kimmy

Not to worry, Derek. I'm not worried that the Mosin will be too big for me. I'm still intent on getting that as my first real piece of heavy artillery. I think it's a great combination of the aspects I mentioned-- cheap to buy, cheap to operate, powerful, reliable, aesthetic, historic. Some of other guns might be as good or better in some of these respects, but probably few would compare in all of them. I think it will be fine for the purposes I envision... learning to shoot a big gun with some kick, a traditional bolt-action gun, longer targets, and maybe even hunting some day. But it's definitely too awkward and heavy for me to lug along on a backpack or kayak camping adventure, and those are the situations where I was worried about bear emergencies. Speaking of which, you mentioned that the Mossberg 500 guns might be a reasonable alternative to the higher price Remington 870 you mentioned. Does that also apply to the pistol-grip models? Things like this and especially this kit look like they would be easy enough to lug around and pack. They're short and very light for 12-gauge shotguns. The idea of a pistol-grip shotgun sounds a little shady... you'd probably knock yourself unconscious if you brought it to your eye to sight... but maybe a folding stock, or a laser pointer would make it more useable. -k

Me too The people involved will know what this was about. The rest will just need to take my word for it that this is satire. -k

Don't worry, Shakey! I was never under the impression that a wimpy .22 would be any use against a bear! I was somewhat curious about whether my future Russian battle rifle would be a match for a grizzly... it's 7.62x54 cartriges are apparently very comparable to .30-06, especially coming out of that long barrel. I have read differing opinions on whether that's enough to deal with a grizzly, and I get the impression that the answer probably depends on how well you can shoot. However, the gun itself is nearly as tall as I am, and as such probably wouldn't be very desirable for lugging around on a wilderness trip as a "just in case" weapon anyway. Derek has sold me on the merits of getting a .22 as my "learner's gun", and the Ruger sounds like an excellent choice. I'd mentioned the appeal of the AR7 portability, though Derek's doubts on the durability of it appear to be supported by the experience of many people. I'd been leaning heavily towards the Ruger 10/22 in some form or another, but I just came across this Marlin 70PSS "Papoose" rifle and am undecided again. The Papoose is a takedown rifle, like the AR7, but appears to be more solidly built. This guy raves about it and feels that it's solid enough to be your every-day .22. To me there is a lot of appeal in having something that could easily stuff into a backpack or my kayak. -k

So I posted at great length explaining my choice of the word "persecuted", and pointing out which Christians in America are calling for the beating and killing of gays, and disputing the idea that Christians complaints about religious freedom are no different from atheists (and minority religions) complaining about religious freedoms, and explaining that the reason I care is that this fake victimhood concept is being turned into a push for unwarranted legal and political power. You didn't respond and I don't know if that's because you didn't see the message or you didn't disagree with anything I wrote or if you're just done with this. But I have a question for you: Why don't you care? I know you're no Republican... surely it doesn't sit well with you that Christian leaders are wading into politics in such a partisan way. -k

I missed Mitt Romney, who has accused the Obama administration of waging an "assault" on religion. Indeed, portraying themselves as defenders of religious freedom appears to be part of the Republican game plan, as we saw at the partisan sausagefest that was Darrell Issa's Congressional Oversight Committee hearing called Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama administration trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience? where Republican staffers stood behind the committee holding posters of Martin Luther King and Gandhi. This amendment was defeated soundly, as North Dakotans apparently remembered that their religious freedom is already protected by the US Constitution. -k

I didn't need to read his mind; I read his message and his meaning was certainly clear enough. I'm not sure what "teams" you're talking about or why you're wondering which "team" Canadien is on. You seem to think there's a Christian Team and an Atheist Team here and that Canadien is playing on the wrong team. In fact, there's only Team Sane and Team Nutso, and the only one playing for Team Nutso is you. It should be obvious by now that the other Christians on this message board, and there are quite a few here, want nothing to do with the nonsense you keep posting. The other Christians on this message board do not want to be associated with your insanity, because it is embarrassing to Christians. Nothing you've provided supports that claim. I answered your challenge; you didn't answer mine. Go back through your collection of "facts" and retrieve any that you think deserve further discussion, and we'll discuss them. I am always up for that. I exceeded your request. I didn't just give one book, I gave many. The collected works of Aristotle, Archimedes, and Eratosthenes. However, if you insist on just 1 book, I will go with Eratosthenes "On the measurement of the earth", containing calculations of the circumference of the earth, the distance of the moon, and the distance of the sun, all accurate to within a couple of percent. One book, with at least 3 scientific facts. The Bible: 66 books, zero scientific facts. -k

I almost walked out of this film when I realized that it had nothing to do with Greek mythology, but having told my parole officer I would remain at the theatre for two hours, I had little choice but to remain and catalog the film's many flaws. This film is a fraud, a charade. It is pretending to be something it is not. The lies are many. Noomi Rapace is Swedish, but they have given her an English name in this film. Michael Fassbender pretends to be a robot that is pretending to be human. If they simply had Fassbender be human, the nonsensical robot aspect of the story could have been dropped. Charlize Theron is allegedly South African, yet she is as white as snow. She is a Hollywood liberal pretending to be a corporate executive. The film is set on a world light years away, yet the film was produced entirely on earth. None of the alien creatures in the film have ever been found. Such is the dishonesty of Hollywood. Who is Ridley Scott? What does Ridley Scott know of the future, or of the origin of humanity? Ridley Scott has never been to the future, and surely he has little more idea what will happen in the future than the key grip or makeup artists in this insipid film. Nor does Scott have a PhD in biology. The notions he presents regarding evolution are sheer fantasy. Who is Ridley Scott to challenge the likes of Charles Darwin? Ridley Scott has no more knowledge of evolutionary biology than the actors pretending to be scientists in his film. Like Quentin Tarantino attempting to make a film about a war he never fought in, this lack of verisimilitude makes it impossible to take the film seriously. Ridley Scott has made some considerable number of inane films of little note such as Alien and Bladerunner, and yet somehow got lucky with the classic police drama Black Rain, starring the immortal Andy Garcia. As they plebian saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Or, as Albertans might put it, the sun shines on every dog's ass sometimes. Whatever the metaphor, it is clear that Scott's success with Black Rain was a fluke. And yet Hollywood studios continue to give him money to make nonsensical fare such as Gladiator and Blackhawk Down. It is clear that Hollywood executives are imbeciles who have no business sense. It is clear that they have been blinded by the admittedly spectacular Black Rain, and Ridley Scott has coasted on that success for over two decades. The film uses CGI and 3d technology, which is a gimmick whose time has come and gone, another failed novelty that tries to get people to come to the theatres. 3d is no substitute for good actors or creative stories. Who in Hollywood can tell a story with the arch of an eyebrow as Vivian Leigh once could? Certainly not Noomi Rapace. What good is 3d technology when there is no story worth telling? Give me Black Rain any day. The film typifies Hollywood desperation. They have hired a hack director whose only success was over 20 years ago. He hired a Swede pretending to be English, a white woman pretending to be African, a man pretending to be a robot, high-school dropouts pretending to be scientists. They have put them in a fictional future. They have dishonestly named the film after Greek myth, yet there are no Greeks, ancient or modern, to be found. They have surrounded it all with 3D in the hope that it will keep viewers from noticing the dishonesty of this exercise. IMO, viewers will not be fooled. The meaning of life is not a question for hack directors and 3D and CGI and fake scientists and Swedish actresses pretending to be English. Viewers will find this to be a hollow experience. Someday, Hollywood will realize that these questions are best left to French actors sitting on a couch in a crappy Paris apartment. With subtitles. Le cinema verite, c'est magnifique. --- Could Prometheus have been made in Saudi Arabia, by Muslims? IMV, no. They have no grasp of sarcasm. As well, they're idiots who can barely operate cell-phones, let alone digital 3-d film equipment. It would be proposterous. It bears mentioning that Scott's future contains Christians, but no Muslims. Here, Scott gets it right. Or, as an Albertan might say, the sun shines on every dog's ass sometimes. -k

I figured that it was probably the hardest position to shoot from, and the most realistic. Probably most situations where you're going to be under pressure to shoot well aren't going to come with a rest or a tripod... I knew there are pistol-chambered rifles, but I didn't realize there were rifle-chambered pistols. Is that because 22LR is wimpy, or is it because of the calibre, or because it's rimfire? I gather that some of the other small-calibre rimfire rounds like .17HMR or .22WMR pack a lot more wallop than .22LR... are they completely unrestricted too? Thanks, will look into it. Have looked into the SKS and it might be my 4th gun (if I'm not all gunned out after the .22, the Mosin, and the shotgun...) I don't find it to be nearly as aesthetically pretty as the Nagant, but a gun with a built-in sword sounds handy. And I have never read anybody say anything bad about an SKS, other than that there are no real hunting rounds for it (except zombie-hunting, of course) and that it's not suitable for shooting anything larger than a deer. There seems to be unanimous agreement that the construction and reliability and the fun-factor are all top tier. It sounds like a perfect "yahoo" gun. (as in "Yahoo! Let's go blast some stuff!") Given the incredible popularity of AK47 guns and copycats, I expect there is a huge market for 7.62x39 ammo that manufacturers will want to cash in on. I imagine it'll be around for as long as I need it. The 7.62x54R ammo, on the other hand, doesn't seem nearly as popular in North America, which is my one hesitation about the Mosin. I see that Ruger even makes Hawkeye and Mini-30 rifles for 7.62x39. From what I've read, I get the impression it's an almost perfect round for somebody my size-- pretty powerful and yet manageable in terms of recoil. It's not strictly a matter of wanting to be prepared for some sort of doomsday scenario... it's also that I'd like to someday have that sort of independence. My great-grandparents lived in the most rustic conditions, and I know that they are neither stronger or smarter than me, just equipped with the skills and experience to do so. I'm exceptionally clever and capable, and I could learn those things too. Someday I would like to live in circumstances where it simply wouldn't affect me if a Zombie Apocalypse or complete social or economic meltdown did happen. I often think of my great-grandmother heading off to do her gardening with a bucket and trowel in one hand and her pump-action rifle in the other. That was how she did things, even into her 90s. She had a lot of concerns... but coyotes and blackbears weren't among them. Things were just a little different in the far north of Alberta where they settled. Yikes, is she a Boer? As I understand things, that's one of the most hazardous things in the world. I am glad she is in Canada and not there anymore. That's kind of why I've settled on the Mosin for now and maybe the SKS... they're super affordable and they sound like they're plenty adequate for my purposes at this time. And who knows, if something terrible happens maybe I'll be grateful for the durability and reliability of a real actual war-proven gun. By the way, I really appreciate all the n00b advice you've given me. I probably won't be able to post much for a few days, so if you don't hear from me for a while, don't assume the zombies got me. -k

And I assume I should probably start learning to shoot from a standing position? And just keep increasing distances as I become more proficient? I see. After the zombies wipe out our armed forces and police, there'll be a lot of ammo left over. Makes sense. I'd never carry something that could get my ass in trouble with the 5-0 for owning a prohibited weapon. Although, if some apocalyptic event happened -- zombie bears, perhaps-- and the law ceased to have any meaning... then the Dremel set would come out. Don't you have to phone the RCMP to get a permit each time you want to transport a restricted gun anywhere? And aren't you prohibited from using it anywhere except for at a firing range? I dunno, it seems like a lot of money for a lot of hassle. They do indeed have something like that-- some sort of competitive sport combining period costume and timed target shooting. I don't believe black powder weapons are required-- just stuff that looks vintage. Revolvers and lever action rifles, I gather. Everybody has to dress up and choose a genre alias. I admit that this sort of thing has a sort of appeal, perhaps in the same sense as the Mosin. The mystique of history. Perhaps it's the same sort of thing that makes some people want to keep their Model T's on the road, or find ways to surf the internet on 1980s vintage computers. Were I to get involved in such silliness, however, it would be for the costumes. I would get a dress with a gigantic bustle, and a lace bonnet, and call myself "Calamity Kim McCoy". Lately I have been spending more and more time thinking about being in the wilderness. How far could I go if I stuffed my gear in my backpack and just started walking? Where could I go if I loaded up my kayak and set out to get as far away from civilization as possible? and stuff like that. In part these ideas come from sort of a silly romanticized idea of what it would be like to get away... ...but in other respects it's driven by something darker and more paranoid. Sometimes I have this irrational feeling that maybe some day my life will depend on getting as far away from civilization as possible. Of course a Zombie Apocalypse is the obvious scenario, but it could be something else like a nuclear war or natural disaster or a complete economic or social meltdown that makes everybody turn on everybody else. It's more a feeling than a result of any rational thought process... nonetheless I sometimes feel like we're all going to kill and eat each other like rats trapped in a bucket, and the only way to survive will be to sneak out of the bucket before the other rats realize they're trapped... Anyway, at some point in my life I want to buy the most remote piece of wilderness property I can afford and eventually make a home there. Firearms are probably a necessary part of the lifestyle. So by slugs, you mean this sort of thing? Are there any restrictions on what kind of slugs you can use in Canada? If you're stopped by a conservation officer and he discovers you've got some kind of vicious slugs in your shotgun, are you going to get in trouble? I can't imagine myself getting into it to the point that I needed a rifle that costs more than my car. I think that if I buy an appropriate and decent-quality gun, then if my skills ever reach the point where the limitations of the firearm become a serious concern... I'll be doing really well. -kalamity kim. {"Be ye a Hatfield or a McCoy?"}

Sometimes, Bubber, I think that you're this generation's Samuel Clemens. -k

You're an "authoritah" on many issues. -k

I already discussed my choice of the term "persecuted" earlier, the last time you presented this complaint, so I'll cut and paste my comments here: I think the claim that Christians are persecuted in America is hilarious. Why did I choose "Persecuted Christians" as the title of this thread? Because they keep telling us that they're being persecuted. They tell us that a war is being waged against them by the liberal-secularoid forces, led by "that atheist Muslim Barack Obama, who did not even thank Jesus during his Thanksgiving address." The phrase "war on religion" has been used continuously by Christians and Christian politicians. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry in particular made this a feature of their campaigns and made vowed to "end Obama's war on religion." And although they refer to it as "the war on religion" the only examples they ever seem to find are We heard how Christianity was being oppressed when the US armed forces took down the cross at Camp Pendleton, and when they took the cross off the interfaith chapel at the base in Kandahar, and when they took down the prayer banner from a public school in Rhode Island, and many more. Whenever some atheist group puts up a billboard, we hear Christians crying that it is an attack on their faith. We've heard religious leaders try to present anti-bulling laws as assaults on religion. We heard the Catholic Bishop of Chicago compare the gay rights movement to the KKK. And now we hear that GCB is an attack on Christianity. Shady seemed serious when he said that GCB shows that I have "stumbled onto the truth" about persecution of Christians, and he seemed serious in saying that this thread is once again relevant thanks to "GCB". Yes, these people seem quite convinced that they are being persecuted for their religion. If I recall, the complaint was that some governments are withholding aid money from countries where gays are being persecuted, but not taking a similar stance on countries where Christians are being persecuted. And my response was that there's a key difference: in the countries where funds are being withdrawn due to gays being persecuted, the persecution is being committed by the law and the governments themselves; in the countries where Christians are being persecuted, the persecution is being committed by militias who are beyond the government's control. They can speak out about whatever they wish, but the most powerful and privileged "minority" group in either of our countries is going to have a very hard time convincing people that minor slights and mockery are anything close to persecution. And I think that when discussing claims of hurt feelings, I have been pretty consistent in not making fun of Christians who are saying "this hurts our feelings." I think I have focused on Christians who say "this show hurt our feelings and it should be taken off the TV!" or "this billboard hurts our feelings and it should be taken down!" Well, yes. We know there is. Just in the past month I posted about the "beat your gay kids" pastor, and the "put gays in jail" pastor, and the "put the gays in concentration camps" pastor (who was also the "hang them from white oaks" pastor a few decades ago) and the "the government should execute gays" pastor. And just to emphasize, that's not nutty congregation members, those are pastors. Not the Westboro Baptist Church, either, but real actual bricks and mortar churches in real communities-- Anderson Cooper said that the "concentration camps" guy has a congregation of 1200. And those are just the ones caught on tape, just recently. And-- as with the Muslims-- I have to wonder, if that's what's getting caught on tape, how much is out there that we don't know about? And given the involvement of some American evangelicals with the Uganda politicians behind the efforts to make homosexuality a capital offense in that country, I think it's quite clear that there is a faction within Christianity that believes gays should be exterminated. I hope that it's a small faction, but it's clear that it's out there. I don't believe that many atheists are offended by the sight of religious symbols or the sound of Christmas carols. Atheists are offended when public money is used to support religious purposes (like the atheist in Illinois who sued to try to prevent public funds from being used to repair this monstrosity.) Or religious slogans being installed in public schools and courthouses, or people having to participate in religious ceremonies at the start of secular events like city council meetings. Or slapping Christian symbols on things that are not for the exclusive use of Christians, like prayers on the walls of public schools or flying the Christian Flag over a veterans' memorial. Or bringing Christian evangelists into public schools under the guise of giving anti-drug or anti-bullying presentations-- stuff like this happens a lot. As for banning Christmas carols or whatever the current complaint from Christianists is... it's a straw-man. Dig into it a little deeper and the story always turns into "well at my nephew's school they don't get to sing Silent Night anymore, they have to sing Jingle Bells instead." Well, if I was a teacher or principle with students of all religious backgrounds, I would be extremely uncomfortable having them sing songs praising one particular religious figure. I'd strongly question the judgment of a teacher or principal who felt otherwise. There seems to be this stereotype that atheists are always offended, always looking for something to sue, or whatever... but I think that if you look at each specific case, you'll find that most of them are based on reasonable positions. Christians complain, and atheists complain, so they're all just the same, right? You made that point earlier, and my response was that not all complaints are equal. Generally speaking when atheists complain, they're asserting their own religious freedoms, and generally when Christians complain it's because somebody else has asserted their religious freedoms. There'll be exceptions, but that's the general theme. Here's the story about the Afghanistan cross being removed. Even an ultra-biased right-wing source like TheBlaze concedes that it was against the rules and that it was an interfaith chapel. I like the "they wouldn't have taken it down if it was a Muslim symbol!" and the "what's next, are they going to take away our Bibles?" spin. As for the politicians... just two-- Deadbeat Newt and Brokeback Rick Perry-- used the exact words "war on religion". Why do I care? Because it seems emblematic of a political process that's going on in the US right now... get Christians riled up with the idea that their religious freedom is being taken away and channel their fear to your specific political goal. For example right now North Dakota has an amendment that is going to the polls soon called the "religious liberty" amendment or something similar. It's being sold to the voters as a way to protect religious freedom. Which sounds awesome, right? Because who could be against religious liberty? Except religious liberty is already protected, and the amendment is going to open the door to a wide variety of new religious-based loopholes in laws that were intended to stop discrimination. And it will give religious institutions a way to access public money. -k

For some reason that's what I always think of when AW uses one of these in a post. -k

"Do or not do." -Yoda -k

Mea culpa. I started the "you people" thing earlier in a post addressed to betsy. And when I said it I meant "you people who buy into this Persecuted Christians BS" and there's no doubt that betsy is one of "those people," along with Shady and a variety of politicians and media personalities. Interestingly enough, while AW presented a message that appeals to "those people", AW is not really one of "those people" herself. -k

You have talked me into getting a .22 as my training gun, although I still want to get a Mosin as well. I do want to learn to shoot well. Speaking of: do you suggest a beginner should learn to shoot with the iron sights before getting a scope? Why are AR-15s restricted in Canada, and what makes them more suited to the Zombie Apocalypse than other semi-automatic rifles? As I've been looking through various Canadian online shops, I've seen semi-auto military surplus, a wide variety of military-wannabe type guns in .223 and 7.62, and semi-automatic hunting rifles chambered in extremely powerful ammunition... all classified as non-restricted. Is there something about an AR-15 that makes it more dangerous than an SKS or a Remington .30-06 semi-automatic hunting rifle? Or is it because the SKS looks like an antique and the Remington looks like a hunting rifle and the AR-15 looks like a hi-tech war machine? Personally, I think that going down to the shooting range with a "mall commando" gun would be completely mortifying. I would feel like such a tool if I was out there with a gun that had this gigantic banana-shaped magazine on it that only holds 5 shots. The amount of restrictions about transporting and using restricted weapons made me think it probably wouldn't be worth the money to own one. I do plan to join the gun club here. They also have archery and a variety of activities, so it might be fun. On the survival issue... I have been informed that given my location and my interest in wilderness hiking and camping, I am actually more likely to encounter grizzly bears than zombies. To me this sounds highly controversial and somewhat suspect, but supposing it were true... what are your thoughts on grizzlies? I am well aware that the best way to survive a confrontation with a grizzly is to not have a confrontation with a grizzly and that common sense is your best defense... but if the bear-scat hits the fan and you've got an angry grizzly coming towards you... what would you reach for? A gun? Pepper spray? Or just go straight to the fetal position and protect your head? If the answer is a gun, then what kind? I have read differing opinions about whether a .30-06 is adequate, and my future Mosin is (as I understand it) a couple of notches below a .30-06 in terms of power. I have also read that the high-powered magnum rifle rounds that are more effective against grizzlies are outside the realm of what the average shooter (let alone someone my size) can operate effectively. Any thoughts on bear defense? Once I have my shooting fundamentals down, I want to learn to shoot at longer range, and I am skeptical that a .22, however accurate, is a good choice for that. Although, a Mosin might not be either, due to the limitations inherent to an antique. -k

Only to the extent that she believes Christians are the targets of injustice... only to the extent that she agrees with the claims of Christian victimhood that this thread has ridiculed since day 1. Only those who are claiming they're the targets of religious persecution. Persecution is very real for Christians in the Middle East and Africa... but a laughable claim for those in the United States and (as you pointed out) Canada. And it's those claims that this thread has discussed from the start. This isn't about Christian spiritual beliefs, it's about much more earthly claims. This is about those who call for beating or killing gays then howl that their religious beliefs are being attacked. And those who cry that their religious freedom is being oppressed because they're not allowed to make people sit through a Christian prayer at the start of council meetings. And those who claimed that Christianity was under attack when they made them take down the 12-foot tall cross that dumb-ass Marines nailed to the all-faiths chapel at a base in Afghanistan. And those who campaigned to be President on the promise of "ending Obama's war on religion". And on and on. These are things that can be discussed without any claim of knowledge of the origin of the universe or what lies beyond. -k

I'd say that for the past few pages, this thread has been more DesCartman than DesCartes... -k

It was quite some time ago and while I recall shooting it, I no longer recall the physical sensation. I was probably somewhere around 90 pounds at the time, and yet I don't recall any problem with recoil or controlling it. It had a scope on it, and I was very close to my targets, though I didn't kill any of them... which I don't feel bad about actually. So, basically "cool" guns that appeal to guys who grew up playing video games and want to imagine they're commandos? If the RPAL training and exam are available at the same time as I do my PAL training and exam, I'll get both. The portability of the survival .22 has great appeal. Could be easily stowed in my kayak when I go on a wilderness trip. They're even waterproof, I gather. edit to add: what about some of the other brands? Remington and Marlin also have value-priced .22 offerings. -k

A Ruger 10/22 is the first (and only) gun I've ever shot! A cousin took me and my brother out to shoot gophers once, a long time ago. Will look into the RPAL... not terribly interested in pistols, and not exactly sure what "black rifles" are. I have noticed a number of other .22LR semis on the market for considerably cheaper than the Ruger (Mossberg, Savage, Henry collapsible survival rifle thingy.) Is the Ruger worth the extra money? -k

Dear gun enthusiasts, I recently watched a documentary that caused me to rethink my zombie preparedness strategy. It appears there is some evidence that being cut or bitten by zombies may cause contamination; therefore I am now questioning martial arts as a zombie defense strategy. As a result I'll be taking a firearms course soon and should be getting my license shortly thereafter. Once I have my PAL, I am planning on buying something, and I am considering a Mosin-Nagant as my first purchase. They're dirt cheap, they appear to be very economical to operate, and I'm really drawn to the history and the aesthetics of the weapon. From what I have read, I get the impression that they're also entirely viable guns for recreational shooting and even hunting. What do you guys think? Is this an appropriate first rifle for a beginner? (I am just 5'5, but solidly built and physically very capable, if such things are a consideration.) -k

(...) (...) All of this is attacking a strawman, based on a misconception about what an "atheist" actually is. Many people seem intent on believing that an atheist is someone who believes with certainty that there is no god. In fact an atheist is someone who does not believe in god or gods; those who claim factual certainty on the matter are a minority. Even Richard Dawkins will not claim absolute certainty on the matter. While the difference might seem semantic, it's significant from a philosophical point of view. Do I believe in leprechauns? No. But neither can I claim to have certain proof that there are no leprechauns. Who, specifically? The only one I can recall for sure is that kid that keeps getting banned. -k

Hardly. Your point was clear enough, it just wasn't a very good point. -k

Megachurch pastor John Hagee is feeling a little persecuted, and he's telling the world: As the video shows, John is mad that the Ten Commandments have been removed from courthouses. And he's mad that the government has offended his god by recognizing "Satanism and witchcraft" (I think the word he's looking for is "Wicca") as official religions in the Armed Forces. Like Rick Santorum's buddy , John Hagee's advice is that if you're not a Christian, you should get the fuck out of America.I would suggest to Mr Hagee that the reason the Ten Commandments have been removed from courthouses is that courthouses are not religious institutions. If Mr Hagee is upset with the fact that the government of the United States is secular and not religious, perhaps he is the one who should leave. If he wishes to live in a theocracy, he could find one somewhere in the middle east... -k

Of course you agree with it. It's the kind of false equivalency that you people just love. -k