boobs. again.

This post makes me want to go out shirtless, just to see what would happen. Would I get arrested in this country (i.e. the U.S.) if I went out without a shirt? How come women in Europe and other parts of the world don't have to cover their breasts in public, but we do? Why is a breast, in any form, perceived as obscene? Does "the public" not realize that the difference between a man's breasts and a woman's amounts to some adipose (i.e. fat) tissue and developed ducts and glands? Or that breast milk is technically classified as a kind of mucus secretion?

It's just a breast people! Yes, i said it: breast. Maybe I should shout it: B-R-E-A-S-T.

And now for the point: to all those who have issues with seeing breasts, whether on a billboard, a magazine cover, a nursing mom, or on the street, or wherever, I say: GET OVER IT!

Seriously!

But I'm guessing that the people who have a problem with it are probably not reading my blog. *sigh* So what are we to do? How do we educate/liberate people? How do we get the advertisements and messages portraying women as mere sex objects to stop? Why do we buy products that are advertised like this? How come the conservative rhetoric seems to overpower the liberal voice these days?

????

I think I need to move to a blue state. Then again, here's some food for thought: none of the states seem to be doing well when it comes to women's health, in particular. Did you know that the majority of the states are not meeting the minimum basic requirements for women's health? The picture is bleak. Why aren't more people outraged?

"family planning"

my mom forwarded an email to me about the recent appointment of Susan Orr, PhD, to head the Federal Family Planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. the message was rather tantalizingly incendiary, and while my personal beliefs meshed with their assertions, i was curious to know whether the piece was slanted. so, thanks to Google, i did a little research.

the liberal slant on this appointment is that it's yet another huge step backwards for women's reproductive rights because Dr. Orr proposed elimination of contraception coverage for federal workers' insurance plans. the conservative slant is that it's a positive movement toward affording a greater amount of choice to individuals, particularly in the form of what components of health insurance coverage they choose to elect.

but what does this office of Federal Family Planning do, exactly? i wondered. so i looked them up. after a bit of digging, i discovered that title x is the main "to do" of this governmental unit. given this, theoretically, their mission is the following:

Program Priorities

1. Assuring ongoing high quality family planning and related preventive health services that will improve the overall health of individuals;

2. Assuring access to a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and related preventive health services that include natural family planning methods, infertility services, and services for adolescents; highly effective contraceptive methods; breast and cervical cancer screening and prevention that corresponds with nationally recognized standards of care; STD and HIV prevention education, counseling, and testing; extramarital abstinence education and counseling; and other preventive health services. The broad range of services does not include abortion as a method of family planning;

3. Encouraging participation of families, parents, and/or other adults acting in the role of parents in the decision of minors to seek family planning services, including activities that promote positive family relationships;

4. Improving the health of individuals and communities by partnering with community-based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations (FBOs), and other public health providers that work with vulnerable or at-risk populations;

5. Promoting individual and community health by emphasizing family planning andrelated preventive health services for hard-to-reach populations, such as uninsured or under-insured individuals, males, persons with limited English proficiency, adolescents, and other vulnerable or at-risk populations.

Sounds okay, right? I mean, I don't personally like the notion that they exclude institutions that do not provide abortion services while including faith-based institutions (seems to me that in order to be "neutral," they shouldn't allow either or should allow both), but I'm all for educating people about reproduction and providing health services, particularly in under served areas. I looked up their allocation of grant funds for FY 2006, and while some of the studies seem a bit unrealistic, others did seem like they'd result in some helpful information.

Here's the kicker, though. Any organization that applies for/receives a grant from the government under title X must agree to the following:

None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be made available to any entity under title X of the Public Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family participation in the decision of minors to seek family planning services and that it provides counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in sexual activities

Um, is it just me, or does that sound like any applicable program has to teach abstinence and take away the rights of minors in order to be funded? *sigh*

I get that people are concerned about the appointment of Dr. Orr to this organization, but based upon what I've read, it seems like most of the funding has already been restricted and directed toward the conservative abstinence-only, family-centered approach. If she continues to support the current administration's conservative views, i suspect we're in for more of the same--a decrease in funding and support for any program that advocates something other than abstinence.

This isn't quite what bugs me most about the appointment, though. What I want to know is why someone with degrees in politics is running a branch of government that should, at the very least, be run by someone with training and expertise in public health, if not medicine? How will she be able to make educated decisions about policy if she can only rely on her own opinions to guide her? I dare say, it would be like putting me--a pacifist--in charge of the Army! ;-)

At any rate, it all makes for interesting debate. What do you think?

As for me, well, I don't know yet. I've got to go read a good five chapters of embryology before I can even begin to form a foundational knowledge of what, exactly, "family planning" means....

constitution day: w strikes again

it's a fact: 99.9% of medical students depend upon federal funding from the U.S. government in order to pay for medical school and its associated costs (i.e. FOOD), while in school. the funding is not guaranteed--there are many, many hoops to jump through (read: 10,000 or so forms to fill out and sign) before a student can get such funding. if we do get student loans, we're considered "lucky." our interest rate on our student loans from the government is currently capped at 8%, as opposed to the uncapped rates, some upwards of 22%, on private loans. nevertheless, it goes without saying that if the government lends an average of $200,000.00 at 8% interest to almost every medical student (~4,000 nationwide?) in the country during his or her tenure in medical school, they end up earning quite a lot of money off of us. add to this the amount the government discounts our services once we do go into practice and one starts to wonder: is the government screwing over its healthcare providers? i'll leave you to chew on the answer to that one....

(aside: too bad michael moore left the education part out of "sicko"...it's another way that the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the world with respect to health care.)

in the meantime, i'm here to report that the hoops have just become more numerous. why? because some idiot, somewhere in Washington D.C., decided that all institutions receiving federal funding must celebrate--are you ready for this?--CONSTITUTION DAY. [have any of you even heard of constitution day? did you know that it's tomorrow? sorry, no, you don't get the day off from work. not even if you're the postman.] as such, schools that funnel federal funding to their students--including medical schools--must hold activities to celebrate constitution day. i kid you not. we're talking lectures, people. videos. presentations by politicians. and attendance, as i've been informed, is MANDATORY.

apparently, this is simply one of the latest actions taken by the department of education, which is now diving wholeheartedly into its misdirected "no child left behind" and "american competitiveness initiative" programs. what i want to know is: how do they think they're helping medical students by forcing them to take time out of their studies to attend lectures on the constitution? (is it not bad enough that we only have, oh, a week to cover the anatomy of the abdomen? how about cutting that down to an hour? it's not like we need to know about the abdomen or anything....) do they not realize that the majority of medical students likely have better knowledge of the constitution than most politicians serving in government? (i'd dare them to test our knowledge versus W's, but it'd take them too long to decide on a color scheme for the scantron to actually give us the test before he's out of office....) do they actually think that we want to celebrate constitution day when we realize that (among other things) it does nothing to ensure healthcare for all citizens?

we'd be better off having lectures on how to understand medicare or medicaid or governmental policies on healthcare. but that would mean that the government would have to produce clear directives on such matters and be honest about them. not to mention, they'd have to acknowledge that many of the government's policies on healthcare go against one of the primary tenets of the constitution: to promote the general welfare of its citizens.

yes, let's celebrate the constitution--but, shh, don't let anyone point out what that really means.

....
do you need to rant about healthcare & the government, too? here's your chance:

factoid of the week: skin cancer

as i believe i mentioned in an earlier post, i've been making an effort to pay attention to material i come across during my studies that piques my curiosity or interest. i'm calling these little nuggets "factoids," for lack of a better term.

this week's factoid proved more difficult to study than i'd anticipated. it all began while i was studying the dreaded brachial plexus in lab on wednesday. our group went to look at this meshwork of nerves in one of the cadavers. it was the first time we'd seen one of the cadavers face up this year. for whatever reason, it's more difficult to see the ventral side of these bodies than the dorsal side. our group took it in stride, though, and began to make sense of the mass of nerves in the cadaver.

it's hard to tell what's what in a cadaver. the preservation process they undergo leaves the tissues looking rather like thanksgiving turkey meat--for the most part, all the tissues are the same color, and they're dehydrated, so they're not always in the same position as one would expect them to be. it takes quite a while to learn how to appreciate the difference between an artery and a nerve, as you can imagine--both look like beige string.

as we were reviewing the nerves and arteries in the brachial plexus, though, we noticed a large, brownish-red mass on one of the nerves. 'strange.' i thought. 'that shouldn't be there.' then as we were digging around in the cervical area, we found more of these masses. as we went through our studies, i wandered around to view the rest of the body, and then it hit me: this was the cadaver that had died of cancer. skin cancer, to be precise. the masses we saw were metastases. and they were spread *everywhere.*

friday, as i was sitting through yet another exceptionally droll administrative lecture, i went to a blog i'd heard mentioned on dr_couz's blog (gotta love the blog chain effect!) written by a woman with melanoma. in it, sarah, a woman who was born the same year i was, describes her battle with cancer. her blog is stunning. i highly recommend you read it, from beginning to end. now.

sarah's blog sent me to another, living with melanoma. between the two, i gained a whole new perspective on what it must be like to be a cancer patient, particularly a young one. some of what they experienced overlaps with my experience, and likely the experiences of anyone who has faced a chronic disorder that requires careful and consistent management; but their experiences run deeper than i could've ever imagined. i never really thought about what it must be like to live with a disease that you can literally watch eating you alive. i also had no idea it could spread so fast....

and that's what brings me to post about what i've seen and read: it's clear to me now that the signs of disease can be extremely subtle and that we need, more than ever, to pay attention to our bodies. i don't mean to suggest that we all become hypochondriacs--that would be counterproductive. but rather that we take time to really look at our bodies, to check in with them, to observe change over time, etc.

i read a post back in july by kevin_m.d. that, well, frankly pissed me off. it basically suggested that breast self-examination is a worthless tool for the detection of cancer. the post and linked article angered me not because i doubt the stated statistics, but rather because it implies that women should ignore their breasts. the trouble with this is that society tells us--particularly those of us who are women (and i say this not to be sexist, but i noticed that nobody's done a study on the efficacy of testicular self-exam in men*)--that we're not supposed to be in touch with our bodies.

doing breast self exams may or may not allow women to detect possible malignancies earlier than they would be detected by other screening measures. but they do give women permission to pay attention to their breasts. (you'd be surprised at how many people are afraid to look at their bodies--this concept of it being okay to look at oneself wasn't fixed with hand mirror parties in the late 60s, believe me.) and one bright physician, dr. christiane northrup, extends the concept further. in her book, women's bodies, women's wisdom, she recommends what she calls a "monthly self-care ritual." the concept is that a woman take time, once per month, to examine her whole body. the idea is not to look for tumors or cancer--the concept is to appreciate one's body and learn how it feels when it's well. When we're informed about our bodies--their anatomy, physiology, and their innate unique personal quirks--we're more in tune with them, and we're more likely to notice changes, good or bad!

i assert, as well, that such a monthly screening ritual is not just for women. men would benefit from doing this, too. again, not to seek out disease--but to know wellness.

my factoid for the week was melanoma. my message(s) for the week? wear sunscreen. learn from the experiences of others. get to know your body. touch yourself! i promise you won't be sorry.

as one of my professors said this week: the lecture is over. now go learn something! :-)

* yes, i did look it up on PubMed, in case you're wondering.

rant: Breaking News - Cleavage on Display

Have we reverted to the Victorian Age? Based upon the following email I received from NOW, one would think so.

Breaking News: Cleavage on Display

"There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton... There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable," the Washington Post reported.

NEWSFLASH: Hillary Clinton has breasts.

And apparently that "news" merits coverage in the Washington Post.

In a Style section cover story on Friday, fashion "reporter" Robin Givhan notes that Hillary Clinton has taken a brazen step for a woman politician by wearing a low neckline. "Showing cleavage," says Givhan, "is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease."

Shock! Horror! A prominent woman showing confidence and physical ease!

Givhan goes on with her psychobabble: "It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed."

This article about the frontrunning candidate for U.S. president caused quite a stir in the NOW office this morning, eliciting reactions ranging from "You've got to be kidding!" to "What century is this?" The piece is definitely outrageous, but it's also hilarious. Absurdly hilarious. And it's an indictment of our society's lingering archaic notions of femininity, assumptions about breasts and sexuality, and fears about powerful women.

What do you think? Share with us your take on this story -- whether analysis or satire. We'll post the best ones on the web site. Send your submissions to cleavage@now.org.

Read more on media treatment of politicians including Hillary Clinton. Sign our petition to major media outlets. Send this story to your friends.

my reaction to all of this?

*headdesk*

Basically, the Washington Post is saying that in order to be taken seriously in this world, I have to have a sex change operation. I mean, that can be the only conclusion, given that I am a woman who has breasts and that, no matter what I do, they're evident. As a future female physician, will I always be second-guessed because of them? What a horror, to think that a physician might *gasp* have breasts!

Come on, Victoria's Secret, where's your new line of cinch bands for women who want to have successful careers?

clearly, you've missed the market....

rant: "...i hope he does a good job."

just when it seemed that the situation couldn't get any worse...he used the pardon card. super_blaze pointed me to this video--hard to believe it actually appeared on live television, but i guess we haven't lost our 1st amendment rights (yet)--and i think it says, succinctly and eloquently, what so many americans wish they could say to w right about now.

pass it on!

rant: war

this isn't my particular rant, but i couldn't have chosen a better way of expressing these sentiments against the war in iraq myself. (warning: video contains explicit anti-war remarks, complete with some choice 4 letter words.)

thanks super_blaze, for bringing this to my attention.

rant: it's all about the tone....

i cannot speak for all medical schools (there were certainly things in the 101 list that do *not* apply to my program), but it seems that there's a general tone of animosity directed at the students, particularly by the science ph.d. professors. anatomists, in particular, seem to despise medical students. they think we're stupid (<--heard at many an anatomy lecture last year: "if you don't understand this, you're so dumb you should get up, leave, and go fill out a subway application")*. one of my study buddies had a conversation with a physician she shadowed before beginning medical school and he issued this caveat: "watch out for the ph.d.s. they're bitter because they didn't get in to med school." ouch. ordinarily i'd have thought this physician's hypothesis was off, but after what i've observed, i'm not so sure anymore.... at the very least, they hate teaching--that much is clear. since mwms is an odd place that runs on a pbl program, the school has made some very bassackwards curricular decisions. they're still trying to figure out the best way to "teach" and test our knowledge. while our anatomy class was a 10 week marathon of lectures, we're now deep into the pbl portion of our program. so far, the way we've been tested is in the form of "learning issues." basically, after our group finishes a case, we're supposed to pick learning issues, relevant to the case, on which we want to be tested. the powers that be try to act like these should be discrete packets of knowledge for the case at hand, but since that's impossible (the books, after all, aren't designed around our cases!), what ends up happening is that we pick chapters from our various books. so, for any given exam, there might be 40 or so learning issues, all derived from different chapters. all the groups choose their own issues and go at their own pace, with some direction given by the faculty facilitator. for the last pbl exam that the class of 2010 took, the majority of the pbl cases were based on neuroanatomy. by the time they were finished with the 8 cases for that block, most groups had picked nearly the entire neuroanatomy textbook. *gulp* it's simply not possible (in my opinion) to learn all of neuroanatomy on one's own by reading the textbook, particularly in 6 weeks when that's not the only class/book/bit of material one has to learn during that time. there are only 6 hours of pbl class per week, so discussing all the material in group is not really an option, either. basically, we're left to sink or swim on our own. many groups, as a result, have attempted to make the learning issues more manageable. in other words, while the group as a whole reads broadly during the case, learning issues are picked with what the group feels it needs to be tested on in particular. the thought is that if the group is specific about learning issues, there won't end up being 50+ learning issues on an exam. basically, pbl groups are trying to choose wisely so as to survive these horrid exams. as list 101 indicates, though, everyone in medical school is smart. there's nobody there who didn't have to do some amount of more-than-ordinary work to get accepted. everyone is self-motivated, if not exceptionally so. but are we treated as if that's a given? heck no. we're treated like incorrigible schoolchildren. lest you think i jest, consider the following email (only modified by changing names to protect privacy) sent by the professor in charge of compiling all the learning issues for the exams. i swear to you, it's all about the tone.

Dear class of 2010:

After compiling the exam topics sheet from the 1st 2 cases, I have noticed that most groups are choosing only a few topics from each case. These cases contain many more basic science topics than are being chosen at this time. For example, why are most groups avoiding gross anatomy? If you are deciding to avoid gross anatomy because you “already had that,” you are making a huge mistake. What you already had was a “survey” course, not a full anatomy course. As stated by I and Dr. Head Anatomist several times during anatomy, you MUST choose anatomy exam topics in PBL to learn this science well enough. You were also told by Dr. Head of PBL and I that in PBL you must review topics several times to fully understand them. Why are you not reviewing anatomy? Aren’t you discussing gross anatomy during the cases? If not, you should be!

Please be reminded that you are in medical college where you need to learn all the basic sciences in a PBL curriculum. In this curriculum, it is assumed that you take the responsibility of learning seriously and become adult learners where you are responsible for your own education. Most of you are achieving that goal, but others need to be reminded from time to time that this freedom in your education comes at a price. If you continue to minimalize exam topics as a strategy to score better on PBL exams, this strategy WILL backfire: you will not learn enough basic science information to score well on PBL exams, the COMLEX exam, or to be a knowledgeable physician.

Please let me remind you that the PBL exam will be comprised of 185 questions. If you choose too few exam topics, your exam will have 8 or more questions from each topic. As you might not be aware, deriving 6, 7, 8, or more questions from a topic requires that I examine you on very minute details: the kind of details in which you may need to memorize charts or graphs to answer. If you choose enough topics, say 4, 5, or 6 from each case, then I can attempt to make your exam from big picture topics that are most important clinically. Although not always reached, this is my goal.

In closing, let me make it perfectly clear that choosing very few exam topics from cases in not a good strategy: neither for the PBL exam, nor for your medical education.

Another Frustrated Anatomist, Ph.D.

*no offense to anyone working for subway; i guess the anatomists just have issues with those employees, too, even though they eat lunch there almost every day.....

rant ii: the government versus a woman's body

the supreme court released its decision re: partial birth abortion today. i wish i could provide a direct link to the court document, but it's a rather large pdf file, and i have nowhere on the web to store it myself. so if you're interested in the nitty gritty of what i'm about to say, you may want to go read that document first. now has a link to it in their news section, as do several other news pages and organizations.

if you've been reading my blog, you know by now that i consider myself a feminist. i tend to agree with liberal politics, primarily because i'm an academic at heart and i'm always questioning everything. (my favorite question growing up: why?) i believe that conventions are made to be questioned and analyzed, not reflexively followed. i also am an exceptionally sensitive person, one who holds life dearly enough that she's been known to run into traffic to save a turtle about to meet its demise by attempting to cross the street. i cried when someone killed the wasps outside my house recently, even though i was afraid of them (i don't like pain and therefore avoid critters that sting/bite/want to eat me). basically, i'm a big mush--my heart is always on my sleeve and, no matter how hard i try, i cannot conceal this fact.

that having been said, i struggle with the issue of abortion. i feel that life is sacred. i've always been fascinated by childbirth and i know i'll likely end up focusing my career on women's health. *and* i have a strong respect for women's bodies and their choices about what happens to their bodies. so although i don't think i could ever have an abortion myself (<--i'm a little biased because i have fertility problems and it would be pretty darn hard for me to get pregnant without medical intervention), i think every woman has a right to choose. i also acknowledge the fact that, given my interest in women's health care, i may be trained and/or asked to perform this procedure. this fact scares me, but i acknowledge the reality, nonetheless. i cannot imagine the suffering that an unwanted child must endure throughout his or her life. i also don't think any woman should be forced into poverty or put her life in jeopardy for a fetus. it's my opinion, plain and simple.

when i first heard about partial birth abortion, i was incredibly disgusted. the description of the procedure seemed absolutely horrific to me and i couldn't understand why anyone would ever want to have that kind of an abortion. then i read the supreme court ruling.

if i'm understanding it correctly, a partial birth abortion involves delivering the fetus to a certain point and then killing it. in contrast, other types of late-term abortion involve dis-membering the fetus in utero and then delivering it. knowing what i know about science (remember, i just studied embryology and neuroanatomy, among other things), if i had to choose between someone whacking me on the head to kill me versus tearing me to shreds, i'd choose to be whacked. it's not even in the realm of being contestable--one act causes immediate death, the other is pure torture. but what did the courts just do? they just prevented physicians from performing the "humane" form of abortion while permitting them to torture fetuses via the alternate method. they say they're trying to preserve the sanctity of life--how on earth does this decision uphold that sanctity? seriously! can anyone follow the logic here? or did they simply make the decision so ambiguous as to prevent providers from performing any late-term abortions? hmm....

i really don't understand how the same government that has allowed us to invade other countries where we are killing innocent children and that allows our children to access guns so that they can kill each other can take a stand against killing a fetus that cannot survive outside of its mother. i also don't understand how our government can refuse to allow sex education to be taught in schools. if they don't want women to have abortions, then why aren't they teaching pregnancy prevention? if they're professing abstinence as a "cure" to prevent pregnancy, then why is the government (in some states) requiring young girls to be vaccinated against sti's? if they truly believed in their abstinence programs, there would be no need for the vaccinations. oh, wait--that's right--boys can have all the sex they want and spread around the sti's while girls have to remain abstinent until marriage wherein they get exposed to sti's because the guys were sleeping around--that's why we're mandating the vaccines, right?

i swear, if it weren't for the right to free speech, i think i'd be on the next plane out of this country. until the government takes away my right to rant, though, they'll just have to deal with me screaming from my blogspot.

rant: my hatred of guns, reinforced

i want somebody to give me one good reason as to why we should still be allowed to own guns in america.

seriously. why the heck should a college student be able to go out and buy two guns that give him the means to kill 33 people?!?!? i know, i know, some will argue that being able to own a gun is a fundamental american right--but just because however many hundreds of years ago (before we wiped out nearly the whole environment) we supposedly needed guns to "protect ourselves" from animals, does that mean that it's still a good idea for harboring weapons to remain a fundamental right? we're certainly not at risk from being eaten by bears anymore. it has also been proven that ownership of guns results in more intentional and accidental deaths than in protection from robbers or "bad guys," etc. so don't even try to tell me that people need guns for protection--i personally think that's absolute bullsh!t.

when i was in middle school, my friend's mom was shot in my front yard. in life before cell phones, she happened to have a c.b. radio underneath the passenger seat in her car. when the robber appeared at her car window, she reached for the radio, and the person trying to rob her thought she was reaching for a gun and shot her. my family and i ended up underneath the couch in the living room until the cops arrived. my friend's mom survived--luckily, she'd placed her arm up in a defensive position and the bullet lodged in her arm--but i don't think any of us felt safe again for a long time following. would owning or possessing a gun have helped us in this situation? not a chance.

about fifteen years after this incident, i worked in the burn unit at a large trauma center. the physician for whom i worked, an amazing burn and trauma surgeon, allowed me to shadow him one day when most people were on vacation (sometime between christmas and new year's day). i'd never gotten to observe surgery first-hand before that day, and what i saw, i'll never forget. sometime around 3pm on a bright, sunny afternoon, the trauma team was paged to the trauma bay for an incoming gsw (gun shot wound) victim. because of hipaa laws, i cannot go into the details here about why the guy had been shot in the middle of the day or by whom, in particular, he was shot. but what i observed that day in the o.r. only underscored my already strong anti-gun position. this guy had been shot by a member of a law enforcement agency in an effort to (supposedly) protect the public. what i learned during the surgery, however, was that he'd not been shot by just any kind of bullet. the bullet with which he was shot was of the sort that is created to cause the most damage to whatever it hits. and, believe me, it did more damage than you can imagine.

i guess i can understand why law enforcement members carry guns, even though in most other countries, they do not carry weapons. but in my opinion, there is something absolutely sick about the fact that we allow people (law enforcement or otherwise) to run around with guns that are made to be not only lethal, but totally destructive. i don't know enough about guns to know whether the student at vt was using unusually destructive guns or bullets, but the descriptions of the violence certainly make it sound as if the weapons he used were not "ordinary." why do we allow such weapons to be sold? if we really think that we still need to have the right to bear arms, why not make them single-bullet guns that have ordinary bullets? why do we allow the sale of such destructive weapons? do we really think the average citizen needs a multi-bullet containing super-gun to protect him- or herself?

here we are, invading other countries on the premise that they harbor weapons of mass destruction. has anyone bothered to look in our backyard?!?!? i wish somebody would invade us and save us from our own self-destruction....