"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Weiser says:
================
...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to
be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever.

=================

You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that
there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in
stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions.

So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher"
right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to
deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't.
Which is it Scott?

frtzw906

That's what it all comes down to for gun nuts. The right to carry a gun is
more important than ANYTHING.

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:08 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:12 PM:


snip..

as stupid and ignorant as
ever, but
it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well. So,
unlike you, I
did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize.
==================
LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to
soembody else, not to me.

It was an apology to you, but apparently you were confused
about that.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me. OK, if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it, liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.

It could happen in any health care system. When my wife got sick in
Miami
with kidney stones and was writhing in agony with an as yet undiagnosed
problem, she was initially refused treatment because the administrator
could
not get through on the phone to the insurance company.

I haven't seen any evidence that makes me long for a different type of
health care system. Every Canadian knows that there are problems with
certain types of specialized tests and providing service to remote
areas. We
all want to improve those situations and there is a national will to do
so.
============================
Willful ignorance.

Will to do better. Ignorance infers not knowing about the problems
involved, and I do.

snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation.
================
No, I have not.

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================\\\
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of
people in
Newfoundland.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick
at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in
a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to
your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion
that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of
the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that
no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about your
ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not be able to
get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting' for treatment. I
pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of the system that is making
them wait, as in Canada, but their own. You then proceeded to claim that
NO one is waiting for treatment in Canada.

Where did I say that? Quit being so obscure. If I said "no one is waiting
for treatment in Canada" post that quote with the full context so it can
be explored.
=========================
LOL YOU just posted the context fool.

Oh, I see, so you are only referring to the discussion about Newfoundland.

Thanks for finally confirming that this is all about your being a scumbag
and liar and deliberately making a false accusation and being unwilling to
admit it.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

snip boring old crap
restore relevent post that you would like to go away...
I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment.

Or if they are denied treatment completely.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

snip boring old crap
restore snip that you would like to go away...
I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment.

Or if they are denied treatment completely.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:14 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:36 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a
gun. And
amazingly, no one gets shot there!

Prove it. Show me one community that you can certify does not
have a gun
in
it, and then show me how you can prevent a gun from being
brought into
that
community from outside.

I never said some whackjob like yourself couldn't bring a gun
into a place
with no guns.

Thanks for admitting that your utopian argument is nonsense.

I'm not making a utopian argument.

Of course you are, you're just too ignorant to understand it. And
you're
trying to evade the issue as well. You said,"There are lots of
communities
in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets
shot there!"

You were challenged to supply even ONE example of such a utopian
community.

Sigh. What I'm really talking about is communities that don't have
the type
of nutty gun culture that gets hearts pumping for freaks like you.

Nice attempt at backpedaling.

I've
lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not
belong to
a member of a police force.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don¹t exist. In
fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.

Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon?
Also Yes.

Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people.

Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our
culture? Not.

Would you be more unsafe? No. Would the individuals who ARE shot by
criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend
themselves?
Probably, but the point is that it is immoral for YOU to disarm THEM
because
YOU are afraid of guns.

Nobody moves away from here because they think they'd be safer
somewhere where guns were more prevalent. You'd have to be totally
insane to
think like that.

So why is it that many Canadians are objecting to the draconian gun
laws in
Canada? Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration
scheme,
which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful?


You were unable to do so. Your implicit thesis is that if a
community
doesn't have guns in it, nobody will be shot. The first failure in
your
logic is the fallacious presumption that just because a community
does not
have a gun in it NOW, it will never have a gun in it. Your second
failure is
in assuming that the only way people can be injured, killed or
victimized by
violent criminals is with a gun. Even in Japan, where guns are
tightly
restricted, people still get killed. Sometimes with butcher
knives, or
swords or any number of other weapons...and sometimes with guns.

Mhmm.

How does that happen, pray tell? How is it that guns are used in
Japan to
commit crimes? Japan has very strict laws forbidding private
ownership of
guns, particularly handguns, and yet handgun crimes still
occur...and the
number is rising.

How can that be? Can you explain this dichotomy?

For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You
can buy
a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum.

That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it.

And then smuggle
it into a country like Japan where the people choose not to worship
guns
like they are the second coming of jesus christ.

Do you have any evidence that Americans are smuggling guns into
Japan? No? I
didn't think so. In fact, it's Japanese who are smuggling guns into
Japan,
and Englishmen who are smuggling guns into Britain, and Australians
who are
smuggling guns into Australia. And to debunk your claim in advance,
no, most
of those guns are not smuggled directly from the US, many of them
aren't
even manufactured in the US.

But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is
not being
met even in Japan.


Thinking that everyone having a gun is the path to non-violence
is beyond
utopian, it is evidence of a sick mind.

Thinking that the path to non-violence can be walked without a gun
is
evidence of a sick mind. Unless you LIKE being a martyr to
non-violence like
Gandhi. If that's what works for you, fine.

Geezus you are a loser.

And you're an ignorant ****wit.

You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease
some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****?

No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm
going
to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when
it's
required.

You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even
though
Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of
guns, not
to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that
non-violence
hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan.

Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which
is why
they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons.

Me, I'll achieve peace through
superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there
hiding in the
bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey.

ROFL.

The myth of the violent stranger in the bush.

That's not who is going to kill you.

That's who kills most of the people in the world.

You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a
member of
your own family

Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven.

- or on yourself.

That would be my right, now wouldn't it?

Or you'll put a big hole in some person
you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to
have your
chance to be a hero gunslinger.

I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day
of my
life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet. Nor do
the
vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The
"blood
running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen
where
concealed carry is made lawful.

Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every
round
I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun
should be
taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and
bulky,
and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat
of
summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the
day when
you're in public. Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it
*just
once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for
everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to
CHOOSE to
be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a
right to
deny them, ever.

But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I
choose
to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and
defend the
defenseless should it be necessary.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott did you see this article over the weekend. I realize it is in a
"suspect" source, Fox News, but I found it interesting none the less
and to your current point.

http://tinyurl.com/7xs53

I suppose if a person really wanted to read it, they might get some
interesting data, if they are interested in data, not just the normal
party line! TnT

===

The author is John Lott, a gun nut who is also the author of The Bias
Against Guns (Regnery 2003) and More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago
Press 2000).

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of claptrap.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message
.. .
Rick,

Is it your position that Americans don't die while waiting for health
care, because of the convenience of the U.S. healthcare system?
======================
Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper?

Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my
question?

No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults.
My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the deliberate lies that
kman made about no one dying while waiting for treatment in Canada.

KMAN has stated on numerous occasions that he didn't assert that "no one
[is] dying while waiting for treatment in Canada."


If healthcare is convenient, yet unaffordable, is it still not worthless?
=====================
I don't know anyone that doesn't get healthcare, so I guess you'l, have to
ask someone else.

You don't have to know anyone, who does or doesn't get healthcare to answer
the question I asked.

Mark

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"


snip



======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick
at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical
facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2
years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type
of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported
by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is
about your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the
US may not be able to get to the doctor right away, then
they are 'waiting' for treatment. I pointed out that it
wasn't the convenience of the system that is making them
wait, as in Canada, but their own. You then proceeded to
claim that NO one is waiting for treatment in Canada.

Where did I say that? Quit being so obscure. If I said "no
one is waiting for treatment in Canada" post that quote with
the full context so it can be explored.
=========================
LOL YOU just posted the context fool.

Oh, I see, so you are only referring to the discussion about
Newfoundland.
=====================
LOL You are that stupid, aren't you, liarman? No, the
discussion about Nfld was in a previous post.




Thanks for finally confirming that this is all about your being
a scumbag and liar and deliberately making a false accusation
and being unwilling to admit it. ==========================
ROTFLMAO Only a totally dishonest lair could come up with bit of
idiocy, liarman. Thanks for proving how much you HAVE to lie,
liarman..

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

snip boring old crap
restore relevent post that you would like to go away...
I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may
not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are
'waiting'
for treatment.

Or if they are denied treatment completely.
=================
Maybe so, that wasn't the point of the postings now was it,
liarman? Where's your refutation of the facts I posted that
proved that people die waiting for treatment in Canada? Can't
quite keep on track, can you liarman? You are a proven liar,
many times now.

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

snip boring old crap
restore snip that you would like to go away...
I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may
not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are
'waiting'
for treatment.

Or if they are denied treatment completely.
======================
Nice strawman, liarman. All you have left is to devert attention
from your lies?
maybe they are, maybr=e they aren't. Problem for you is that
that wasn't the discussion. The discussion was YOUR lies about
nobody dieing from waiting in Canada. Why is it that you seem to
be unable to discuss your lies and willful ignorance?

"bearsbuddy" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mark H. Bowen" wrote in
message
.. .
Rick,

Is it your position that Americans don't die while waiting
for health
care, because of the convenience of the U.S. healthcare
system?
======================
Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper?

Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into
play in my
question?

No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults.
My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the deliberate
lies that
kman made about no one dying while waiting for treatment in
Canada.

KMAN has stated on numerous occasions that he didn't assert
that "no one
[is] dying while waiting for treatment in Canada."
=====================
No, that isn't what his latest assertion have been all about. I
suggest you read with a little more comprehension. He has been
asserting that he never claimed that no one is WAITING for
treatment in Canada. That was his second lie. His first one,
and one that he still hasn't retracted was that nobody dies while
waiting for treatment in Canada. maybe you can get him to admit
he lied about that too. Good luck though...




If healthcare is convenient, yet unaffordable, is it still
not worthless?
=====================
I don't know anyone that doesn't get healthcare, so I guess
you'l, have to
ask someone else.

You don't have to know anyone, who does or doesn't get
healthcare to answer the question I asked.
============================
Why? That wasn't in the discussion. It is but yet another
strawman to avoid the original posts that proved makn was, and is
lying. That you have to focus on other systems says you don't
have alot to defend in the Canadian system. If you could read
for comprehesion, I have stated in this thread several times that
the US system, as with many systems around the world have serious
problems. No where have I defended it. Now, if you would like
to discuss the lies presented here, go right ahead, but the
deversions aren't working...



Mark