| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1531
|
|||
|
|||
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ============ 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. ============= OK. OK. OK. You're very good! There I was, taking all this gun talk seriously, and then you end with a sentence like that! Too funny! NO ONE but a comedian could make a statement like that. You ARE funny! "...to defend the defenseless...." LOL ROTFL!!!!!! Yours are the words of a coward who would stand by and watch innocent people being exterminated. -- 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 |
|
#1532
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:
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. 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 Yes, I heard about Wilson's bravery the day it happened. It is indeed unusual for the mainstream media to even mention that an armed citizen was involved, and it's entirely unheard of for the liberal press to analyze the event as Lott did, because it flies in the face of their deliberate anti-gun bias. The last thing they want to report on is an armed citizen who died heroically. They would rather have their fingernails pulled out than lead their stories on the incident with something like: "Armed citizen killed by deranged gunman while defending injured cops and citizens." Should I have to do what Wilson did, I won't expect any better treatment than he got, but that's not really the point. -- 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 |
|
#1533
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself bearsbuddy wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... 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 This was not a Fox News article, it was a commentary, by a very suspect source. Leave it to Faux News to present such. Do you have some evidence that the description of the events is incorrect? John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003) and More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press 2000). Mark --and the so-called data was of no interest to this hunter/gun owner-- The fact that an armed citizen died trying to protect innocent children and injured cops from a deranged gunman is of no interest to you? How callous. -- 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 |
|
#1534
|
|||
|
|||
|
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says: ============== frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We are still figuring out the rules of the game. ===================== Tink, I don't wish to be like rick and KMAN. You and I were having a discussion. It had interesting possibilities. You showed me the error of my thoughts. The end. And then you continue, restart, so I will continue to play, unless I hear another "End" As you'll recall, I wished to demonstrate to you that right-wing political policies, which I generally view as mean-spirited, could not have a basis in the Christian faith so many of you profess to follow. I was aiming at cognitive dissonance -- in you. According to what you wrote above, you came into this discussion with the preconceived ideas that right wing policies are mean-spirited, and could not have a basis in the Christian faith as so many of us Christians profess. You actually came into the discussion with at least four preconceived conclusions. One, that right wing policies are mean spirited. Two, that Christians share a common basis in expressing the Christian Faith that we profess to follow. Three that I am experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance, and Four, that you were aiming and able at exposing that CD. and delivering me from it by enlightening my mind. Instead, I was the one who had to shift my cognition of the Christian faith. I was under some mistaken impression that JC was all about love, charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be much more inclined to support liberal policies. And that is why I am agreeing with you, not disagreeing at all. I suspected these inadequate assumptions bad enough, in and of themselves, and certainly not what you would want to base political policy on, and especially concerning capital punishment. And I suspect that you really did not care to have to attempt to support all of these assumptions, expecially those to do with Christianity. You made some common assumptions regarding your "impression that JC was all about love, charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be much more inclined to support liberal policies." Unless you are willing and able to support this contention, I would suggest that you not base your argument upon them, since as you acknowledge below that you had the wrong impression, and were maybe no more substantive than Disney-like Media. If I assume you mean like Bambi, Snow White, etc, you would certainly be correct. It is clear, however, after you've cited the appropriate scripture, that I had JC figured all wrong. I don't know where I got my impressions of JC from, given my very atheist upbringing. I can only surmise that it was from some sort of syrupy, Disney-like media presentations. From what you've presented about JC, in making your case that JC would support captital punishment, he is obviously anything but loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving. You show him to sanction murder: state-sanctioned murder. Where is the love? Where is the foregiveness? Most Christians have based their lives on these common assumptions made by those around us. It saves us having to really know what we believe or really work to find out what the real issues of life are. It is easy to drift along on the current of common assumptions. Most Christians have also allowed this CD to exist in the minds of those who they contend with, and come out basically smelling like a bunch of wuss. Then those who watch, make the assumption that all Christians are wuss. Then they conclude that not wanting to be wuss themselves, they would not really be interested in this Christianity thing for themself, Thankyou very much. Now at the same time the watchers are deciding they are not interested in being wuss, the Christians are trying to tiddy up their world by being exceedingly "loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving," or at least a reasonable facsimile of such. Again promoting the impression further that Christians are "loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving," wuss, translation, Doormats! And the watchers are even less interested. Now every once in awhile, the Christians get the idea, that they really need to get involved in their world, so as to "save the World", and what better way than in politics. They bring all their previous accounted for baggage, but really not having any idea why they are even here, and not knowing what the political issues of their day are, and so at best just start making a bunch of noise. Sometimes they have been aligned with the left, because the left has the reputation of "caring about the down trodden, poor, and weak", and sometimes with the right, because they are right, "believe in everything good, and wholesome, America, apple pie, and right." At least that is the current right-wing Christian understanding, which is currently making the most noise! Truthfully, frtwz, I don't think their ideas have a whole lot more depth than that, and their attempt at "loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving" attitude is not much better grounded in the faith they say they profess. I have talked to many, who have no idea about what they believe, about being a Christian, the Faith they say they profess, and certainly not about politics. Now I was before, and I am now trying to be brutally honest in order to stop you from making a false assumption based on what you think Christians believe and how they act. Then having made that false assumption, trying to make a conclusion about what our attitude, and JC attitude would be regarding Capital Punishment. I was not trying to be petty or evasive, but felt that we had to get to these points. It really does not matter what I, or anyone else think, what JC would do. At best it would be an unsubstatiated assumption, that we can only say what He did in the past, though under different situation. And at best, so much different than what we expected, that we can not compute the odds. It really does not matter what Christians do, or don't do, because they are like radical ions, with an unpredictable path at best, and a pretty bad predictable path at worst, and certainly not reliable consistent history to base anything on, especially politics. Despite your attempt, to be nice and recognize my understanding of God, and to be Politically Correct, to include JC in the equation, you really don't care about all that, nor have the inclination to want to really get into in, except for how it may support your position. Any proof, of any assumptions, would be way beyond your expertise or interest. So, clearly Tink, there's a case of cognitive dissonance. I've had to change my view of JC. Of course, you're free to continue the "JC goes to Washington" exercise with fellow right-wngers. It's sure to help you find even greater congruence between mean-spirited policies and the teachings of your faith. Thanks for the enlightenment, Tink. Cheers, frtzw906 Which brings me back to your point that there are some bad things going on with capital punishment, and especially as it is practice in the US. Is that a fair starting point? Personally I would rather not continue with anyone else if I can entice you back into an interesting discussion, less the WWJD angle. We have worked to hard to get to this point! And please spare yourself the grief by making assumptions about me and what I believe, and where I would come out on any particula subject, for as I think you begin to understand, you do not have the data to make any such assumption or conclusion. I would also like to encourage you also if possible, that not all Christians are mean-spirited and nasty SOBs that are looking for someone to pull the switch on. But then that is just one of my assumptions. We have yet to examine either of our assumtions on that score, so I don't know that you need to make any particular conclusions about what you have seen so far, about me, about other Christians, and certainly about JC! Respectfully, TnT |
|
#1535
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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 donąt exist. In fact, gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis. I know they exist. This is my point, it is not a gun culture. Sure it is. Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon? Also Yes. Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people. There'd have been less people shot without the guns. Utopian nonsense. But at least you don't have many people here who think that they need to own an assault weapon or that the "right" to own an assault weapon is more important than the right to not have your neighbourhood shot up with semi-automatic fire. Wanna bet? Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our culture? Not. Would you be more unsafe? Yes, most definitely. You're dangerously wrong. You also show a deep mistrust of your fellow citizens. Would the individuals who ARE shot by criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves? No, and other innocent people would be dead. So, it's okay with you that people are killed because they are rendered defenseless by you and your ilk? Probably, but the point is that it is immoral for YOU to disarm THEM because YOU are afraid of guns. ? Yes, it's quite clear you don't understand. 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? You just finished saying that gun ownership in Canada is quite high. How does that mesh with draconian gun laws? The ownership preceded the laws, which are being ignored wholesale. Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme, which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful? Because a bunch of incompetent bureacrats were given the job, and the fact that it was a gun registry that they messed up has little to do with why people are ****ed off. They are ****ed off because they fouled it up and spent way to much. If the car registry system worked that badly, we'd be just as ****ed off. And, it doesn't work. 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. What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA? Why don't you do some research and get back to me. 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? That's not what I said. That's exactly what you said. 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. And many are. So what? They are a legal consumer product here. Gun manufacturers are not responsible for what criminals do with illicit firearms. But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is not being met even in Japan. I don't have a Utopian ideal. Sure you do. I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. I happen to believe that a place where people don't associate their love of guns with their love of life is a safer place to be. What a singularly ridiculous statement. According to you, one who loves his life is wrong to wish to protect it. 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. Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special hole in the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable and necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is children, wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member of their own family. Not very often at all, particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. Bad things happen. People get killed in accidents every day. More children die by drowning than are accidentally killed by firearms, and the number of children accidentally killed by firearms is at an all-time low and continues to go down, thanks in large part to the NRA. 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. Uh. And to you this is an argument for a stronger gun culture? Indeed. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons. Why are you pointing out that India has an armed forces? They have from moment one. To make it clear that even your utopian icon was wrong. 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. Actually, it isn't. It's a relative or other person that is known to you. Actually, you're spouting long-debunked HCI claptrap again. But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun. 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. You keep waiting for the stranger then. Do you have a fire extinguisher? How about accident insurance on your car? - or on yourself. That would be my right, now wouldn't it? Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if you exercise it one day. And why would that be an issue for you? 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. I haven't shot anybody either! And I didn't have to carry a gun around for 20 years. Cool! Indeed. Lucky too. Have you checked that fire extinguisher lately? 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. Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even keep their shoes tied. My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the chances are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying a gun. Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's most likely to be a law-abiding citizen. 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. I disagree. And you're free to do so because people with guns secured the right and the ability for you to do so. 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. You take delusions of grandeur seriously, which is what a big part of weapons ownership seems to be about. Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward. -- 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 |
|
#1536
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"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. Pert near. For, without the right to keep and bear arms, one is a slave to anyone with a gun and the willingness to use it. Without the ability to defend one's other rights by force of arms, one's other rights are exercised at the mercy of those in power. -- 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 |
|
#1537
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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. Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it. And it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the cost of his own life. Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice. Which would be, evidently, you. -- 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 |
|
#1538
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#1539
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#1540
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Linear Mode
