Of course not. For some reason those opposed to concealed carry laws, do not like the statistics on this issue. They believe that anyone who would carry a firearm has a secret desire to shoot someone. I mean, that’s why we go to all the trouble to get a carry permit. Right?

Thank for the first intelligent remarks on on this thread today. This whole thing boils down to a simple question: Is the "war on drugs" really the best way of protecting our society from the "evils of drug abuse". Is this really the best we can do?

May I copy your post and send it to some "friends"?

Read it again and see if he mentions censorship. It seem you have the problem with big words. Censorious vs censorship. the first meaning: severely critical; faultfinding; carping. Oh never mind. What is the point.

Lib at heart must really hate to stoop to "their level". But not enough to let it stop him. You don't condone it but are happy to do it? Some life you have made for your self. Do some work and find one racist remark and link to it. Reporting on racisim does not make one a racist. Do you get the difference?

"According to the Associated Press and The New York Times, the White House and congressional leaders have promised to limit tax and fee exposure for drug companies, so long as the drug companies spend $100 million out of pocket on pro-health insurance bill advertising"

How about some kind of link to this info. I can't seem to find it form NYT or the AP.

If anyone believes that our drug laws have anything to do with "public safety", You are sorely mistaken. It's all about the money and controll of segments of our population.

Purposeful seems much more likley. Now, to what end?

"someone who has gone out of his way to find bipartisan solutions"

Now that's funny. Name one time. Just one.

"Who cares what is done to those savages?"

To justify bad behaviour with: But they are even worse. I hope you are speaking out of aggravation and, given some time to contemplate, will rethink that argument.