Reads with Scotch ’s Comments (group member since Mar 14, 2008)

Reads with Scotch ’s comments from the Axis Mundi X group.

Yes, I get it well before the "others" Maybe I should keep my mouth shut about when I get books... it might be illegal.

Hmmm what color is he? Mauve?

I think your face is a gaudy color. BAM!


The savage detective looks like it might be good.

I always thought gold was a pretty gaudy color. It just seems so... Pimpish.

I know, it is a crazy notion, to speak of such things on a book website. I am currently reading a series by Dan Simmons “Hyperion”

When I get home next week I’m going to start “Fleeced” by Dick Morris and an un-known book by Neal Stephenson (author of Cryptonomicon) It isn’t actually hitting the streets for a few more months but it is a perk of having a wife in the book industry Woot!

The shade of blue or war?

And here I thought I would have to debate my points until the end of time. I will clarify one point though. The automated checks would be computer picked, but the screener would be a breather. The breather does not get to choose who he/she screens though. In the event of an official investigation law enforcement agencies would be able to do a pin point search.

Ok I have read the full thread now.

In some States the gun laws are repressive to the point where they actually are infringing on a “law abiding” persons right to bear arms. In IL I had to apply “purchase” a FOID card, just to by ammo. Then you have the waiting period, the types and models of fire arms are also restricted.

But you know IL is a heavily populated place. I will admit that having 3-4 million people running around un-checked with high powered assault rifles in the Chicago land area would probably be a bad idea.

However, there have been many times when growing up in Chicago where you would hear about Gang members deploying high capacity assault rifles against the police. Hmm well a law abiding person in IL can not obtain an assault rifle, so why are the police getting in gun battles against assault rifles. Duh Criminals don’t buy their weapons at sportsmen’s warehouse. They by their firearms out of the back of a van.

Weapons I recall being used in weapons charges over the years in Chicago:
Tech 9’s: a 9mm full auto hand gun 15-45 round clip
Glocks: of all cal. Glocks range from .22-45.cal 9-11 rd clips
Spas Shotguns: This is a nasty bugger can hold up to 10 shells (with a tube extension), with a wide range of deployable ammo types. From 1 ½ ounce slugs, flechet rounds, 8 pellet buckshot (The 8 pellet buckshot also known as a TAC load holds it’s grouping for up to 75 yards)
Uzi: this hand gun also comes in a wide range of cal. and clip sizes.

I could keep going on, but really whats they point? KD you hit pretty close to home. As long as there are guns in the world then law abiding people need the law on their side to protect their right to protect themselves. Criminals will always have guns.

Have I ever used any of my weapons in self defense. Not since my military days. I also hope I never have to, but it is there if needed. I do however hunt and target shoot often. My wife has never liked the idea of guns either, but today she could disassemble every gun in our house. She has become a pretty good shot too. Guns are as good as the person holding them.

I am all for Firearm ownership Classes, and repeat background checks. Better yet an automated nationwide system that constantly does random background and criminal checks on registered gun owners. Since the system is automated there shouldn’t be a privacy issue.

What I am not for is the flat out banning of any firearm. As far as Bazookas grenades, and the like, flat out no way. There is no plausible reason for a private person to have these devices. For starters the average person would not be able to afford the containment facilities to house these devices in. That makes it a public safety issue. But guns are fair game. You pay your taxes, you have a clean record, and sound mental health, then here you go take what you want, the criminals are.

I think I have said everything else in my original post…

Fist full of dollars!

(Before I get in to this know I have not read the opinion yet, and have only read up to this point. I stopped here because of time restraints, Also I feel I have the “vibe” of the debate down, I may revise my statements later on but this is what I have so far.)

Message #36: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now that it is no longer necessary to secure the freedom of the states with militia, is the need for the people to keep and bear arms still present? And what represents infringement?

I would like to start off with a not so far fetched hypothetical. Not to long ago we were discussing the New Orleans disaster. During this disaster the local government collapsed completely. There was chaos and lawlessness run amuck. I think we as Americans today live with a sense of false security, I don’t think we realize how quickly things can descend into Chaos.

I believe the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the Individual had the means to defend himself. (* I do not believe the National Guard counts as a state militia, it is a military unit wielded by the government, not the people of the state.)

In the event of a social breakdown and mass scale civil disobedience the law enforcement/national guard would be overwhelmed. Then lawful people (like yourselves that only wish to garden, read books go to shows and talk of your favorite bands) will be at the mercy of hardened armed criminals. Criminals always seem to have guns.

I think it is a right to have a fire arm, as long as you are a law abiding citizen. I understand the need for regulation. But to regulate to the extent of the D.C. Gun Ban ( by the wording of the law it was not a ban, but like many times before in our countries history the legislators of the law made it impossible to lawfully own a handgun, or to utilize the handgun for lawful purposes.)

This was a sound decision by the justices’.

I will read the full thread and link to the reading of the ruling later on tonight.

When I am wandering the threads of good reads and find something that raises my interest, whether it is funny or serious I usually immediately think of another goodreads patron that I wish to respond to the post.

Let it be Donna’s systematic tirade of facts, and a pinch or two of opinion.

Let it be Charissa’s wit humor and facts balled into a nice little fuck you package.

RA’s always calm, sincere posts.

Or do your tastes prefer something a little spicier like NB.

Who is your Goodreads superstar?

Even with her shaved head I would still slap her ass on a pedestal. She is tasty

Natalie Portman, MEOW!

When I have fits of rage my hormones know exactly where they need to be. The fight response is rearing to go and it takes ever ounce of me self to hold back the tide.

I think I have a better control of it today then I did last year and the year before. I just try and remind myself that a cool hand steers the boat better then a jittery excited hand.

I don’t think this thread is about my rage disorder, or my psychopathic tendencies. It is about NB doing penance, and waving the boy pennants ;)

Who is the one?

I just realized I was talking about them like trading cards… Ugh! I’ll give you Brendan Frasier, and Ed Norton for Jessica Alba, and Natalie Portman.

screw brandon frasier, Take Rachel instead. Much higher on the hottness scale.

The main female character in the return of the mummy moves a couple of years ago. The wife in "the fountain" she has been in a lot of movies... the enemy at the gates.

very well. I guess we will change it up then.

Yeah she gets the bunnies. I am not sure how the Rabbit population in the Fairbanks area sustains it self. She must bag 10-15 a week. I really should stop it, but it just makes her so happy. It is kind of sad when she is playing with them before they die though.