Maybe I’m just a paranoid gun freak though.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Regarding HuffPost: I read Huffpost and the Firearm Blog. I consider myself a liberal but own guns and am for gun rights.

Let’s not dump everyone into buckets that do not fit. The most important thing is to get access to info and make your own informed decision. I think both R and D are not for the people but for themselves and Corp America.

I will check this show out and give my review if anyone cares.

BTW, Showtime has a few good shows: Dexter and Californication. For those who do not have cable but have high speed internet try bittorrent and http://www.mininova.org/user/eztv.

Great Blog. Check it out every day.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

As a disabled veteran who qualifies to get as much free VA medical care as my little heart desires, I would just like to say that I personally opt for GOOD medical care from the private sector, which I pay for out of my limited finances. Not because I have to, but because I don’t like to have to wait 4 months to see a doctor when I find a discolored leasion on my shoulder.

Well liked or not, and it’s hard to complain about “free”, the fact is that Medicare, VA Hospital System, and Medicaid are all enormously underfunded and/or going broke. If only a small percentage of the people are on these programs, and they already underperform and are going broke, imagine when the ENTIRE COUNTRY qualifies for the same thing.

All I know is when Bush was in office, every day there was a new article about how lousy the VA hospitals were, and how Bush wasn’t properly supporting the troops. Now Obama wants to put everybody, except Congress and other priviledged classes, into those same miserable squalid dumps and suddenly, it’s a great idea. Oh, except remember when Obama said that Veterans wounded overseas should be forced to pay for their own healthcare? Cause I remember that! Apparently, private health insurance is good enough for America’s service personel, but it’s not good enough for everyone else.

@ Lucas

I know they aren’t proposing it. They’ve been pushing for Socialized medicine since the 1930′s, and they’re achieving it through baby steps. This is just another baby step, but the baby is getting pretty big by now. Rasing costs for people who are high risk is common sense, denying coverage for people who are unfavored politically is COMMON PRACTICE in all countries that have a Socialised medical system. There aren’t enough countries that allow people to own firearms that also have a Socalized Medical system to compare, and the people in those countires who do own any kind of firearm are such a decided minority as to be statistically irrelivant. Socalist regimes do not allow gun ownership because when you have a gun, you have a voice.

If you people want better medical care at lower prices then what you want is TORT REFORM, not government control.

@ Steve

Sorry! I did it again!

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I’m not 100% sure how Health Care reform came into this, but since it did I’ll throw in my two cents.

Caedis, our government often pays for absurd, partisan, and downright goofy research. It’s just theater. I think it’s just an obnoxious part of living in a modern democracy. Both parties promote this kind of nonsense all the time and I don’t think it’s anything to worry about. It’s just politics. The Democratic leadership hasn’t gone after guns yet because they know it’ll kill them in the midterms, never mind the fact that they couldn’t scrounge up enough votes in their own party. Anti-gun politicians know that their agenda is going to be put on the back burner indefinitely, they’re pouting, and they are going act out in all sorts of ways.

This is the study you were talking about, right?
http://freedomedium.com/2009/10/gun-ownership-as-a-cost-of-health-care-reform/

Wouldn’t private insurers be more likely to raise rates/deny coverage for gun owners? If they had data showing that gun-owners pose higher risks? Does anyone know if that data exists?

Matt, none of the proposals in the Congress suggest a socialized medical system. The (probably doomed) public-option would not deny coverage to high-risk or politically unpopular citizens. It was designed to provide insurance for people who cannot obtain it from the private sector. Since insurance companies can drop customers who get sick and refuse to sell insurance to citizens with pre-existing conditions, the public option would be for customers who had no other choices. Certainly, the best preforming health-care systems in the world are not socialized. Well regulated for-profit systems provide better results at lower costs. But I’m not aware of a socialized medical system in a developed nation that refuses health-care for gun owners, even in anti-gun countries. Do you have an example of this? Raising costs for smokers, the obese, etc. is already normal for private-sector insurance. It’s not about politics–it’s just about money.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Lucas,

You should a force recon on the shop and report back to Steve. Get the load down and any dirt. It will make a great story.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

I loved the range because it didn’t draw the kind of jerks/weirdo’s I’ve seen at other Denver-metro shooting ranges. It had a mom & pop vibe. I assumed it was a family business, but I don’t know that for sure. They were MUCH more professional than the young guy–always mellow and polite. I certainly never saw anyone making out or doing anything TV-worthy. No slapstick or fake tans, either.

I won’t say that it all looks fake and staged because I don’t want to get sued by showtime.

Of course, if I knew the Shootist was so full of girls and laughs I’d probably have shot there more recently.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Some of the usual mistakes right off, character hold two pistols and pointing at the camera in an intro sequence, gangster jokes, posing a family with AR15s for a menacing cellphone photo snap.

Little attention paid to guns. The lead character gushed about “Kimber” briefly – heard Glock and Ruger named but most of the show focused on customers, their background, and what brought them in.

Not very entertaining regardless – mildly interesting for the gun aspect but I can’t see this getting mass appeal or staying on air long. Probably a good thing too, no need for this guy to hunt out “interesting” people to put in the spotlight.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

But then, that’s the challenge: write an article about shooters and shooting in a positive light in such a way that even the anti-gun crowd will get the point, even if they don’t agree.

Please rate this comment: 0  0