The answer to the gun problem

[jab1]

(pldennison has said he will no longer respond to me. I post this in case he is still lurking. Whether or not he changes his mind and decides to reply anyway is up to him.) (And his comments are in bold.)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pldennison *

I assume most people would not do something for which they would be remorseful later.

Sometimes people have no choice.

There are ALWAYS choices. It’s just that some choices are more difficult to make.

If it comes to the life of my wife or the life of a criminal aggressor, I choose my wife.

You’re right, I never should have suggested that you do this. But the point I was (poorly) trying to make earlier was that only in extremely rare occaisions is it necessary to kill someone in order to resolve a situation. All too often, people simply kill the person because that’s the quick, easy way to resolve things. And guns make this even easier to accomplish. (Physically easy, that is. Psychologically easy? I sure hope not.) They do it simply because they don’t want to assume the burden and the risk of taking care of a dangerous person. Leaving him alive is the right thing to do, and it’s also the more difficult thing to do. The right choice is nearly always the more difficult one.

Until then, you’re just practicing armchair ethics from the comfort of an ivory tower. Don’t fall out; you might get hurt.

You have no idea how or where I live. (Well, if you look at my profile, you’d get a glimpse.) I live in Downtown Los Angeles. It doesn’t have the highest crime rate in the city, but it’s close. (Hollywood is more dangerous, IIRC.) Some of my relatives (in particular a first cousin) know where I live and are completely mystified that I don’t carry a gun or at least a really big knife or just live somewhere else. (The rent is cheap. And it’s convenient to public transportation {when the drivers aren’t on strike!}) How do I survive? Common sense. I seldom go out after dark. (But I’m a day person anyway. This is no hardship.) I choose bus lines that drop me off right at my front door. I try not to visit ATMs after dark, and if I do, never withdraw more than $20. I’m considering carrying a big-ass metal-cased flashlight both for self-protection and to illuminate certain ill-lit sections of the street. Not once have I ever felt the need to carry a gun.

Which is exactly what appalls me. All human life is of equal value.

That’s not what you said, what, four posts ago? You said some people are superior to others. So which is it? Do you want to stick with that point, or this one? You can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.

No one is so inferior that he deserves to be killed.

Anyone can be reformed.

Not true, but we’ll get to this. The recidivism rate for pedophiles is somewhere near 99%.

What do pedophiles have to do with this? (And if this is true, it’s possible that pedophilia is genetic; they were born that way. Are all people natural-born killers? I believe some are and you mentioned two: Gacy and Bundy. I’m going off on a tangent here, but I believe that some people are more susceptible to their instincts than others. It’s more difficult for them to control their baser impulses. Either their self-control is too weak and cannot be made strong, or their instincts are too strong or both.)

You are attempting to reduce a very complex issue concerning the purpose and intent of the criminal justice system to a single issue of money,

I guess I just imagined reading and hearing people complain that they didn’t want the government to spend their tax dollars on prison reform. On a current death penalty thread, one or two posters say they don’t want to pay for killers to live in luxury, as if ANY American prison was luxurious.

I’m not going to address the strawman of war. It has nothing to do with penal theory or gun control. I certainly am not going to address collateral damages or the killing of civilians in wartime; it has nothing to do with the topic.

You brought it up when you asked if the Allies had used Nerf balls in WW2.

If you don’t think it would be quickly replaced by the next most likely method (to commit suicide), you are a naive fool.

I had considered jumping off a building myself, so I am well aware there is more than one way to do it. If a building was inaccessible, I was going to try drowning. Both these methods were not readily available, so I am still here. (There was time for someone to physically intervene.) But if a gun had been at hand…

Furthermore, just because suicides comprised the largest category of gun deaths does not mean that gun deaths comprised the largest category of suicides. Don’t make that assumption.

Point conceded.

Should I make my wife go get an abortion to prove that we are pro-choice?

No, I don’t want you to make your wife give up her right to choose to prove she has the right to choose.

Drugs harm only the users.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that drug addiction harms the family of the user in subtle but real ways. I happen to support legalization, but that doesn’t make the mother and child wondering where their crackhead husband/father is tonight any less real.

I meant drugs cause physical harm to the users only. (Why do I have to make that so clear? Why isn’t it obvious?) And I’m well aware of how drugs cause emotional harm to the users’ friends and families. My father died from smoking excessively. You think we never wished he had had a different habit? His brother was an alcoholic and it very nearly killed him. You think we never wished he had not drank?

**You are so irrational as regards this topic, jab, that I am going to cease speaking to you. You are in no position to be convinced or to compromise, despite having a head filled with untruths and half-rendered notions based on poor information. That’s the very definition of unreasonable. **

If cold reason leads one to the conclusion that it’s sometimes all right to kill people, there’s something to be said for emotionalism if it leads one to the conclusion that no one deserves to die.

[jab1]

Originally posted by jab1
Did we go to the Moon because it was easy or because it was hard?

Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddley
We went 'cuz, until then, Russia had dominated the space scene, and a lunar landing was considered an even race. I see no corrolation to guns, gun control, gun banishment, or the second amendment.

It corrolates to the perhaps impossible goal of disarming the world because it’s more courageous (and will make the world safer) than allowing things to stay the way they are or get worse. Perhaps you remember JFK’s speech justifying going to the Moon “not because it is easy, but because it is hard.” Doing something because it is easy isn’t just lazy, it’s also cowardly.

What have you done to accomplish this goal, to eliminate this need for guns to defend yourself?

I’ve pointed out to ignorant dicks like yourself that current and desired future gun control measures only fuck over people like me, who are responsible and educated and law-abiding in the use of firearms.

So you have tried to eliminate the need for guns to protect yourself by trying to prove you need guns to protect yourself. (And pldennison calls ME irrational.)

That being said, what have YOU done to accomplish your goals? Aside from whining and spouting factless bullshit, of course.

Besides posting here, where I can reach many people, I also speak in favor of gun control to anyone who asks (that is, those I can trust not to get angry and shoot me for wanting them to give up their weapons. I would not have this conversation with you in real life. I don’t trust you to keep your cool. I damn sure wouldn’t talk to you at all if I knew you were armed at the time.) I also vote for candidates who believe as I do on this issue. Are you registered to vote? Or do you refuse, believing it will make it easier for the black helicopters to find you? Or is it because you don’t want to be called to jury duty?

Have you tried video games? They, too, can help one develop hand-eye coordination. Or is there some other reason you engage in target shooting?

Yes, I have. Quake 3 is extremely fun. However, if you had an ounce of sense you would know there’s a difference between looking at a computer screen while tapping some buttons, and holding a handgun and getting a bullseye from fifty yards.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Pac-Man. I guess I should have asked you if you ever try non-violent video games.

The games are fun not because they involve “guns”, but because they involve many fantasy elements that cannot be replicated in real life. Target shooting involves reality that cannot be replicated in a computer game.

Yeah, shooting a gun gives you a sense of power, doesn’t it? Don’t deny it. That’s what you don’t want to give up. I feel rather powerful without them and don’t need to own one. I guess you do. And why engage in target shooting if not to get better at killing something? And what does it say about the mental state of a person who finds learning how to be a better killer to be a whole lotta fun?

I suggest: Take guns away from people before they kill somebody.

Punish somebody before they even do anything?

Why wait till after someone is dead? (And why do you see it as punishment? I see it as saving your life and that of others.) I hope you rest easy in the grave if you are killed by someone who had no business handling a gun. Maybe you are willing to take that kind of a risk, but I’m not. Some risks are reasonable; others are not. Some risks can be avoided; the rest cannot. We obviously disagree on which can and which cannot.

What kind of a dumbshit are you? I can draw corrolaries with cars, knives, airplanes… heck, even ropes, gloves, the Internet, prescription drugs…

Pointless corrolaries, yes. As I have stated before, things like that are necessary for our day-to-day lives and they were NOT designed to kill people, though many of those things can be used that way. (IOW, using a car or a rope to kill someone is MIS-using that item. Using a gun to kill is using it for its designed purpose. How many more times do I have to say this?)

[Biffer_Spice]

[hijack]
jab1 - your posting makes a lot of sense to me.
Just adding my support, as you seem to be getting attacked from all sides.
runs away again and hides in the corner in case he gets shot
[/hijack]

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Max Torque *
I’ve fired a Chinese-made SKS, and it’s a fun gun to shoot. Very accurate.

I have fired guns. I didn’t find it fun at all, even though I was pretty accurate. It simply didn’t turn me on. (Sexual metaphor used deliberately.) I don’t think it was because I was firing the wrong make or model, though. (Don’t ask me which one. It was so long ago, I could not possibly remember.)

Sure, the U.S. has more gun crime than the U.K., but the U.S. has always had more crime in general than the U.K.; it’s a societal thing, and banning guns tomorrow would not magically transform the States into Britain.

True, but it would be a start.

Besides, violent crime in the U.S. is on the decline, and it’s declining fastest in the states with liberalized gun-carry laws (see Lott’s work).

I have no facts to back me up, but maybe crime is declining because crime is a young person’s activity and young people are a smaller proportion of the population than they used to be? If it really is going down faster in the right-to-carry states, maybe it’s a coincidence. Will Lott still be held in such high regard if the crime rate starts going up again across the board?

A greater number of armed citizens increases the risk to the criminal.

It also increases the risk that some innocent bystander will be accidentally killed by some clown who thinks he’s the goddamn Lone Ranger. Or Tonto. I don’t care if I’m killed by the criminal or by some yahoo vigilante; I’m just as dead either way. Two people firing their guns are more dangerous than one.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**Are we going to blow arguments out of proportion? Run around like raving lunatics claiming that the sky is falling? **

If the sky really is falling, who’s the lunatic?

[jab1]

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**The fears of the people are fueled by the sensationalist media.

**Then it’s also possible that the world is not as dangerous as that same media would have us believe, meaning y’all don’t need guns to protect yourselves because there aren’t as many criminals out there as you seem to think. (Please note that I did not say there are NONE.)

Writer Michael Ventura once wrote that TV news was designed to make the world seem more dangerous than it really is so people would be too scared to do more than stay home and watch TV. Has it succeeded?

**I suggest removing the rights of citizens on the basis of a perceived problem is an extremely lousy way to make law. Especially when it involves one of our fundamental rights delineated in the Constitution. **

I suggest that allowing citizens to keep guns based on the perception that the crime rate is too high (and more than one anti-gun control poster has said the rate is declining) makes for poor public policy whether that right is delineated in the Constitution or the Ten Commandments or on someone’s t-shirt. (Yes, I’m aware that the right to own guns is not in the Ten Commandments. I was making another one of them corollaries that SPOOFE seems to have trouble comprehending.)

A gun-rights advocate here has said American society is inherently more violent than Britain’s. What if the Constitution is the reason? What if it grants us more freedom than the majority knows how to handle? Would it not behoove us to change it? (I’d prefer we change the majority, but that’s another one of them exceedingly difficult goals I mentioned earlier.)

I’m curious: How low would the crime rate have to be before y’all feel safe enough to junk your guns? Or do you guys seriously believe that you could stop the gubbernmint with a bunch’a huntin’ rifles and shotguns (or even automatic weapons)? Or do you think you could shoot down Chinese nukes with them?

(I’m not done yet, but I’m not going to keep this thread alive on my own. I realize that my conduct earlier was rude. But I got your attention, didn’t I? It served a purpose.)

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Biffer Spice *
**[hijack]
jab1 - your posting makes a lot of sense to me.
Just adding my support, as you seem to be getting attacked from all sides.
runs away again and hides in the corner in case he gets shot
[/hijack] **

I know where you can get a good bullet-proof vest cheap. (Not that I really own one.)

[pldennison]

And pldennison calls ME irrational

I not only think you’re irrational, I think it’s quite possible that you are insane, in the most literal and derogatory sense of the word.

–You are possessed of an irrational, baseless fear that Max Torque or someone else would literally pull a gun out and shoot you dead on the spot because they disagree with your politics.

–You would refuse to speak to someone who was armed, out of a completely paranoid and irrational fear that your life is in imminent danger.

–You insultingly and groundlessly ascribe motives of power-hunger and a sexual element to hobby target shooters.

–You think that maybe the way to stop a rape or murder in progress is, apparently, to talk nicely to the perpetrator (ignoring the fact that most defensive gun uses don’t even result in a killing or even a discharge–simply brandishing the weapon is usually enough to get the perpetrator to flee).

Yep, I think it’s a very good possibility that you literally suffer from a serious mental illness that manifests itself as irrational paranoia.

As far as your other tripe:

–Don’t paint me with some brush soaked with the opinions of others on prison reform. You’re going to end up choking on your words.

–If some woman is confronted with a man, larger and stronger than she is, who surprises her, overpowers her, and attempts to force her to have painful, traumatic sexual intercourse, I applaud any effort she makes to defend herself and prevent this crime from occurring, up to and including shooting, stabbing, macing, or otherwise incapacitating the perpetrator.

–I bet it’s real edifying to sit around thinking you are morally superior to other people. And you dare to accuse others of being on a power trip? What spectacular, egotistical hypocrisy!

–Everybody deserves to die, a fact given credence by the fact that we all do. Every one of us. And if someone places himself in a position where he may make an early exit, by virtue of the fact that he attempts to rape, rob or murder another person, forgive me for not shedding a bitter tear for him.

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
–You are possessed of an irrational, baseless fear that Max Torque or someone else would literally pull a gun out and shoot you dead on the spot because they disagree with your politics.

Er, for the record, I have no plans to shoot jab1 or anyone else. Although there are some clay pigeons that should be watchin’ their backs on Saturday.

(I know what you really meant, pld, ya lovable fellow gun rights advocate, ya.)

[Max_Torque]

sigh…I’ll wager this’ll wind up falling on deaf ears, but what the hey:

*Originally posted by jab1 *
I have fired guns. I didn’t find it fun at all, even though I was pretty accurate. It simply didn’t turn me on. (Sexual metaphor used deliberately.) I don’t think it was because I was firing the wrong make or model, though. (Don’t ask me which one. It was so long ago, I could not possibly remember.)

So don’t fire them. No one’s making you go to the shooting range. But some of us, who do find it fun, would like to keep the right to do so, thankyaverymuch.

True, but it would be a start.

A start toward what? Becoming like Britain, where one in three young criminals is armed, but citizens have no means to defend themselves against armed assailants? Yeah, it’d be like a dream come true.

I have no facts to back me up, but maybe crime is declining because crime is a young person’s activity and young people are a smaller proportion of the population than they used to be? If it really is going down faster in the right-to-carry states, maybe it’s a coincidence. Will Lott still be held in such high regard if the crime rate starts going up again across the board?

Here, you admit that you have no facts, and you propose an inane, baseless hypothetical. Is this how debating’s done on your planet?

It also increases the risk that some innocent bystander will be accidentally killed by some clown who thinks he’s the goddamn Lone Ranger. Or Tonto. I don’t care if I’m killed by the criminal or by some yahoo vigilante; I’m just as dead either way. Two people firing their guns are more dangerous than one.

By all means, supply me with some bystander mortality statistics. You need to be willing to do research to support your allegations.

[SPOOFE]

Hey, Chuckles, nice to see you’re still around… we need a Court Jester…

Doing something because it is easy isn’t just lazy, it’s also cowardly.

And passing new gun laws is the HARD way out? Think of this, you intellectual sloth… which would be tougher, actually recruiting the manpower and instituting the policies to stop black market gun sales, ensure that those willing to break the law WON’T break the law, and begin wide-scale education programs that minimize the likelihood of gun accidents… or passing more anti-gun legislation which, as history has proven, does jack shit except get the instigators of such legislation elected?

So you have tried to eliminate the need for guns to protect yourself by trying to prove you need guns to protect yourself. (And pldennison calls ME irrational.)

You really aren’t all home, are you? Here it is, loud and clear… if legislation removes guns from the hands of the law-abiding while doing nothing about guns in the hands of the law-breaking, the need for guns for home defense will increase. I don’t see what’s so difficult about those mathematics.

Besides posting here, where I can reach many people, I also speak in favor of gun control to anyone who asks

Except you know none of the facts surrounding gun control, so the best you can do is confuse people. Here’s a thought (you do know what a “thought” is, don’t you?)… why don’t you stick to teletubbies instead?

I don’t trust you to keep your cool.

Oh, yes, you’ve certainly been the model of self-restraint.

Are you registered to vote? Or do you refuse, believing it will make it easier for the black helicopters to find you? Or is it because you don’t want to be called to jury duty?

Yup, I am registered to vote. It was one of the better joys of this year. I also look forward to the day when I get called on jury duty, because it means I will be doing service to my country.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Pac-Man. I guess I should have asked you if you ever try non-violent video games.

How about The Sims? Oh, wait, people can die in that… what about Roller Coaster Tycoon? Nope, that’s out, because people can vandalize your park… hmm… Super Mario Bros? Still no, you squash Goomba’s and Koopa’s… I guess Pac-Man is - no, wait, you get attacked by ghosts, that’s HORRIBLY violent…

I guess all I’m left with is Pong, unless the thought of a dot bouncing back and forth is too violent.

Yeah, shooting a gun gives you a sense of power, doesn’t it? Don’t deny it.

Okay, I won’t deny it. It’s similar to the sense of power you get when driving a car, or casting a ballot, or playing a game, or playing a sport.

That’s what you don’t want to give up. I feel rather powerful without them and don’t need to own one. I guess you do.

Nope. I like to shoot guns because (deep breath here) it’s fun. Like shooting a bow and arrow (which I also enjoy), except with a bit more noise.

And why engage in target shooting if not to get better at killing something?

Maybe… because it’s FUN?!? What, are you selectively illiterate or something?

I have fired guns.

You, sir, are not only full of shit, but you’re a liar, too. If you have fired guns, then why do you seem to know nothing about their basic principles and usage?

I have no facts to back me up

That’s the understatement of the century.

If the sky really is falling, who’s the lunatic?

Let’s see some proof that the sky is falling first. You know what? You have none. Dumbshit.

[Biffer_Spice]

originally excreted by Anthracite:
Jesus F. Christ - you can’t even get that one right?..
It must be my uncivilized American brain…
No, I’m sick to shit of Brits repeating the same old refrain of “we don’t have any guns over here”…
Anyhow, yes, I’m going to leave Biffer alone now - I’ve made whatever point I started out with (I think).

Read the fucking post, arsewipe, it says (as do my replies) that the post you’re spitting blood about (but agreeing with when put into different terms) was written by, guess what, A FUCKING AMERICAN!! Stop going on about me being a Brit. I copied and pasted that fucking little routine, as it summed up what I wanted to say. Trouble is, it ain’t just this little tea-drinking Brit’s opinion, it’s an American’s too. Whatever point you started out with wasn’t really worth bothering about.

[pldennison]

jab, I was not aware at the time I posted yesterday that you suffered from clinical depression and were taking medication for same, so I apologize if my comments were needlessly insulting and offensive. Nevertheless, I stand firm in my opinion that your thoughts on gun control are based in irrational, groundless fears and that you appear to subscribe to an unreasonable ethic that equates killing an innocent human being with killing in self-defense.

[jab1]

Apology accepted, pldennison. We may disagree, but you are a man of honor.

You’re not the first person to notice my paranoid streak. I’ve been in therapy for it. It used to be WORSE.

Now, for Diddley: Why am I so ignorant about guns? Because I haven’t fired one in TWENTY-FOUR FUCKING YEARS!!! Knowledge is forgotten when it is not reinforced through repetition.

It was in Navy boot camp. (Surprised I was ever in the military? Keep reading.) That was the last time I ever fired a rifle. I got a pretty high score, too, but because it’s been 24 years, I don’t remember exactly what it was. (28 out of a possible 32, IIRC.) The other guys looked at me and said I HAD to be a liar when I said I’d never fired a rifle before. Hey, weird shit happens. It only meant that I had excellent hand-eye coordination and a properly-made pair of eyeglasses.

Why did I join the Navy? My father talked me into it. Why did he do it? Because he regretted leaving the Army. He could’ve stayed in for as long as he wanted, but his parents needed him back home to help keep the farm. Then he met my mother because she was friends with his sister and…

Anyway, joining the Navy was the worst mistake I have ever made. (Also, I had this nutty idea I could become a Nuclear Power Technician and get a high-paying civilian job when my enlistment was up. But I flunked Nuke School because I didn’t know a THING about trigonometry because my high school didn’t teach it.) I just did NOT fit in and was, in fact, kicked out before my enlistment was up for that reason. It says on my Medical Discharge papers “Failure to adapt to military life.” Or words to that effect. Again, it’s been YEARS since I’ve looked at them.

I may not have been the model of restraint, but at least I’m not armed. Being unarmed makes me less dangerous than you.

Nice to hear that you’re a registered voter and willing to be a juror. So am I. Wonder what would happen if we were ever on the same jury? :eek:

And I bet our votes are gonna cancel each other out next month.

Have a nice day.

Max: This is not Great Debates where people calmly and rationally debate the Pressing Issues of the Day. This is the BBQ Pit, the place for ranting and raving. Besides, by saying upfront that I had no facts, I was making a disclaimer. You DO know what a disclaimer is? Care to point me to where the “bystander mortality statistics” are kept? I would study them, if they actually existed. I bet they don’t. If they do, I’LL STUDY THEM.

Have a nice day.

[UncleBeer]

From jab1:

Then it’s also possible that the world is not as dangerous as that same media would have us believe, meaning y’all don’t need guns to protect yourselves because there aren’t as many criminals out there as you seem to think. (Please note that I did not say there are NONE.)

Sure, it’s possible, but why should I be have to take that chance? Is it not immoral to force me to take that chance?

[Demise]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jab1 *
**

Originally posted by pldennison *
Does one have to agree with everything another person did or said before one may quote that person? Another poster here (Demise) has a Jefferson quote about the right to own guns in her sig line even though Jefferson also believed women whould not be allowed to vote or engage in politics, something Demise does NOT agree with at all.*

I’m not a woman, moron.

What, just because I want women to be able to vote, makes me one? I guess I should expect that kind of logic given the way you’ve been arguing on this thread.

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
Max: This is not Great Debates where people calmly and rationally debate the Pressing Issues of the Day. This is the BBQ Pit, the place for ranting and raving. Besides, by saying upfront that I had no facts, I was making a disclaimer. You DO know what a disclaimer is? Care to point me to where the “bystander mortality statistics” are kept? I would study them, if they actually existed. I bet they don’t. If they do, I’LL STUDY THEM.

Hey, good point, this is the Pit…

Listen, you beetle-brained sack of week-old goat manure, it’s not my job to do your research. Prefacing a statement with “I have no facts to back me up, but…” doesn’t mean we have to accept whatever verbal excrement dribbles forth from you thereafter. If you have no facts, shut the hell up.

And you have a nice day too, y’hear.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Demise *
I’m not a woman, moron.

What, just because I want women to be able to vote, makes me one? I guess I should expect that kind of logic given the way you’ve been arguing on this thread.
**

Sorry.

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Biffer Spice *
**

originally excreted by Anthracite:
Jesus F. Christ - you can’t even get that one right?..
It must be my uncivilized American brain…
No, I’m sick to shit of Brits repeating the same old refrain of “we don’t have any guns over here”…
Anyhow, yes, I’m going to leave Biffer alone now - I’ve made whatever point I started out with (I think).

Read the fucking post, arsewipe, it says (as do my replies) that the post you’re spitting blood about (but agreeing with when put into different terms) was written by, guess what, A FUCKING AMERICAN!! Stop going on about me being a Brit. I copied and pasted that fucking little routine, as it summed up what I wanted to say. Trouble is, it ain’t just this little tea-drinking Brit’s opinion, it’s an American’s too. Whatever point you started out with wasn’t really worth bothering about. **

Wow - it took you nearly 12 days to get up the courage to post this? Did you think I was going to go away?

You still refuse to address my question of why you chose to post inflammatory, incorrect information irrelevant to the topic at the time. Until you 'fess up, all other points you make are irrelevant.

[SPOOFE]

I may not have been the model of restraint, but at least I’m not armed. Being unarmed makes me less dangerous than you.

Less dangerous how? Less dangerous to YOUR deluded political beliefs? Thank you, I’m glad that my knowledge and rationality threatens your twisted, ingnorance-driven existence.

Wonder what would happen if we were ever on the same jury?

Chances are you’d be kicked off after two days, due to mental instability.

“Your honor, I’d just like to point out that my fellow jury-mate Chuckles is foaming at the mouth and wearing a tin-foil triangle hat.”

And I bet our votes are gonna cancel each other out next month.

Hey, that’s all right. That’d be one less vote for… who were you voting for?.. oh, that’s right, Ronald McDonald.

Have a nice day.

Thank you. You do the same.