them. Instead you dismissed them as straw man arguments. I believe to do so was your strongest argument.

It would be just like other people I've encountered who claimed that if one carries a gun as a precaution then they must carry a ridiculous assortment of other devices as a precaution.

I'm sure if I'd said that, it would be quite true. Regrettably for your argument, I didn't. The point about the loss of freedom that occurs when having to conduct yourself differently around people who carry guns, and for that loss of freedom to be unacceptable, is not a complex one.

Odd, since gun ownership (including handguns) in America has been going up and our violent crime rate is decreasing.

The rate at which your country executes folks has also been going up. Especially, oddly enough, black and poor folks. Sorry - the threat of (apparently indiscriminate) death by lethal injection just isn't a compelling enough safeguard for controlling the ill effects of handgun ownership in society. And should we perhaps note here the difference between a marginal decline in a rate, and the appalling absolute magnitude of that rate - you have the highest rate of death amongst children by gunshot wounds of any civilised country. More guns?

Rich, if you think the Boston Tea Party was terrorism

The Boston Tea party was a shit point. Mea culpa. But the present state of Israel was created by men - many of whom are part of the present day government - who declared themselves to be terrorists in the war against Britain when Britain ruled the region. Your statement remains false.

Wildmonk,

I say nothing about "just as bad". Stawman argument. Did you actually read the article? It was praising the new freedom of the press. It is ironic given the shutdown of the Iraq operations of one of the most popular TV stations in the Middle East. That's all I'm saying with that post.

Esq, you lose. No argument to make, just insults.

PJ Swenson
*If I am in a country where up to 200,000 of my countymen are in the ground becuase of Saddam, and several hundred more because of Qaeda, I put some restrictions on both Arab networks inciting violence.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of propaganda.*

Where does it end, PJ? Where do you draw the line between free speech and propaganda? And I seem to recall CNN and other networks broadcasting Bin Laden videotapes - should they be shut down too?