[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 7:06 PM, BAR wrote:


Why do we let idiots, and I do mean idiots, vote? Should people have to
take an IQ test so that we are assured that the people casting votes are
of enough intelligence or intellect that we will be comfortable with
them making decisions that affect those of a higher level intelligence
or intellect.


Idiots share the same rights that you do.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 7:35 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 06:14:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government
action/regulation on just about anything,

Only useless bureaucracy that make no sense like that cartridge case
the state of Maryland is collecting and has yet to use in the
prosecution of a single gun crime.
It is like the ammo logs they collected for over a decade, generating
tons of paper that was totally useless and never even looked at when
the police were investigating shootings.



Not every attempt to address a problem works out Greg. Programs or laws
are implemented with high expectations only to find that they are
useless or unenforceable.

I read a really interesting article last night. It was a scientific
study by physiologists to determine what makes a person "conservative"
and what makes a person a "liberal".

Turns out their are very distinct differences in their physiological
make ups.

A "conservative" personality tends to be more focused on threats and
challenges to what they consider "the norm" compared to the liberal
personality. They tend to resist change and don't like leaving their
shell of security. Interestingly, *all* mentally healthy people are
fundamentally conservative due to instinctive self preservation
influences that are hard wired in our brains. Even a modern "liberal"
will instinctively withdraw to a safe zone of thinking when suddenly
thrust into a situation that challenges or threatens them. Only after
thinking the new challenge through will it be perceived as a real threat
or not.

Liberals aren't perfect either. A really interesting point was made in
the article. Contrary to what they claim when discussing political and
societal issues, the physiological profile that makes up a liberal
indicates that they tend to be less concerned with the known safety
zones of what would make them conservative and are willing to risk the
safety of the known for individual advancement rather than the
advancement of a society as a whole.

"That" should produce some interesting comments. :-)

[Poco Loco]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 12:48:20 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 08:00:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/3/2014 7:35 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 06:14:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

You have extremists like Greg who are against any sort of government
action/regulation on just about anything,

Only useless bureaucracy that make no sense like that cartridge case
the state of Maryland is collecting and has yet to use in the
prosecution of a single gun crime.
It is like the ammo logs they collected for over a decade, generating
tons of paper that was totally useless and never even looked at when
the police were investigating shootings.



Not every attempt to address a problem works out Greg. Programs or laws
are implemented with high expectations only to find that they are
useless or unenforceable.

I read a really interesting article last night. It was a scientific
study by physiologists to determine what makes a person "conservative"
and what makes a person a "liberal".

Turns out their are very distinct differences in their physiological
make ups.

A "conservative" personality tends to be more focused on threats and
challenges to what they consider "the norm" compared to the liberal
personality. They tend to resist change and don't like leaving their
shell of security. Interestingly, *all* mentally healthy people are
fundamentally conservative due to instinctive self preservation
influences that are hard wired in our brains. Even a modern "liberal"
will instinctively withdraw to a safe zone of thinking when suddenly
thrust into a situation that challenges or threatens them. Only after
thinking the new challenge through will it be perceived as a real threat
or not.

Liberals aren't perfect either. A really interesting point was made in
the article. Contrary to what they claim when discussing political and
societal issues, the physiological profile that makes up a liberal
indicates that they tend to be less concerned with the known safety
zones of what would make them conservative and are willing to risk the
safety of the known for individual advancement rather than the
advancement of a society as a whole.

"That" should produce some interesting comments. :-)

I don't think most "Liberals" are really that liberal.
They are fine when it comes to the freedoms they think everyone should
have but if they think you do not deserve that freedom, they are not
liberal in any sense of the word.

Examples
It is OK to kill yourself with drugs and dangerous sex practices but
you can't do it on a motorcycle without a helmet, car without a seat
belt and the list goes on.

You have "free speech" and you can even say the most hideous things
about a conservative president or even a candidate but if you say the
wrong thing about blacks, gays or latinos you are a horrible person.
Free speech in general seems to be limited to toeing the left wing
line.

Liberals really seem conflicted about environmental things. They hate
oil and love "renewables" even though most renewables are at least as
bad, if not worse for the environment. They want to save all of the
animals, even the ones who are destroying the environment they profess
to want to save.

If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people
who expect the government or a government regulated business will
provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical
city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need
and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state
government and hired talent coddling them all the way.

Well said.

[Wayne.B]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people
who expect the government or a government regulated business will
provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical
city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need
and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state
government and hired talent coddling them all the way.

Well said.

===

Yes.

All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes
that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't
think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the
camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real
risk of making the cure worse than the problem.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people
who expect the government or a government regulated business will
provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical
city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need
and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state
government and hired talent coddling them all the way.

Well said.

===

Yes.

All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes
that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't
think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the
camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real
risk of making the cure worse than the problem.



Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking
his nose in your tent. :-)

If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never
purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private
transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows.

[F*O*A*D]

On 11/3/14 6:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people
who expect the government or a government regulated business will
provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical
city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need
and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state
government and hired talent coddling them all the way.

Well said.

===

Yes.

All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes
that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't
think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the
camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real
risk of making the cure worse than the problem.



Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking
his nose in your tent. :-)

If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never
purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private
transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows.




Wayne's answer is the same one conservatives gave to oppose the
abolition of slavery, to oppose child labor laws, to keep from giving
women the vote, to oppose social security, to oppose medicare, to oppose
the voting rights act, et cetera ad nauseum.

"once you let blacks vote, their noses will be in the tent in a big way."



--
“There’s more idleness and abuse of government favors among the
economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.” -
Norman Mailer