Bill O'Reilly its time for gun control

[SlowSpyder]

The crux of the gun/violence problem is that the victims are urban/poor/minorities while the beneficiaries/lobby are rural/better-off whites.

I get that the biggest problems with gun violence tend to be inner city areas, often populated with minorities. I see how in theory gun bans would help in those inner city areas... if criminals listened to gun bans and didn't get guns readily from jurisdictions outside of where those laws would apply. But, see how ridiculous that thought is? Does anyone think an inner city gang banger is concerned with a magazine capacity limit? I know we have to find a way to fix the problems many of our big cities have, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my rights for laws that will make no tangible difference whatsoever.

 

[ivwshane]

I get that the biggest problems with gun violence tend to be inner city areas, often populated with minorities. I see how in theory gun bans would help in those inner city areas... if criminals listened to gun bans and didn't get guns readily from jurisdictions outside of where those laws would apply. But, see how ridiculous that thought is? Does anyone think an inner city gang banger is concerned with a magazine capacity limit? I know we have to find a way to fix the problems many of our big cities have, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my rights for laws that will make no tangible difference whatsoever.

I didn't realize it was an either/or fix.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What is your rational argument for stricter gun regulation than that which is already in place?

Personally I'd like to see background checks on all gun sales. Without that the background check system is very easy to get around. Other than that, I'd probably like to see less regulation, if any change.

I would like to see NCIS background checks for private sales at gun shops and have the fee be a reasonable price (ie $5 - $10)

 

[SlowSpyder]

I didn't realize it was an either/or fix.

I didn't say it was, but I've seen "assault weapons" bans in the past that were exactly that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I would like to see NCIS background checks for private sales at gun shops and have the fee be a reasonable price (ie $5 - $10)

I think that and/or a police station, something where the seller gets a receipt that absolves him / her from any responsibility if that gun is later used in a crime. Stiff penalties for illegal sales, I think that with the mandatory background check on any sale would help reduce firearms murders over time. And I don't feel that infringes on my rights as a gun owner.

 

[agent00f]

I get that the biggest problems with gun violence tend to be inner city areas, often populated with minorities. I see how in theory gun bans would help in those inner city areas... if criminals listened to gun bans and didn't get guns readily from jurisdictions outside of where those laws would apply. But, see how ridiculous that thought is? Does anyone think an inner city gang banger is concerned with a magazine capacity limit? I know we have to find a way to fix the problems many of our big cities have, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my rights for laws that will make no tangible difference whatsoever.

I think everyone realizes it's an intractable problem simply due to the sheer number of guns that already exist, plus easy transportation due to nature of their design. Any realistic/effective situation would need to involve de-escalating the entire ecosystem. For example, police feel the need to have ARs and such, which can only encourage whoever they're policing with those to stock up, too. It really doesn't help that a large swath of the population respond to pretty much anything involving guns by only buying more with a siege mentality.

This topic is oftentimes more philosophical than practical. Even though nobody's going to mount a revolution with small arms, or realistically shoot up some home intruder like they meticulously planned in their head, and frankly it's mostly a hobby, there's a lasting personal attachment to firearms in this country. What value should be placed on that kind of thing is an open question.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think that and/or a police station, something where the seller gets a receipt that absolves him / her from any responsibility if that gun is later used in a crime. Stiff penalties for illegal sales, I think that with the mandatory background check on any sale would help reduce firearms murders over time. And I don't feel that infringes on my rights as a gun owner.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[RampantAndroid]

So much BS, the FBI is aware of every new gun transaction, as their database runs every background check.

No - they aren't. They log the E-checks they do, but not the phone calls. Either way, every transaction is logged in the book that the FFL maintains.

Also, LegendKiller's point is dead on - "well regulated" had a much different meaning in when the bill of rights was written.

I would like to see NCIS background checks for private sales at gun shops and have the fee be a reasonable price (ie $5 - $10)

If WA had done this with I594, I'd have been happy...but it isn't what they did...

 

[Fenixgoon]

I think everyone realizes it's an intractable problem simply due to the sheer number of guns that already exist, plus easy transportation due to nature of their design. Any realistic/effective situation would need to involve de-escalating the entire ecosystem. For example, police feel the need to have ARs and such, which can only encourage whoever they're policing with those to stock up, too. It really doesn't help that a large swath of the population respond to pretty much anything involving guns by only buying more with a siege mentality.

This topic is oftentimes more philosophical than practical. Even though nobody's going to mount a revolution with small arms, or realistically shoot up some home intruder like they meticulously planned in their head, and frankly it's mostly a hobby, there's a lasting personal attachment to firearms in this country. What value should be placed on that kind of thing is an open question.

it's not an intractable problem - but making more gun laws is barely going to do anything.

gun violence is high for 2 reasons - 1) suicides 2) drug/gang violence.

drug violence today is no different than mobster violence during prohibition. legalize drugs and you will see the violence go down dramatically.

with respect to suicides, i think it's a lack of mental health care and a cultural aversion to pursuing mental health care. i knew of a guy who was in a terrible marriage, and rather than seeking any kind of help, he ate a shotgun anecdotal of course, but i think if people were more willing to seek help, and we didn't have such a stigma placed on that, the number of suicides would drop dramatically.

suicides are even prevalent among armed forces members. an average of 22/day commit suicide (and from what i understand, getting mental health care in the armed forces is a total PITA)

 

[ivwshane]

Context matters of course.

It's funny because venix is right.

Even "regulated" by itself can be an adjective. And "running" can be used as a noun (gerund).

The electricity coming from the wall outlet has a regulated voltage. A well-regulated voltage has a tolerance of +- 1VAC (i'm just pulling that number out of my ass btw). In both cases regulated is an adjective.

Running is fun. Running is a gerund (noun form of a verb) used as the subject.


Anyway, to give a quick breakdown:

the independent clause is "(the) right shall not be infringed". this is a single complete thought that can stand by itself if all other parts of the text are removed.

"a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state" cannot stand on its own grammatically.

and if we clarify - whose right? the people's.
what right? to keep and bear arms
why? a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

anyway, if you do some google-fu, you can find english experts on both sides of the aisle - some will say that it limits arms to just the militia, others will say it is obvious it includes the people in general.

what i find interesting (and this is the case of many things), is that something like this should be factually objective, and yet multiple "experts" can come to dramatically different conclusions about its interpretation.

if you just scribbled this down on a piece of paper (and it weren't the US constitution), i could almost guarantee you that a room full of english experts would come to a definitive conclusion about the interpretation of the text.

I agree, which is why precedent matters and the Heller decision was a break from 100+ years of precedent. Historical context also matters and history sides with the 2nd being a collective right as well.

 

[MongGrel]

I get that the biggest problems with gun violence tend to be inner city areas, often populated with minorities. I see how in theory gun bans would help in those inner city areas... if criminals listened to gun bans and didn't get guns readily from jurisdictions outside of where those laws would apply. But, see how ridiculous that thought is? Does anyone think an inner city gang banger is concerned with a magazine capacity limit? I know we have to find a way to fix the problems many of our big cities have, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my rights for laws that will make no tangible difference whatsoever.

To be honest in some cities like Detroit and Chicago it seems the young 20 year old range kids in gangs seem to be about like the 14 year olds ISIS are recruiting and indoctrinating in both cases.

Raising a child, or them being involved in any environment along those lines are going to involve in some pretty screwed up shit down the road, in some places it seems like containment and letting them sort it out themselves has become somewhat SOP.

I'd still say overpopulation has reared it's head over time, it used to be a topic that isn't really touched on much these days.

Are other instances in the past I'm not going to dig for.

 

[LegendKiller]

Actually, "well-regulated" is an adjective. "Regulated" by itself is a verb.

Except there is no hyphen, anywhere, in the 2nd.

 

[BxgJ]

Begun, the grammar war has....


Sorry just couldn't help myself

 

[LegendKiller]

The crux of the gun/violence problem is that the victims are urban/poor/minorities while the beneficiaries/lobby are rural/better-off whites.

In practice, the law/ruling as it stands basically exports violence, and localities are largely helpless to do much about it.

Because so many of those crimes are carried out using legal guns.

 

[MongGrel]

Begun, the grammar war has....


Sorry just couldn't help myself

It's typical, of course.

 

[glenn1]

Well, I'm not trying to deny you your right.

So the question is: are there limitations that could be placed upon gun ownership that are reasonable and rational?

I mean there already are restrictions... by why do those stand without much argument, yet anything new is immediately a non-starter?

The primary objections I have would be to blanket bans on entire categories of weapons with no real reason. "Assault weapon" bans fall into that category even though I don't own one nor do I plan to.

As for limitations I do/would support, in one of the other threads on this topic I made a "handshake compromise agreement" with another ATPN poster to allow universal background checks if the 3-day waiting rule was removed for sales between private sellers. As others have pointed out, a lot of the objections to so-called "universal checks" relate to cost, speed, and liability. A non-zero number of gun control supporters look at background checks as just another tool to harass and delay (in their hopes indefinitely) any gun sales at all.

Other low hanging fruit for gun regulation I can/do support:

1. restrictions on lead based ammunition, provided it's not coupled with effective bans on every other type of ammunition
2. restrictions on hardened alloy ("armor piercing") rounds
3. restrictions on overpressure loadings (e.g. "+P ammunition")
4. restrictions on "open carry" of long guns in urban areas for the sole purpose of trolling the populace; yes while it restricts your rights to open carry it's also a balancing of interests concern to maintain public order

The biggest nut we could crack that would have the most benefit is also the hardest. Namely how and when if it's ever acceptable (and under what circumstances) to restrict the rights of people proactively because they seem like potential mass shooters in waiting or otherwise are "high risk." Unfortunately this isn't something to be taken lightly and for every Orlando shooter we stop this way you might end up constraining the rights of huge numbers of others who wouldn't hurt others. I'm generally on the side that says rights inherently entail a certain amount of risk to others and it's immoral to limit their rights just for selfish safety reasons. I'm certainly opposed to those who would say 'so long as we save even a single life it's worth it.' While it might sound callous to some I'd rather endure more mass shootings than remove the rights from people without overwhelming cause and due process protections out the wazoo. Absent godlike powers I don't think any gun law you could pass would stop mass shootings and I'd rather live in a nation of more shootings than a police state with less. The "no gun if you're on the no-fly list" is honestly one of the worst ideas from both a civil liberties and practical standpoint I've heard in a long time. Not only are you targeting mostly brown folks but it's almost certainly either not going to be effective at all or indeed be counterproductive.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

drug violence today is no different than mobster violence during prohibition. legalize drugs and you will see the violence go down dramatically.

Exactly this right here. If you truly support reductions of violence and murder then the quickest and most effective win is to end the war on drugs. By far.

 

[jackstar7]

The primary objections I have would be to blanket bans on entire categories of weapons with no real reason. "Assault weapon" bans fall into that category even though I don't own one nor do I plan to.

As for limitations I do/would support, in one of the other threads on this topic I made a "handshake compromise agreement" with another ATPN poster to allow universal background checks if the 3-day waiting rule was removed for sales between private sellers. As others have pointed out, a lot of the objections to so-called "universal checks" relate to cost, speed, and liability. A non-zero number of gun control supporters look at background checks as just another tool to harass and delay (in their hopes indefinitely) any gun sales at all.

Other low hanging fruit for gun regulation I can/do support:

1. restrictions on lead based ammunition, provided it's not coupled with effective bans on every other type of ammunition
2. restrictions on hardened alloy ("armor piercing") rounds
3. restrictions on overpressure loadings (e.g. "+P ammunition")
4. restrictions on "open carry" of long guns in urban areas for the sole purpose of trolling the populace; yes while it restricts your rights to open carry it's also a balancing of interests concern to maintain public order

The biggest nut we could crack that would have the most benefit is also the hardest. Namely how and when if it's ever acceptable (and under what circumstances) to restrict the rights of people proactively because they seem like potential mass shooters in waiting or otherwise are "high risk." Unfortunately this isn't something to be taken lightly and for every Orlando shooter we stop this way you might end up constraining the rights of huge numbers of others who wouldn't hurt others. I'm generally on the side that says rights inherently entail a certain amount of risk to others and it's immoral to limit their rights just for selfish safety reasons. I'm certainly opposed to those who would say 'so long as we save even a single life it's worth it.' While it might sound callous to some I'd rather endure more mass shootings than remove the rights from people without overwhelming cause and due process protections out the wazoo. Absent godlike powers I don't think any gun law you could pass would stop mass shootings and I'd rather live in a nation of more shootings than a police state with less. The "no gun if you're on the no-fly list" is honestly one of the worst ideas from both a civil liberties and practical standpoint I've heard in a long time. Not only are you targeting mostly brown folks but it's almost certainly either not going to be effective at all or indeed be counterproductive.

There's no "rep" system on this board, but if there was you'd have some from me.

I appreciate you explaining a non-absolutist position reasonably and without too many pointless digs at the opposition on the issue.

Thanks.

 

[RampantAndroid]

1. restrictions on lead based ammunition, provided it's not coupled with effective bans on every other type of ammunition

Yeah, how about no. There are currently no good options (other than steel, which you want to ban below) that are cheap and decent for ammunition. Anything you go for currently will have a MUCH MUCH higher cost to it. The EPA would *love* to ban lead ammo, because it'd be a way to kill gun ownership. Do you want to make it harder for people to practice at a range?

2. restrictions on hardened alloy ("armor piercing") rounds

Already restricted, actually. Except with M2AP, which currently cannot be regulated. It's such a non-issue though. No uses it to go out and kill people - not citizens anyway. Why restrict it when it's not the problem?

3. restrictions on overpressure loadings (e.g. "+P ammunition")

Two problems here. The first is that you must therefor kill hand loading and effectively make it harder to shoot as well - hand loading rounds is a way to get accurate rounds for much, much cheaper than match grade ammo costs.

Additionally, if you kill +P loadings that are sold, you kill the lethality. Hollow points can be stopped by layers of denim. +P loads are a way to deal with that as well as other issues - namely, handgun rounds aren't really that powerful. People survive 38 special wounds...and so people go with .357 magnum. Also, "+P" is just a naming. Who the hell is going to define what normal pressure is? The military defines it for things like 7.62 NATO and 5.56. But for things like 8mm Mauser or even things like 300 Winchester Magnum, it's a round the military doesn't use. Same for things like 41 magnum and 44 magnum. Who defines normal pressure? Right now, the SAAMI spec is just a list of loadings that are considered safe.

I plink with regular FMJ boxed 45ACP ammo. I test fire +P 45ACP hollow points when I want to be sure my aim is OK and I know how to handle it. I carry +P ammo when I have a gun on me. I'll keep my +P ammo, thank you very much.

4. restrictions on "open carry" of long guns in urban areas for the sole purpose of trolling the populace; yes while it restricts your rights to open carry it's also a balancing of interests concern to maintain public order

Yeah, except people also flip over handgun open carry. Personally, I prefer concealed carry...and if you want to ban open carry, you need to FORCE all states to become SHALL ISSUE concealed pistol license states. Then I'm fine with banning open carry.

 

[agent00f]

it's not an intractable problem - but making more gun laws is barely going to do anything.

gun violence is high for 2 reasons - 1) suicides 2) drug/gang violence.

drug violence today is no different than mobster violence during prohibition. legalize drugs and you will see the violence go down dramatically.

with respect to suicides, i think it's a lack of mental health care and a cultural aversion to pursuing mental health care. i knew of a guy who was in a terrible marriage, and rather than seeking any kind of help, he ate a shotgun anecdotal of course, but i think if people were more willing to seek help, and we didn't have such a stigma placed on that, the number of suicides would drop dramatically.

suicides are even prevalent among armed forces members. an average of 22/day commit suicide (and from what i understand, getting mental health care in the armed forces is a total PITA)

There's also no easy solution to narcotics, drug addiction/od/etc often being more dangerous than alcohol, so you're basically trading one intractable for another. Also, while the black market funds much gang activity, crime is to a degree inevitable in economically deprived areas. Meth production for example in rural areas area, saved mainly by low pop density.

Suicide prevention is easier to address, but requires significant funding given a country hardly known for low healthcare costs. It's also inconvenient that pro-gun folks are generally anti-tax. It would be interesting if forced to choice between losing their firearms or paying for mental health, which they would take, gun to their head.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, how about no. There are currently no good options (other than steel, which you want to ban below) that are cheap and decent for ammunition. Anything you go for currently will have a MUCH MUCH higher cost to it. The EPA would *love* to ban lead ammo, because it'd be a way to kill gun ownership. Do you want to make it harder for people to practice at a range?



Already restricted, actually. Except with M2AP, which currently cannot be regulated. It's such a non-issue though. No uses it to go out and kill people - not citizens anyway. Why restrict it when it's not the problem?



Two problems here. The first is that you must therefor kill hand loading and effectively make it harder to shoot as well - hand loading rounds is a way to get accurate rounds for much, much cheaper than match grade ammo costs.

Additionally, if you kill +P loadings that are sold, you kill the lethality. Hollow points can be stopped by layers of denim. +P loads are a way to deal with that as well as other issues - namely, handgun rounds aren't really that powerful. People survive 38 special wounds...and so people go with .357 magnum. Also, "+P" is just a naming. Who the hell is going to define what normal pressure is? The military defines it for things like 7.62 NATO and 5.56. But for things like 8mm Mauser or even things like 300 Winchester Magnum, it's a round the military doesn't use. Same for things like 41 magnum and 44 magnum. Who defines normal pressure? Right now, the SAAMI spec is just a list of loadings that are considered safe.

I plink with regular FMJ boxed 45ACP ammo. I test fire +P 45ACP hollow points when I want to be sure my aim is OK and I know how to handle it. I carry +P ammo when I have a gun on me. I'll keep my +P ammo, thank you very much.



Yeah, except people also flip over handgun open carry. Personally, I prefer concealed carry...and if you want to ban open carry, you need to FORCE all states to become SHALL ISSUE concealed pistol license states. Then I'm fine with banning open carry.

IIRC current milspec 5.56 "green" ammunition is copper core with non-hardened steel tip. Unless you're an idiot from the ATF who misreads the law it's not "armor piercing" in any way, shape, or form. And yeah, I know that limiting their use outdoors will make shooting more expensive, just like removing things like asbestos made other products more expensive. At an indoor range where they have bullet traps or otherwise contain lead ammunition and prevent it from getting into the environment I don't think it should be restricted at all unless the range owner requires it.

On #2 I'd agree that armor piercing rounds aren't a major issue, but that's why it's an easy concession to offer.

For #3, likewise I agree it's not a major problem but it does create a problem of optics. I'd rather not give a easy political points to those who support gun control because HydraShoks or similar +P loadings are marketed as "extra lethal" next time a mass shooter uses them. We changed some of the marketing, advertising, and labeling requirements around tobacco without banning cigarettes outright and I think there is a similar window here for concessions. Hell, it ought to be something us gun owners should be policing ourselves - some suburban dad doesn't need to be upsold a whole lot of premium product for his cheapest item in the showcase .22LR range plinker, and discouraging him from getting sold a bunch of overpressure ammunition and accessories he doesn't really need isn't helping him or anyone else except for the salesperson getting the commission. If you can't articulate why you want to buy overpressure loadings (and for reasons other than "I saw an advertisement saying they're better") then you should be steered away from buying them.

 

[RampantAndroid]

IIRC current milspec 5.56 "green" ammunition is copper core with non-hardened steel tip. Unless you're an idiot from the ATF who misreads the law it's not "armor piercing" in any way, shape, or form. And yeah, I know that limiting their use outdoors will make shooting more expensive, just like removing things like asbestos made other products more expensive. At an indoor range where they have bullet traps or otherwise contain lead ammunition and prevent it from getting into the environment I don't think it should be restricted at all unless the range owner requires it.

On #2 I'd agree that armor piercing rounds aren't a major issue, but that's why it's an easy concession to offer.

For #3, likewise I agree it's not a major problem but it does create a problem of optics. I'd rather not give a easy political points to those who support gun control because HydraShoks or similar +P loadings are marketed as "extra lethal" next time a mass shooter uses them. We changed some of the marketing, advertising, and labeling requirements around tobacco without banning cigarettes outright and I think there is a similar window here for concessions. Hell, it ought to be something us gun owners should be policing ourselves - some suburban dad doesn't need to be upsold a whole lot of premium product for his cheapest item in the showcase .22LR range plinker, and discouraging him from getting sold a bunch of overpressure ammunition and accessories he doesn't really need isn't helping him or anyone else except for the salesperson getting the commission. If you can't articulate why you want to buy overpressure loadings (and for reasons other than "I saw an advertisement saying they're better") then you should be steered away from buying them.

+P isn't the problem. Neither are hollow points. And they aren't "over pressure" - they're within the SAAMI spec. (forgetting Federal's +P+ thing for a second) I have hand loaded 41magnum and 44magnum rounds that, short of the oversized 44mag loads that can't even be used in S&W revolvers, I'm at the top of the SAAMI chart for what is safe. I'm up there because those are guns that can be used to deal with a bear if I'm hiking.

And how did I get them? I loaded them on a Dillon 4 stage press.

And what stops outdoor ranges from putting in traps?

 

[glenn1]

+P isn't the problem. Neither are hollow points. And they aren't "over pressure" - they're within the SAAMI spec. (forgetting Federal's +P+ thing for a second) I have hand loaded 41magnum and 44magnum rounds that, short of the oversized 44mag loads that can't even be used in S&W revolvers, I'm at the top of the SAAMI chart for what is safe. I'm up there because those are guns that can be used to deal with a bear if I'm hiking.

And how did I get them? I loaded them on a Dillon 4 stage press.

And what stops outdoor ranges from putting in traps?

If you're an outdoor range where the bullet trap instead of just using an earthen berm then lead bullets are no problem there either.

Ask for overpressure rounds, the entire point is to find compromises and trade-offs that were willing to sacrifice in the name of preventing far less desirable restrictions. The average gun control person is going to have no idea of that hand loading is even an option. It's not going to cripple the gun enthusiast community if we cannot purchase commercially produced overpressure rounds.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Ask for overpressure rounds, the entire point is to find compromises and trade-offs that were willing to sacrifice in the name of preventing far less desirable restrictions. The average gun control person is going to have no idea of that hand loading is even an option. It's not going to cripple the gun enthusiast community if we cannot purchase commercially produced overpressure rounds.

How about instead we say that knee jerk reactions are banned? +P rounds are not the problem. You know what is? Giving stupid concessions to people who are uneducated. You know what else is the problem? People bending the rules. People can't resist building an AR pistol and putting one of those damned sig braces on it to use it (illegally) as an SBR.

+P rounds exist so that when I fire my gun in defense of myself or my family that I know that the round will go through whatever the person is wearing (short of actual kevlar) and incapacitate them.

And people going for gun control ARE aware of reloading - CA has already tried to limit it.

Give in inch and they'll take a mile with some of this stuff. Banning people on watchlists from purchasing guns IF the watch lists have due process attached? Yes. Please. Ban AR15s? To be honest, I feel like being spiteful towards the tacticool crowd - they've ruined gun ownership in general. But on principle, no - I don't they should be banned, as it goes against the intent of the 2nd amendment. Require all people take a gun safety course that involves a background check before owning a gun? Sure. As long as it isn't restricted access or used as a way to prevent ownership, yes.

If we're going to talk about things to give "concessions" on, then let's talk about sane things.

 

[glenn1]

How about instead we say that knee jerk reactions are banned? +P rounds are not the problem. You know what is? Giving stupid concessions to people who are uneducated. You know what else is the problem? People bending the rules. People can't resist building an AR pistol and putting one of those damned sig braces on it to use it (illegally) as an SBR.

+P rounds exist so that when I fire my gun in defense of myself or my family that I know that the round will go through whatever the person is wearing (short of actual kevlar) and incapacitate them.

And people going for gun control ARE aware of reloading - CA has already tried to limit it.

Give in inch and they'll take a mile with some of this stuff. Banning people on watchlists from purchasing guns IF the watch lists have due process attached? Yes. Please. Ban AR15s? To be honest, I feel like being spiteful towards the tacticool crowd - they've ruined gun ownership in general. But on principle, no - I don't they should be banned, as it goes against the intent of the 2nd amendment. Require all people take a gun safety course that involves a background check before owning a gun? Sure. As long as it isn't restricted access or used as a way to prevent ownership, yes.

If we're going to talk about things to give "concessions" on, then let's talk about sane things.

Dude, I'm not the Senate Majority Leader negotiating with Obama. It's just my opinion on a internet forum about what I think reasonable gun policy changes are and it's fine if you disagree, you don't need to get your blood pressure raised because of it. My ideas have as much chance of becoming law as Moonbeam does of becoming the national Poet Laureate.