As Washington addresses the issue of reforming America's gun laws, their sights should not be aimed at federal policy, but at those of the fifty states.
In my last article on gun policy, "Does America Have The Safety On?" I discussed how and where the federal government could improve its regulatory controls on firearms, since deficiencies in policy enable proliferation, instead of restricting it. This week's article focuses on gun control at the state level where laws vary widely, and in many cases are more permissive than federal statutes that regulate the same types of weapon. Few realize that 39 of 50 states require the granting of a weapons permit without consideration of why an applicant wants one or what they plan to use a weapon for. Many allow long-barrel rifles and shotguns to be carried in public places while loaded and without a license, and there are even localities within states that allow firearms to be carried in places expressly prohibited by federal law. As Washington takes to the gun control debate, revising the permissive policies of the states should be at the forefront of any discussion with emphasis on how states grant weapons permits, and amending "shall-Issue" provisions.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Igor
The plain English assertion of a condition in the second amendment is remarkable because the Founders attached no such qualifier to anything else in the Bill Of Rights. For example, they didn't say that free speech is for townhall meetings, thus implying that newspapers might be censored.
Also, the founders themselves seem to have had no fondness for guns. There are no paintings of founders brandishing guns (yet it's common to see modrn gun fans on the internet brandishing their weapons). I don't even know of a painting of a Founder standing with his rifle and displaying game. I know of no written accounts by a Founder even of hunting or shooting an invading bear.
I conclude that the Founders had a different mindset from the modern gun nut. Perhaps they thought it would be nice for every adult male to have a weapon in the closet for an emergency. I seem to recall that early governments established standards for ammo so as to promote interchangeability. That's gun control.
27 - Igor
I talked to a few duck hunters this morning at the duckboat launch ramp. I asked if they'd like a 7 shot clip and they laughed: hard enough to bring down a duck or two with the statutory 3 shot clip. But these guys are good shots and generally fill their bags (7 birds) or close to it, in about 5 hours. Even if some are the despised "spoonies" (Northern Shovelers).
I'll say it again: no hunter needs a 7 shot clip. Hunting rifles and shotguns are usually designed with 5 shot clips.
28 - Dr Dreadful
There's a difference between the argument from authority (an informal fallacy) and citing an authority in support of an argument.
In the fallacy, the authority called upon need not have any expertise in the subject under discussion. So, for instance, the statement "Stephen Hawking favours gun control, therefore gun control is justified" is fallacious. (I've no idea what the good Professor's views on guns are: I'm just using him as an illustration.)
Clav, on the other hand, cites the United States Supreme Court. The fact that these are the nine most senior judges in the country, with several hundred years of collective legal and judicial experience and knowledge under their belts, is germane, as is the fact that the specific decree he cites is their interpretation of the Second Amendment. Since we are discussing the legal scope of efforts to regulate firearms, Clav's invocation of the Supremes is valid, not fallacious.
29 - Igor
Sorry, I displaced from the thread on taxes over at: tax talk.
30 - Alexander J Smith III
-Igor
I'm with Dr. Dreadful and Clavos on this one. SCOTUS has ruled on the issue and much of that ruling isn't as questionable as some of their other recent decisions. Additionally, you have to consider that the "sporting purpose" addition to what constitutes a "traditionally lawful purpose" when using a firearm is connected with BATFE regulation of firearms under the NFA. As a Federal statute, States are not compelled (nor can they be at present) to also use this standard, no matter how fair or more appropriate it may be.
31 - Alexander J Smith III
-Dr. Dreadful
To your point about "good cause" reqs, I'm not sure that to require a person to detail said information prior to the issuance of a weapons permit would be a violation of the First Amendment, since that law doesn't expressly (or even implicitly) grant a right to "privacy". Really the Fourth Amendment comes closest to implying such a right but again, doesn't actually say something to that effect.
I also think using driver's licenses isn't a proper parallel for weapons permits considering that firearms and vehicles have two entirely different purposes. A car isn't , inherently, designed to kill another living thing and in fact most are built to prevent that from happening. Firearms are built for killing living things, whether that be animals or people, they're made to be efficient at ending life. With this in mind, I don't think it's unreasonable to require a person seeking a device meant for killing to explain what they need or want such a device for. I agree that a person would more than likely not divulge a plot to murder, but I think the requirement is important to meet the SCOTUS test of whether or not the applicant intends to use a firearm for a "traditionally lawful purpose". Without it the State is just blindly issuing a permit without credence to the scope of the Second Amend. protections.
32 - Igor
SCOTUS is welcome to interpret constitutional law, but it cannot change the constitution. That requires certain specified actions.
Where there is doubt, the SCOTUS can step in. But when the language is as clear as the 2nd amendment they cannot unilaterally change that language.
Thus, we have to refer preferentially to the 2nd as it was cast by The Founders.
So all that Obama has to do, as Commander In Chief is declare a Continental Militia, and that gun owners have volunteered to join by purchasing a weapon.
If there's any problem: Impeach John Roberts.
33 - Dr Dreadful
Igor, you are equally welcome to interpret constitutional law, but in cases of ambiguity somebody's interpretation needs to prevail. Your sense that guaranteed gun ownership is conditional on the need for a militia is one interpretation. You feel that the Founder's intent was quite clear. I also feel that the Founders' intent was quite clear, yet my interpretation differs from yours, and so apparently does that of SCOTUS. I would also hazard a guess that the members of said august body have almost infinitely more practical experience in interpreting constitutional law than you do.
My personal position, for clarification, is as follows: Guns are not the problem. The totemic status to which guns have been elevated in American culture is the problem.
34 - Igor
As I said before, it's not a matter of interpretation. It's not a contest between my interpretation and SCOTUS' interpretation.
The plain language of the 2nd is:
"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 I know, and you know, that for many years the gun folk studiously avoid that qualifying phrase because they dislike it. I suppose they think that by repeatedly leaving it out that eventually other people will forget that phrase exists.
I suppose that the Roberts SCOTUS sought to favor their clients by ommitting that phrase, thus making it seem that we all were going to forget it. But I haven't forgotten.
But to exclude that phrase is not simply to interpret, it is to actually change the 2nd amendment.
Now that is "strict construction".
Furthermore, reviewing the history and writings of the Founders and retaining the qualifying phrase is "originalism" in its purest form.
My conclusion: SCOTUS is throwing a bone to their political claque by legislating from the bench.
35 - troll
Igor - as the 'prefatory clause' is treated at length grammatically and historically in the majority opinion of Heller I'm not clear on your use of 'exclude'
36 - Igor
I use "exclude" in the same sense as, IMO, gun fans do: "if the prefatory clause is excluded from all utterances then people will forget about it".
It's thought control.
37 - Dr Dreadful
Igor, what in the history and writings of the Founders suggests to you that they intended the Second Amendment protections to lapse in the event that citizen militias were to become obsolete?
38 - Igor
I don't think the Founders intended the second to lapse. Why are you putting words in my mouth?
I notice that the Founders said:
"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."
They did NOT say for example:
"Because personal security is so important, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They did NOT say for example:
"It's so important for citizens to be able to rebel against the government that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They did NOT say for example:
"It's important to water the roots of the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots so the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They did NOT say for example:
"It's important that men be able to swagger through the coffee shop displaying their pistols so the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They did NOT say for example:
"Since a guy might be frightened by a stranger in the dark he may need to Stand His Ground so the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
39 - Igor
@33 - Dr Dreadful. I agree with this:
"My personal position, for clarification, is as follows: Guns are not the problem. The totemic status to which guns have been elevated in American culture is the problem."
40 - Dr Dreadful
I didn't think I was putting words in your mouth (or at your fingertips), Igor. A recurring argument of your has been that because of what the 2nd says, anybody who wants to own a gun should go out and join a militia. Since there no longer are any militias (unless you count the rural gentlemen in camouflage fatigues muttering about black helicopters), I take that to mean you believe the right to firearms ownership to be gone as well.
41 - Igor
Thus, all that Obama (as Commander In Chief) has to do is proclaim a national Militia, and that thereby gun owners belong to that Militia. Thus, the militia can be called out to fend off an attack by the Redcoats, or a rogue bear, as necessary.
That's what the colonials Militia was for.
The old militias morphed into the State National Guard(s), which then morphed into a federal reserve.
42 - Igor
It appears that the Roberts court wants to CHANGE the 2nd amendment to read:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now THAT is a change to the amendment, not an interpretation. Thus, illegal. (Even if it's on the side of the NRA building).
43 - zingzing
igor, as much as i hate to admit it, the amendment doesn't say you have to be in a militia in order to have a gun. it does say that's the reason (the security of the state provided by an armed populace) why you have a right to bear arms, but it doesn't say one thing is contingent upon the other. then again, it also doesn't say you have unlimited rights to whatever arms you want. and hell, if you can bear a fucking bb-gun, your right has not been infringed.
the gun nuts like to pretend that whole phrases of the amendment just don't exist, but they're looking at the wrong one. not that the damn thing forms a coherant thought whatsoever. we're arguing over a terribly-written sentence (oh what gods they were what wrote it,) when we've got a whole reality we could be arguing about. and that's just how the gun nuts want it.
44 - Igor
IMO the Founders didn't care about guns at all. They never talked about them. But I think they DID care about having some kind of Militia, some kind of citizen posse that could be activated to ward off bears and Redcoats.
The focus of the 2nd amendment is on the militia, not on guns.
Gun nuts have the whole thing upside down.
I remember being in the State National Guard a long time ago and one of the services we performed was to fill sandbags with sand when the local river overflowed. We had a short course in shooting an M-1 carbine and that was the end of guns for us.
45 - Doug Hunter
#44
You see what you want to see, zing has a much better grasp of the plain English. If I saw the following clause:
"A well fed population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and grow gardens, shall not be infringed."
It would take tortured reading to determine that meant that only the well fed could grow gardens. Of course, lawyers can parse anything and and find whatever they want, there's probably an answer to gay marriage and abortion in there I just haven't been trained up to see it.
46 - clav
Great example, Doug!
47 - Igor
@45-Doug: Clearly the purpose of your amendment is to assure people are well-fed.
"A well fed population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and grow gardens, shall not be infringed."
The thrust of the proposed amendment is to assure people are well-fed.
That was too easy. Next!
48 - Zingzing
To be absolutely clear, I don't think second amendment rights go to the point where you can own a personal armory. You should, if you choose so, be able to have some ability to defend yourself against home invasion and the like. More often than not, however, guns against guns just means a gun will be fired. It's fighting fire with fire at that point. But does the regular gun owner need the ability to shoot 5 or 10 people? No he doesn't. And if he does, he's fucked anyway. This is real life, not first blood.
Hunting, sport shooting, all that shit is alright. Although if you think shooting a defenseless animal is cool, you're a dick. I do love fishing. I'm a hypocrite.
There has to be some limit though. Between hunting, sportsmanship and defense, and then building up a murder machine arsenal. There is a point between reasonable and not reasonable, and that line is pretty clear. You do not need an AK. You do not need 15 round magazines.
You have a right to guns just as much as you do a 15-inch dildo. But you don't need those things to live in a free society, and it would worry the rest of us less if those things didn't shoot themselves off in public,
Background checks, limits on magazines, a ban on military-style weapons, tracing of gun ownership, all of these are good things designed to keep weapons out of dangerous hands and to punish those who use weapons to commit crimes.
I remember that in Washington state, using a gun in whatever crime you committed added 7 years jail time. If we free all the drug users, we could make room for the gun users.
And there's my ramble.
49 - Irene Athena
26 modern gun nut
34 gun folk
36 gun fans
the cycle begins again
43 gun nuts
44 gun nuts
Certainly nothing for the BC editors to blue-pencil, but as ad hominem attacks these phrases don't do anything to improve the quality of arguments made by gun control...enthusiasts.
50 - Doug Hunter
#47
No need to be obtuse, the core of the sentence is that 'the right of the people to ______ shall not be infringed', that's the only complete sentence that can be formed from clauses and the one that makes the most sense in context. In my case, there would certainly be no requirement that everyone be well fed, there would be a protection in place for gardens.
In historical context there is zero doubt that the founders intended the amendment to mean the population in general could not be disarmed. I'll provide of few quotes and snippets to demonstrate but entire treatises have been written on the subject and are freely available online.
To get a feel for the mood of some of the founding players:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." - Noah Webster, in a pamphlet in support of ratification
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. " (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. )
"The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun. " (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. )
"The advantage of being armed... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26. )
What did the states asking for the amendents bring to the table (this is where the 2nd amendment language came from)
Massachusetts, via Sam Adams "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe... or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...."
New Hampshire "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion"
Virginia and North Carolina ""that the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state."
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; " Madison's original suggestion, says basically the same thing as the finished product.
*an amendent was put forward to limit keeping and bearing arms 'for the common defense' but was rejected further indicating the majority's intent.
51 - Zingzing
Irene, maybe you have seen the NRA's latest ad, or their latest app, wherein they create video game, after blaming video games for all the shootings with guns? Nuts. It's evangelical. They're spreading their word.
52 - Doug Hunter
#48
You've got to look at context though. Assault rifles did not exist when the constitution was written so any arguments regarding their modern capabilities is outside the scope. These were people who'd just got done fighting a revolution against what was in their opinion tyrannical government partly because they weren't happy with their share of taxes. They probably had more in common with modern day paranoid right wing gun nuts than most would like to admit. A large part of winning that revolution was an armed populace, organized into militias of citizen soldiers. The individual states were wary of a powerful federal government as well (that would come to a head some time later as well) so they required an amendment ensuring citizens would remain armed, able to protect themselves from any future invading armies (or attempted tyranny from our own federal government that no one really trusted yet).
Now, the argument can be made that guns are 'futile' against the government, but I disagree. Lots of government force, enormous money and resources have been poured into Afghanistan by two separate superpowers and neither of them have been able to control much of the countryside. The US will likely never be Afghanistan, the people running the government are smarter than to move too far at once and risk on outright revolution. You don't put the frog in boiling water, you put it in cold and slowly turn up the heat. Still, an armed citizenry is a factor in the power struggle.
53 - Zingzing
I'd like to see if anyone on the gun side of things can tell anyone the last creative thing guns did for humanity. Not like "it saved us from hitler," because those were just guns against guns. But there must be some point where human-controlled mechanized objects shooting projectiles aimed toward other humans was good, or else the whole idea of preserving this gun culture has to fall apart. They're here, yes, but why?
And yeah, we can get rid of them. They're difficult to manufacture and to maintain. Stop those two activities, prosecute those that use them, and we're good within a decade. If the gov'ts goes sour, we know how to make molotovs, which are much more effective.
54 - Doug Hunter
In short, the founding fathers fully expected their protections of the right to keep and bear arms to enable the rank and file citizen to rise up and fight in an armed conflict, to fight against an organized military. At the time it wasn't even that much of a mismatch. That incidentally is the precise purpose of assault rifles and probably why we've so far seen to protect them.
55 - Zingzing
Doug, you live in one of the richest, most affluent, leisurely countries in the world. Your government is trying to argue over the minutest point of economic theory at the moment while "the whole ship could sink" and you think they're worried about you? They can't get their own shit straight. They don't want to destroy this place, they don't even want to set it right, they just want to keep it teetering, which is right where they make their money and keep their jobs. They won't fuck with you, you aren't that important. Your gun will stay in its cabinet, just where it's always been. Don't worry, you won't have to be a hero, no matter how much you profess to martyrdom.
Going on from that, what do you think about radical Islam and its ideas of America? Do you ever reflect upon such things and where you fit into it? Not saying you're a terrorist, but you must be able to empathize at this point. Are they right? You would seem to think so. I'm thinking you're both stupid.
56 - Zingzing
Alright, "minutest points" should be "different schools," but really, economics is a pseudoscience, so who gives a shit. We suck at it and it takes turns we can't control.
57 - Irene Athena
If I were to put myself on a scale where 10 equals "she wore camo to her prom" and zero equals "Gandhi pacifist," I would rate myself a four. But reading "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" has given me a lot to think about in the last few years, and maybe some of you will find something of interest there, too. I can recommend this site because I have vetted this site for Zionist extremism, and I don't think it's there. You can find a heightened awareness of the anti-Semitism that is still in the world, but that alertness is understandable for these people.
I'm interested in the perspectives on the site because what causes my adverse reaction to a government- -ANY government- -dictating what kind of guns its citizens can own is this: mandated relinquishing of firearms preceded the Jewish Holocaust and other instances of genocide later on in the 20th century.
Disarming a population equates to leaving them defenseless.
There's always the reaction "but that could never happen here." Well maybe.
Nobody has responded to Doug Hunter's comments earlier on the thread regarding drone attacks, detention and/or execution of US citizens without trial, increasing frequency of the issuing of special executive orders. I don't think that pointing that out is Obama-bashing. It's examining a trend that was growing strong back in the Bush years.
58 - Alexander J Smith III
-Doug
I'm not sure your "context" argument works since the SCOTUS very clearly makes exception for the regulation of firearms that don't meet it's standards from Heller for protection under the Second Amendment. The Federal Government, as well as the State governments, have to deal with the modern capabilities of firearms since it's those abilities that determine whether or not a firearm could be used for a "traditionally lawful purpose" or if said firearm is "in common use" by individuals unconnected with militias.
Additionally, I think the issue of context works against you. I agree that at the time of the Constitution's drafting the firearms were different than they are now, but the start contrast between modern firearms and those ca 1790 is the primary reason the Second Amendment's limitations must be observed and enforced. The capabilities of modern handguns, carbines, rifles, shotguns, and long rifles far exceed their 18th century counterparts and the law should be flexible enough to account for that.
59 - clav
You have a right to guns just as much as you do a 15-inch dildo. But you don't need those things to live in a free society, and it would worry the rest of us less if those things didn't shoot themselves off in public,
Apparently I've led a sheltered life: I've never seen a 15 inch dildo shoot itself off in public.
60 - Irene Athena
Oh yes they have, sorry, I was writing.
No zing 51, I haven't seen that app.
61 - Irene Athena
And I was writing #51 when clav posted 59.
The "Oh yes they have" in 60 is a correction to the first sentence in the last paragraph of 57.
62 - clav
That's a relief, Irene...
63 - Irene Athena
aye
64 - Doug Hunter
zing, why all the anger and namecalling? It's a different opinion. News flash: I have different likes and values than you. You're not 'stupid' for liking something different. I realize that I'm 'not important' to the government. I also realize they make many decisions about my life for me where I will have no input (or technically 1/300,000,00th or something). Some people are good with that system and roll with it, others, myself included, not so much. I like to captain my own ship as they say.
65 - Alexander J Smith III
-Irene
Regulating firearms, and even the outright prohibition of certain classes of firearm doesn't constitute "disarming a population". I'll grant that there are a few politicians in Congress who would like to see all guns removed from civilian hands, but that view is largely in the minority. To regulate the proliferation of firearms and the types of firearms a person can own is good policy making because there are weapons that non-military personnel have no business owning or using, even in the context of self-defense.
In addition, having firearms in your home isn't an adequate defense against the world's largest arms dealer. Owning any type of firearm isn't about to make you that much harder to approach in the eyes of a body that has the Armed Forces, CIA, NSA, and FBI at it's disposal.
Lastly, I do think it's fair to say that the Federal Government is overstepping it's boundaries with laws like the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act, which in my view present clear violations of no less than 5 Constitutional protections and those should be addressed. The real question, naturally, is how exactly we will address those laws, and how effective would their removal be?
66 - Doug Hunter
#58
I think you're arguing a separate point. The lawyers on the SCOTUS can twist the words to justify wherever the breeze of then-modern day opinion dictates. The constitution is not infallible, one day a black is worth 3/5th's of a person the next their not... it goes with the wind. One day the find abortion in there, probably find gay marriage in there too once the winds go far enough. I'm not arguing what's 'right' or what should be or the best policy for guns simply stating what the evidence points to as to original intent. Originally, it appears the right to arms was designed so that citizens could, in a pinch, fight defend themselves not just against bears and home invaders, but also roving armies or a domestic tyrant if he overstepped his bounds. Assault rifles would seem the modern version of the type of arm that would be useful fighting off invading armies in case those dirty redcoats come back for a third try. May not be the best policy (neither was the 3/5ths), but research and an honest assessment should leave you to believe that's what they originally intended.
67 - El Bicho
how is "gun folk" an ad hominem? And are we supposed to believe people could have stopped the Holocaust if Germans had guns?
68 - Zingzing
"zing, why all the anger and namecalling?"
Guns.
"Some people are good with that system and roll with it, others, myself included, not so much. I like to captain my own ship as they say."
Everyone likes to captain their own ship. Some people just want less guns around so other "captains" stop doing stupid shit.
69 - Irene Athena
El Bicho - enjoy your cherries.
70 - Irene Athena
You cat-video-watching little nut, you, El Bicho. Disarmament wasn't all it took to start the Holocaust, and the lack of disarmament wouldn't have been all that would have been required to prevent it. But of course I never claimed it would, and neither did the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
I would have liked to see, though, fewer names needing to be put on memorials erected in the US by Jews whose relatives were slaughtered and then thrown into unmarked graves by Nazis with no one to sit sheva. How about you El Bicho?
71 - Irene Athena
AJS3 your #65 said:
: …the Federal Government is overstepping its boundaries with the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act…clear violations of no less than five Constitutional protections…The real question, naturally, is how exactly we will address those laws, and how effective would their removal be?
Through education, apathy-reduction campaigns, the election process, and other kinds of peaceful political activism, people have been standing up against the US’ active involvement or sponsorship of provocative military action overseas and attendant reduction of domestic rights, for “security” reasons.
Some have grown weary of the fight, though, for the same reason you cite for the futility of preparing for attempts to physically defend oneself against it. How can one stand in the way of ”a body that has the Armed Forces, CIA, NSA, and FBI at its disposal?”
72 - Irene Athena
Alexander J. Smith III. #71 continued:
An encouragement against that kind of defeatism is the existence of an organization describing itself as “a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.”
Their success is not going to be through a violent over-take of the government. Their success is going to be in building a network of people who refuse to be part of a violent over-take by the government.
73 - Cindy
lol @ Irene's inadvertent posting in sync w/clav's
74 - Dr Dreadful
Not sure whose works this throws a wrench into, but there was opposition to Hitler and the Nazis within Germany, both armed and unarmed. To be sure, it was low-key and disjointed for the most part - nothing on the organizational level of the French or Polish resistance movements - but still significant enough for tens of thousands of people to be put to death for insurrection by the regime.
75 - Dr Dreadful
I've never seen a 15 inch dildo shoot itself off in public.
I think we can help you there, Clav. All we have to do is persuade Rush Limbaugh to keep nibbling the correct side of the mushroom until he's 15 inches tall.