My Four Favorite L.A. Times Comments

So the L.A. Times invited me to take this post about gun dialogue, remove the swears and most of the words and as much of the personal dysfunction as possible, and let them use it as an op-ed. I did, and they did. It ran on last Sunday's dead-tree op-ed page as well as online.

We get some odd comments at Popehat. But L.A. Times comments were at another level. Here, in no particular order, are five of my favorites:

More whining from a liberal.

Don't try to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights, and ain't gonna be no problems.

You want a second civil war? Then come try and take em from us…….

Reasoned debate went out with the WASPs.

It will be some time before it returns, to the detriment of our nation.

Most every alleged mass-shooter was taking psychotropic drugs that often cause violent impulses.

MSM won't report this because they get major ad $$$ from Big Pharma to push Rx snake oil: Paxil, Prozac, etc. Instead they blame guns.

MSM also won't report that certain demographics are doing gun crimes at rates over 10x the Euro average. Af-Am's & Hispanics are over 90% of shooters in L.A. & Chicago, but are loyal Dem voters, so MSM blames guns & pale Repub's.

Let's start there.

That's all well and good, Mr White, if that's your real name, but what about the real threat that faces every man, woman, and child today?

You know very well what of I am writing.

What about the pony menace?

Last 5 posts by Ken White


  1. Dictatortot says

    You'll have to take my pony from my cold, dead hands.

    (Interestingly, there's no scenario for the end of my life that doesn't involve someone taking a pony from my cold, dead hands.)

  2. pillsy says

    I'm glad I am not particularly invested in the gun debate, or else its seeming ability to make partisans of all stripes argue like complete dipshits would be kind of worrisome.

  3. GuestPoster says

    Gosh, threatening a repeat of the most deadly war, in terms of American lives taken, over any suggestion at all that maybe there's some sort of way to figure out how to talk to one another about guns, rather than talking past one another.

    Yup. That's somebody who makes ME comfortable knowing how heavily armed my fellow Americans sometimes are.

  4. arity says

    Arguably, ponies would be important to a militia and could be regarded as living equipment, even arms. It is therefore the constitutional right of serpentine pony thralls citizens to serve bear ponies.

  5. jtf says

    Ah yes, like the attack dogs of which you speak, Pavlov's pundits trundle out to turn yet another comment thread on guns into an internet cloaca. I have to wonder if people really are that asinine or, considering that mostl of the comments seem to have zero relationship to the article, it's just a bunch of astroturfing bots on each side that lock on to any article tagged "guns" and pay somebody on Mechanical Turk to fill out their captchas.

    I think it's better imagine every comment spoken by someone foaming at the mouth. Especially the one about ponies.

  6. Chuck says

    The best LA Times comments come from a person called "Tattoos are for losers," who has a…singleminded focus. For example, on a Whole Foods opening in Downtown LA:

    I went here on the opening. So disgusting. Nothing but self-satisfied yuppies and hipsters there. All with tattoo. The tattoo is the true sign of an imbecile.

    I could believe that the employees here all had tattoo as well. Like the brand of a moron is a pre-requisite to work as a bagger at whole foods.

    The crowd was truly appaling. All patting themselves on the back for spending 20 bucks for a bottle of organic, free range, non-gmo, gluten free paleo water.

    And for christ sake…. There were people just hanging out there! Just lounging! In a god damned grocery store! There is a god damned bar there!

    Truly disgusting what we have become as a society.

    Or on a story about bedbugs in hotels:

    Staying at hotel scares me. God only knows what the previous occupants hygiene was like. One thing you can never underestimate is the foulness and nastiness of other people.

    If I see a hotel that allows people with tattoos to stay there, I will not stay at that hotel. People with tattoo also have diseases and all sorts of hygeine deficiencies.

    Tattoos on a person tell me everything I need to know about them. I immediately know that person with tattoo is an immoral, disgusting, unclean imbecile that is prone to depravity, violence and ignorance.

    Stay away from hotels that allow tattoo freaks to stay. There is 100% likeliness that there are diseases.

  7. RB says

    Tatouazophobia – The fear of a tattoo, tattoos or of being tattooed.

    That proves it. As a society, we've wasted too much time naming our fears.

  8. Ken in NH says

    See, David is the reason why we cannot have a dialogue on pony control. He does not even understand his terms. A pony is any small horse and includes miniatures. He makes the common mistake of those unfamiliar with ponies of conflating them with foals. (A foal could be an immature pony, so there is good reason to fear them too.)

  9. Toastrider says

    "Gosh, threatening a repeat of the most deadly war, in terms of American lives taken, over any suggestion at all that maybe there's some sort of way to figure out how to talk to one another about guns, rather than talking past one another."

    I'm sorry, but there really isn't anything to talk about. One side is insisting the other side disarm, 'for the common good'.

    And the other side is tired of taking it in the ass because of criminal behavior, and is responding with, 'No. Your move.'

  10. Ed says

    Allow me to start the civil conversation on gun rights, as I understand them, granted by the US Constitution Amendment 2.

    A2 advocate: What restrictions do you want on guns.

    Me: It's two-pronged.

    Any adult who is a member of a well-organized militia (as defined by SCOTUS) can keep militia-approved arms unconditionally, and bear those arms while on duty to said militia. In those cases, the militia must do the regulating of its members and they should be held liable for failure to keep their members well-regulated. Preferably, a well-regulated militia person must be easily identifiable as such if they are going to open-carry while on duty, to prevent being mistaken for a miscreant.

    In all other cases, firearm keeping and bearing can be regulated by any level of government. Regulation may include, for example, requiring a permit to keep, transport, open-carry or concealed-carry a firearm, and even outright banning of them. When multiple gun laws conflict, the more gun-restrictive law wins within its jurisdiction.

    I hope this helps start the ball rolling on a productive dialog.


  11. Seth says

    The term used in the Constitution is "well regulated" not "well-organized".

    A well regulated clock is one that keeps correct time, not one with a lot of laws written about it.

    The militia is defined by Congress, not by the Supreme Court. And Congress did so define it. And by that definition, for the unorganized militia, there is no such thing as "on duty". Nor does the militia "approve" arms of any sort.

  12. JB says

    In the usage of the time, "Regulated" meant "Trained." Given that, it's clear what they meant, which is "Our national defense will depend, rather than on a large standing army, on militias called up for each conflict out of the civilian population. We don't want to start each war by training our army on the basics, or to have to store waaay more guns than we need in peacetime, so we're going to allow people to (a) practice with guns on their own so they get good without us training them, and (b) keep their own guns so we don't have to do it for them."

    I say this as an urban left-libertarian who is quite freaked out by the rhetoric of rural conservative gun-rights absolutists. I'm also a history buff, and they are 100% right on the constitutional interpretation.

  13. Elliot says

    You are absolutely right as to what the original intention of the 2nd Amendment was. But don't let anybody sell you that line that "regulated" meant "trained." When the Constitution gave Congress the power "to regulate Commerce," that didn't mean that Congress was going to train salesmen. And when the Constitution wanted to talk about training the militia, they used the word "training," as in Article II, section 8: "reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

  14. max says

    Even in this modern age, there are people who need horses and equines should not be entirely banned as long as they are properly restricted. There is no legitimate reason, however, for any civilian to ever need a pony and no pony should ever be in civilian hands. Personally I think international law should ban the use of ponies in war, but there are sinister forces at work who think it possible to weaponize ponies which have so far prevented this from happening. Certainly ISIL and al Qaeda are looking into using ponies in a terror attack while there are still rumors that the US military is attempting to form pony platoons (based upon the British Badger Brigade of Basra) but the pony has proven so far to be too viscous for such, and anyone who thinks to cry havoc and unleash the ponies of war is apt to find the ponies eating his face.

  15. DanA says

    Royal Canadian MOUNTED Police.

    Is the Canadian 'police force' truly a terror organization striking fear into the populace? Is the much vaunted Canadian politeness simply fear of angering some riding-booted thug with a oversized pony? Does not human decency demand that the US invade its northern neighbour and grind the equine menace to glue beneath the treads of its tanks? Can I keep asking self-answering questions?

  16. Martin says

    Do ponies with frikkin' lasers attached to their heads count as semiautomated weapons or not ?


  17. paul says

    I'm really glad we have ed and elliot to tell us the true meaning and intention of the second ammendment. Since there was never a supreme court case named heller right?

    But of course the real question is whether 2A allows for regulation of ponies and if this would be cause for a limited injuction against my little pony programming.

  18. SirWired says

    I think the specter of unstoppable pony violence justifies denying entry to the country of anybody that professes a like of any equine animals, or has posted a picture of one on Facebook. I mean, isn't somebody who professes an acceptance of Zebras practically a pony-lover in the making?

    Recent events and our right to feel safe in our own Great Nation justifies these new security measures.

  19. Erik says


    Interesting that you should bring up the commerce clause… by regulate they meant to keep states from imposing restrictions and duties on commerce between them (creating trade wars, interstate protectionism, etc). And you can theorize all you want as to the meanings of the words, but there are plenty of records of debates, discussions, and correspondence on these subjects that make the intent crystal-clear. You have to ignore a large pile of historical record to get to the progressive interpretations. The best case progressives can make here is "eh, we forced change and made it dead letter" – a thuggish approach, but nonetheless an effective one (and one abused extensively by conservatives as well *cough* drug war *cough* war on terror *cough* no child left behind *cough* etc.). After all, progressives and conservatives are both all about "might makes right."

  20. Elliot says

    My comment was about the 18th century meaning of the words "regulate" and "training," which turn out to have been pretty much the same as their meanings now. The rest of my comment made clear that I don't accept the progressive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

  21. Ann says

    I'm sorry, but there really isn't anything to talk about. One side is insisting the other side disarm, 'for the common good'.

    And the other side is tired of taking it in the ass because of criminal behavior, and is responding with, 'No. Your move.'

    If "the other side" actually feels like it's taking it up the ass simply because people periodically talk about gun-control measures that never pass and aren't at any real risk of doing so, due principally to their being opposed by one of the top three lobbying groups in America, they should get out of the public square and seek a safe space. They're much too fragile for politics. The ponies might get them.

  22. ravenshrike says

    I'm sorry, conservatives and the Drug War? That was started up by the Democrats thank you very much. Nixon just took what Johnson had started(which in itself was really just an escalation of all those laws passed after Prohibition to keep all those shiny new law enforcement powers in use) and shuffled it off into it's own agency. The creation of the BATFE soon followed in a similar vein. Both parties are stained red with the results of the Drug War and pretending otherwise is the height of delusion.

  23. Ed says

    Seth. Thank you for the corrections. "Well-organized" was a brain fart. I meant "well regulated".

    From what I can see, SCOTUS gets the last word on everything, legislation and constitution alike. So let me change my original from "as defined by SCOTUS" to "as decided by SCOTUS".

    I want any militia to be properly constituted (e.g. formally chartered), have a clear chain of command, be subject to civilian control, and be held liable for its members illegal acts under color of authority as militiamen. Otherwise, I see it as a mere pretext for yahoos to have guns outside of the need to maintain the security of a free state.

    Seth: "there is no such thing as "on duty". Nor does the militia "approve" arms of any sort."

    Agreed, but times have changed and I think the aforementioned changes are way overdue in a well regulated militia. Imagine the standing army not having standard issue weapons, and instead you just brought your own. Not too confidence inspiring, eh? Or imagine if every off duty soldier was open carrying his firearm. We'd look like a Hollywood caricature of a banana republic. And we'd probably feel about as afraid as if we were in one. So I think militias should be more like the reserves. Open carry allowed during training and deployment (i.e. "duty"), otherwise, stow it. And I believe these changes are permissible by the phrase "well regulated militia".

    JB: " We don't want to start each war by training our army on the basics"

    Agreed. Which is why the idea of a militia merely conferring the right to keep and bear arms with no concomitant obligation to train and be organized as a cohesive fighting unit makes no sense to me. Without regular training, organization and a legally responsible command structure, how does a militia differ from an armed mob?

    JB: "or to have to store waaay more guns than we need in peacetime, so we're going to allow people to (a) practice with guns on their own so they get good without us training them, and (b) keep their own guns so we don't have to do it for them."

    War is very different now though, isn't it. Leaving training to the individual just doesn't cut it any more.

    Elliot: "But don't let anybody sell you that line that "regulated" meant "trained." "

    Organized modern training is a pretty necessary requirement for a militia to be considered well regulated. And your subsequent sentences show the constitution clearly considers militia training a sine qua non. That "well regulated" requires/encompasses training seems so obvious as to make me wonder what properties you have in mind when you use the term "well regulated".

    Paul: "I'm really glad we have ed and elliot to tell us the true meaning and intention of the second ammendment."

    Nope. I am describing the gun law changes I would like to see, pursuant to getting the ball rolling on a dialog between the opposing sides of the gun issue. I believe my changes respect the clear meaning of A2 (as I see it, naturally), and would greatly improve matters without jeopardizing the security of a free state. It would help advance the dialog if you would admit the changes (mine or any others) you could agree to, and address those which you could not, and why or why not.

    BTW, I am reluctant to change A2 since that opens up a huge can of worms. But I do think a plain reading of A2 requires one to acknowledge that it strongly implies the keeper and bearer of arms will be a member of a well-regulated militia. So strong, that I think it reasonable interpretation that it be a requirement. If that takes overturning a precedent, then obviously that would be have to be done in order to get most or all of the changes detailed above. But it would be no more outrageous to overturn that precedent than it was to overturn any other.

  24. says

    Just a question for people who think membership in a/the "well regulated Militia" is a predicate to keeping and bearing arms under the Second Amendment. Suppose that instead of the First Amendment, we had this one:

    Well-educated voters being necessary to the success of representative democracy, the right of the people to freedom of speech shall not be infringed.

    Would this amendment protect freedom of speech only for actual voters, only for "well-educated" actual voters, only for eligible voters (regardless whether they actually vote or not), for eligible voters and for those who might become eligible voters in the future, or for the people generally?

  25. Ronald Pottol says

    You do realize that the ponies have managed to run a presidential candidate, right?

    Yes, Vermin Supreme, that rubber bit wearing guy, wants to put a pony in every home!

    I don't need to tell you what would follow…

  26. Ed says


    If the first amendment said that, you might have to consider it that way. But it doesn't, so we don't. I would note that your analogy is flawed because freedom of speech has less to do with being well educated than freedom of reading (i.e. lack of censorship). Finally, I would point out that SCOTUS has already decided that there is no right to vote, only that it cannot be denied for certain reasons. But if you can find a reason they like, you can suppress away. Right, Scalia?

  27. GuestPoster says


    Well, given that you wrote this: "Well-educated voters being necessary to the success of representative democracy, the right of the people to freedom of speech shall not be infringed." Then no, that amendment would NOT protect speech only for actual voters. After all, the operative phrase is "the right of the people to freedom of speech shall not be infringed." Thus, it means: the right of the people to freedom of speech shall not be infringed.

    However, had you written an actual analogous item: ""Well-educated voters, being necessary to the success of representative democracy, the right of the people to freedom of speech, shall not be infringed." Then, well, it STILL wouldn't mean that only voters had the right to free speech. It would mean that the government could not infringe the generation of well-educated voters. That would, for instance, prevent Texas from, say, publishing textbooks claiming that Moses and the 10 commandments were significant influences on the text of the constitution, since such lies prevent a proper education from being transmitted. Indeed, this analogous text would suggest that the amendment authors considered well-educated voters to be necessary to the success of a representative democracy, and to be the very embodiment of the right to freedom of speech.

    And honestly? Most educated people would tend to agree with that – a representative government IS healthier when the voters know what the heck is going on. And freedom of speech is much better when people have some idea of what they are talking about, and are not having their speech semi-limited by lies they were indoctrinated to believe. Of course, most educated people would tend to agree that speech is critically important, and deserves firm protections independent of educational availability, too.

    But, as @Ed says, your analogy is highly flawed and, even if it weren't, it's not actually what the amendment says anyways.


    And let us not forget: congress defined two sorts of militia. 1) The national guard and the naval militia. 2) Everybody else. I have yet to see ANY definition of 'well regulated' or even just 'regulated' that makes it sound likely that 'everybody else', ie: 'every last male in the US, regardless of the laws he is bound by, his readiness for combat, or his level of athletic fortitude' has been regulated at ALL, let alone well-regulated. The national guard and naval militia, on the other hand? Those sure do sound like well-regulated militia to me, again pretty much independent of exactly which definition of 'regulated' one prefers to use.

  28. MrFide says

    Sure, it starts with ponies.

    Which naturally lead to Colts.

    And we're back to square one.

    The heck with it. I'm going to get a tattoo of a small horse waving an AR-15.

  29. says

    Ed, I think you misunderstood my point. I am not attempting to attack the First Amendment or the right to vote. I think we're in reasonable legal shape for both sets of rights right now. :-) (Although certainly I can name cases I believe were incorrectly decided.) Rather, I am suggesting that the wording of this (fortunately) hypothetical amendment parallels that of the Second Amendment, and both must be interpreted in a consistent manner.

    To my mind, the natural way to interpret each is that the prefatory clause provides the rationale for the amendment, and the operative clause specifies the amendment's effect. In both cases, the freedoms and rights protected would apply to "the people", not to any narrowed set of them one might relate to the prefatory clause.

    GuestPoster, I think you also may have missed my intent there. I agree that my hypothetical amendment would not protect freedom of speech only for "well-educated voters", or for any reduced set of people one might conceivably relate to them. It would protect freedom of speech for "the people". Just as the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for "the people", not for the "well regulated Militia" or any reduced set of people one might conceivably relate to them.

    Which is to say: just as my hypothetical amendment protects a right of "the people", so too does the Second Amendment protect a right of "the people". And anyone who would interpret the separate wordings differently, should think long and hard about why they're justified in being inconsistent — and ideally recognize that their probable personal prejudice against keeping and bearing arms does not and cannot justify interpreting the two differently.

  30. Ken says

    Mr. White;
    I read the LA Times op-ed and found it well thought out and pretty reflective of the fundamental attribution errors that go on in both sides of the 2A debate. Thanks for giving voice to some of the reasons why we can't really seem to find a middle way between false pacifism of the 'guns are icky' crowd and the paranoia of the '2nd Civil War' crowd; hopefully, your well-reasoned thoughts fell on some ears that were too busy having a real conversation to bang out knee-jerk, incoherent sound bites on the keyboard.

  31. Visser Three says

    I might be extremely off-base, but why does the 'My right not to be shot outweighs your right to own a gun' thing not make sense? If someone tries to shoot me, they get arrested, and sent to prison, where they don't get to keep their guns. Isn't that already how it works?

  32. Ken says

    There's always a balance of negative and positive liberties. 'My right not to be shot outweighs your right to own a gun' is true in the same sense that 'Your right to not be run over outweighs my right to own a car.' Even setting aside questions of rights vs privileges, lots of people talk on the phone and drive, or text and drive, or drink and drive, or get pissed off and drive, and go on to kill other people, but we don't prophylactically strip other people of their property and mobility to prevent these deaths (~40,000 a year). And that's despite the fact that ~80% of Americans live in cities and could shift to public transit if we properly invested in that infrastructure and we forced them to make the transition. A move like that would make those affected much healthier and be very beneficial to the environment, but would take draconian measures to implement. Thus, we enforce a patchwork of laws to disincentivize the worst transgressions, and use parking tickets, fees, etc. to discourage people in urban areas from driving cars where they're unnecessary. I keep telling my relatives that the limited parking in much of DC isn't a bug, it's a feature that's working exactly as it was intended to.

    Here is where most people will advance the social utility argument that 'The harms caused by armed citizens outweighs their benefits'; the Polemicist rebutted that argument here: better than I ever could.

    Now if you said 'My right not to be shot outweighs your right to USE A GUN IN AN INDISCRIMINATE MANNER THAT RECKLESSLY ENDANGERS ME', then yes, I would agree.

  33. Visser Three says

    Don't know if it just didn't post last time.

    I had only heard it in the latter section, being used as an argument for taking firearms from people who are misusing them, and specifically in response to someone actually having been fired on by someone. 'My right not to be shot outweighs your right to own a gun, because you shot at me' The people I've heard use it are gun-owners themselves. So I think I just kind of assumed it was always used in the latter sense, that the right not to be shot out-weighs the right to own a gun, when the gun-owner themselves are using it recklessly.

    Personally, I remain unconvinced by the idea that there's anything a private citizen's militia could do in the US if the government did decide to attack us, or we decided it had gotten too tyrannical. They have bombs and rockets that can hit you a mile away. The defense against government isn't convincing me.

    I just don't feel convinced by the idea that banning firearms would be a positive effect. I'm someone who has some pretty severe problems with stress, anxiety, etc. This is partially what has bothered me so much in the way that people around the country have been talking about 'trigger warnings.' I'm someone who needs those, not just feels vaguely offended or uncomfortable around some topics, but has panic attacks that result in blackouts. I don't think I have any right to demand someone not talk about things that upset me. People should take responsibility for themselves. If you can't handle something, remove yourself, not the something.

    I've been extremely convinced by the importance of relaxation, and for a large number of gun owners out there, that's basically what weapons are used for. Go to the range, shoot the target, get cool stuff to stick on the gun so you can shoot the target again, but more so. Go out at five AM, shoot an animal, stick it's head on a wall because that was a very good shooting of an animal. I don't think I have a good enough reason to deprive people of that. We should try to avoid taking things away from people, I think, unless we can prove that THEY are a problem, not just that the thing is dangerous.

  34. Richard Gadsden says

    There are lots of possible interpretations of the "well-regulated militia" clause.

    One is "For as long as it is true that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, then RKBA shall not be infringed, and that predicate is justiciable." That is, a court may determine, on the facts, that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the Second amendment is a nullity.

    Another is "We, those passing the Second Amendment, hold that RKBA is necessary for a militia, and that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state; if you, our successors, have come up with another way of securing a free state, then that's what we put Article V in for". That would mean that the predicate is an assertion, which could only be addressed politically through the amendment process – ie it's a "political question" in SCOTUS language.

    Only the third ("RKBA is protected only to the extent needed by the well-regulated militia") allows additional restrictions to RKBA beyond those that are implicit in the protection of all rights granted by the constitution.

    Personally, coming from a non-American tradition, I take the view that there should be no such thing as unenumerated exceptions to rights (which is why the ECHR enumerates a whole list of exceptions), but I recognise that the US jurisprudential tradition, and the stark, exceptionless language of the constitution make it clear that this was neither intended nor is practical. (the First Amendment would drive a coach and horses through the Copyright Clause if it were taken entirely at face value – that was clearly not the intent of the drafters). The question is then rather what the exceptions to RKBA are that are "natural" in the way that things like obscenity, defamation, trade secret, copyright, trademark, government secrets, threats, and so on are to freedom of speech.

  35. Visser Three says

    Speaking from the HISTORICAL perspective, the well-regulated militia thing is very… Odd. We have to understand how technology effects the issue, in order to understand what's wrong with it.

    The founding fathers came from a cultural context where the well-regulated militia was an everyday site. The idea that we would have a society where millions of people HAVE guns, and yet also a society where there aren't publicly organized militias in every city, is surprising. It would come off to an Adams or a Jefferson, like the idea that you could have the internet, with no technological limitations to doing this, where, quite simply, no-one ever posts images. They were almost certainly DRIVEN by the desire to have militias to defend people from the government. The people and their government should be on an even playing field, was the feeling. So that the people can always fight back.

    Would that make it against their intention that I can't, say, buy a fighter jet? Possibly. On the other hand, they lived before fighter jets. The most powerful weapon any of them could imagine being used was a cannon. And you needed a full crew, it took forever to load a second shot, and anyone next to a cannon could just be attacked if they tried to, say, roll down Boston Green. Trying to predict what dead people 300 years ago would say today is very difficult. We can at best predict what their principles would say, but we can't predict if they might change them – If, for example, they'd conclude that something like a tank means that maybe we need to find a better way to fight off government intrusion, because it's too easy for a small group of people to do a lot of damage.

    So, it's not really any of the ways you describe it. I'd say it's more like… "We must allow the people to fight back against the government, and as a result, we must allow them to arm themselves to do so if they so choose." The fact that we DON'T do so, doesn't mean we shouldn't have the option.

    I'd compare it to the free speech issue as we're all so fond of it. The fact that I wouldn't come up with a long string of insulting epithets for the president, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to do so if I want to.

    Edit: Also, worth noting. The regulated militia was almost certainly regulated BY the militia. It's not to give the government power to regulate the militia, or the state power to do so, but instead to say that people organizing to fight back is a good thing.

  36. Fasolt says

    That's all well and good, Mr White, if that's your real name, but what about the real threat that faces every man, woman, and child today?

    The greatest threat of them all?

    The tattooed pony with a gun. Having those loose would result in destruction like that depicted in the first "Terminator" movie where they show the Reese character recalling his memories of the war with the machines.