gpatt0n

As far as the technology not being ready for primetime ... that is a due to a lack of will by an industry that doesn't want that solution. Why? The cost of guns will increase because of the technology; they'd have to retool the industry altogether and the 'market' at the projected price would be very small in comparison with the low-tech deadly cold steel currently marketed. Since the investment in tooling is so old as to have been paid for decades ago (for many guns) and process is well established, even at low prices they make significant profit. There is probably a belief that old-st

There has been a challenge that there are no effective gun laws. One effective one is that the gun itself become 'smart' ... how smart is the question. The idea that a gun might only be shot by one owner is one of the proven options. I.e. a biometric switch allows a gun to shoot only in the hands of the proper owner. Guns could be made even 'smarter' given the miniaturization of cameras and digital electronics ... i.e. every shot could be recorded and literally sent to the Internet of Bullets that are easily traced to a single person buying ammo is another option. Know, howeve

No, there doesn't. Who is filing the lawsuits? Oh, that's a secret ... right. They are so afraid that if their identities were known that they keep them secret. Yet you defend those who are so afraid of being known that they arrange for surrogates for legal standing. Why? Because they really don't have legal standing. Now that, in my opinion, is what is wrong. pubby

It is obvious that the Australian solution is off the table so why don't you rephrase that to say I would refuse any solution that would realistically made an impact in this shooting and any other solution is not realistic so we don't want to do anything except aggrandize the gun culture ultimately enticing more literal thinkers into committing crimes like this because they think guns and all that go along with them are cool. pubby PS: The reason the stinky bullet/pink gun suggestion has value because it says that guns are not so frigging cool that every body ought to have one like a

You said that, I didn't. However I will say the inability to take any action ultimately says that you and all who refuse to do a thing approve of the action. We know the NRA and the gun manufacturers do because they literally benefit from the heightened fear that is experienced and expressed as people, so conditioned, buying another gun to protect them from the boogey man. The law, expressed by the majority of the SCOTUS says that those who haven't a record of being crazy are constitutionally entitled to have a gun because having a gun is a constitutional right - i.e. forget about t

No, those who reject every possible option of gun control including the notion that it is right for a crazy person to have one - nay seven or more and say that no law or anything could change the outcome are the one's who are ridiculous. pubby

Nothing. They are criminals. It is kind of like you're favored stand your ground laws ... Okay ... you use a pink gun with smelly bullets ... you can qualify for stand your ground ... if you paint your gun black and use self-loads ... you are automatically guilty of a felony and if someone dies in the commission of a felony then you're up for murder in the first. Now the next question is would a manly man wanna be use a passel of pink pistols to shoot up a school with stinky bullets? I don't think manly man wannabes would do so but since I'm willing to not restrict anyone's right

We have laws against murder but they don't prevent murder. We have laws against speeding yet I wouldn't advise driving the speed limit on 285. Laws work with culture to change culture. What has been going on is a cultural drift toward the 1880s in a wholesale delusion and flight of fancy. Yep, we're all supposed to be Wyatt Erps and Billy the Kids and have our iron on our hip ... ain't it cool ... just like in Grand Theft Auto ... guns are cool. Add to that the wanna-be patriots, the confederate rebels and apocalyptic preppers and everyone agrees it is cool to have firepower. Gu

In the Brass Balls edition, Paulding.com's PHDS explore the idea that there may be some folks with brass balls playing behind the scenes in the airport deal. The thoughts came up after reviewing the talk about the airport contract that some think prohibits the county from seeking a 139a commercial airport permit. That doesn't make sense to pubby. He and Deena conclude the whole thing is really about who will control Atlanta's 9,400 acres if the commercial permit comes through. This is because the partners who sold the land to the city of Atlanta (which includes Jones Co.) may be able to forc

I wouldn't dream of defending the media either. Some progressives were infatuated with the Pope because of his positions on Global Warming and some of his efforts to mitigate the seriousness of the sins... The previous Popes were pretty unforgiving in regard to gays, aboortzion, divorce, etc. and I think some people read too much in to his statements regarding these topics because, unlike previous Pope's, they didn't start with "you're going to hell and burn for your sins." The fact that this Pope, while maintaining his beliefs on these general culture war topics, is moving forward by cha

What point? That a clerk (her title is county clerk) should be able to use religious reasons to avoid doing her job, which is certifying and filing documents authorized by law by others who are charged with defining the law. I do note that she switched the Democratic to Republican party as a result. That was not surprising. It would seem that she is on board with the Republicans whose elected public officials are quite inventive in the excuses they use to avoid doing their jobs. This is presumably because Republicans, in their lust for smaller government, see nothing wrong with g

One of the points in the acknowledgement of the day is that the blasphemy laws are abused largely by those who falsely accuse their neighbors of utterances. False warrants are not at all 'strange' even here. pubby

No one said that exercising religious beliefs was supposed to be easy. Indeed, we know that folks like Martin Luther and many other religious leaders were really 'odd' individuals who did what they did, said what they said and endured and in so doing gained the respect of the regular folks despite or because of their odd behaviors. A lot of people do things that others find hard to fathom. Blowing up ROTC buildings in the anti-war movement, sitting at lunch counters during the civil rights movement (or riding on buses), singing songs in sit ins, going on strike ... a whole host of actio

The interesting thing from the WAPO article was that blasphemy was illegal in the US until 1952. No other reference was made. So, what was the rest of the story? Well it involved a subtitled film in which the slow girl in the town - who thought herself a virgin (the virgin Mary to be exact) - was despoiled by a man but she was deterred in her assertions of virginity even as she came up pregnant. The NY State Board of Regents determined the plot - i.e. the film in toto - was sacrilegious and removed its license to exhibit; a ruling that was affirmed all the way to the supreme court.

You're funny ... no wait ... I was funny ... you were boring. pubby

No, but I've read history. here's a link: pubby

He quit (resigned) because he was tired of the stupid BS. As I turn 65 this month, I understand his attitude. pubby

We all still wonder how conservatives could be attracted to Donald Trump. Especially when the revelations of the folks at electoralreview.com gain traction.

Dang, thanks ... I thought as you sought to diss me, you might call me the queen of propaganda ... or are you claiming that role ... you know coming out of the closet an all pubby

The founding fathers had an attitude that allowed them to write a new, radical form of representative government. In the founding documents they asserted their right to decide what government was instituted among men ... The governmental structure they came up was designed to be flexible and they included processes for changing the rules. Just like judicial review of Congressional actions -surely you remember that Chief Justice John Marshall ruled the high court could question a law's constitutionality - was not written but developed within the structure of the Constitution. Just as the

I think the extremism is where the religiosity comes into it. Most everyone would prefer lower taxes, less spending and smarter government in an ideal world ... fact is, most folks would just as soon have no government but experience teaches us that really doesn't work. So being practical and pragmatic, we've come together in a government and it involves processes that gives us all a way to get what we need whether it be clean water, breathable air or even a way to resolve a dispute with our neighbors over property lines. The problem with religiosity is that adopting that implies not

I think there is more concern that Christian fundamentalists who want to institute Biblical Law are a greater threat here. Speaking of petty insults ... why I'd say that the posters here are as good at that form as they are propaganda. pubby

The plain fact is that the Sheriff - in Georgia the Sheriff is the closest thing to God given the powers they have - is doing his political thing based on his judgment that a majority of the voters would endorse his placing "In God We Trust" on the cars. Sheriff Gulledge is an elected official and I'll simply note that he will be seeking his third term. I might wonder why he didn't do this eight years ago right after he was first elected? As far as your set of arguments Guard Dad ... I'm embarrassed for you. Yes, the propaganda on this site is sometimes disgusting and IMHO you're re

Fact: David Duke is some poohbah in the KKK (Wizard something or other). Fact: He was elected to one term in the Louisiana legislature as a Republican and ran as a Republican several times. Fact: He sought to soften the attitudes of conservatives toward the far right by elevating the language used by supremacists. Fact: He considered a run for president as a republican in 2012 citing support and encouragement from thousands of 'tea party members.' He is no more part of the establishment GOP as Donald Trump ... but then neither is Donald Trump or those in the tea party part of the es

You're welcome to deny that the military is a socialist institution but just as you are welcome to deny that the sun comes up every morning or that climate change is a hoax. Here are some comments from 'debate.com' on the issue where the consensus was that the US military is a socialist institution. Your dismissal of the notion is just a denial of reality which is an integral aspect of the Republican brand. I think Bohner's decision to resign is because he could no longer maintain the hypocrisy you so easily embrace. pubby