|
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: ... Given the fact that I'm both a professional journalist and an editor, I'd submit that I know a good deal more about copyright law than you do. You'd be wrong. Evidently not. Feel free to cite US copyright law if you like. But being wrong is nothing new for you. Takes one to know one. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: But it cannot step one inch outside the boundary we the people have established. Patriot Act. It's leaped way outside it. Really? How, specifically? Can you name specific instances where enforcements under the Patriot Act have illegally infringed on protected rights? -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: That is one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment. It is designed to ensure that the whole populace is well armed at all times and thus fully capable of rising up in arms against a government that has stepped beyond the boundaries set for it. The people in the Ukraine and Lebanon have demostrated that governments can be overthrown without guns. The exception only serves to prove the rule. Hundreds of millions of disarmed dead prove that your examples are aberrations, nothing more. The RKBA is obsolete and irrelevant in today's world. I doubt the dead in Rawanda (among millions of others) would agree with you. I'd be willing to bet anything that they would have very much like to have had a right to keep and bear arms, and the arms to go along with it. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: And does it have to say "this is what God looks like" in order for God to decide to look like something else? What makes you think that God is constrained by the words in a book? It is clearly a waste of time trying to discuss this with you. Clearly. You are simply too stupid to go beyond your preconceptions and deep-seated fear of religion. TinkernTom has already pointed out that what I am talking about is over your head. No, it's over your head. I'm merely arguing at your level. Should you raise the level of discussion beyond rhetorical claptrap, I'll be glad to advance the issue with you. But so long as your best arguments are the sort of shallow thinking you've exhibited here, I see no reason to try to teach you anything more sophisticated. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The issue is whether the state has a legitimate interest in proscribing unprotected sexual activity by someone who is known to be infected with an STD. Why don't you address that question? If deliberate transmission of a disease is already forbidden, there is no need to outlaw any sexual activity. The question is not one of "need," it's one of societal will. I grant you that there may be no "need" to outlaw sodomy to avoid this particular issue, but the question is whether society is obligated to regulate in accordance with your view of "needs" or whether it can regulate as it sees fit for that, and/or other reasons? If they use it differently than the textbook definition, they are misusing the term, and thus their scientific credential are in question. I think it's more likely that you are misusing the term, and that the scientists use the proper terms. They define their own textbook definition. Their scientific credentials are not in question. Well, since you haven't yet identified a single "scientist" in any credible manner that would permit examination of their credentials, I judge this to be argument by authority. Scientific definitions are not always the same as those used by the general public. Scientists need specific meanings to terms in order to ensure that communication is concise and precise. Then feel free to post an authoritative and verifiable definition of "morphological changes" so that we can operate from the same definition. Don't expect me to take your word for it though, some references are required because you are facile at mischaracterizing things. Perhaps you are using the wrong word. Perhaps you are full of ****. Nah, only about 1/4 full. I had a nice dump this morning. You don't challenge any other items I posted. I don't? I think you're mistaken. I challenge nearly everything you post, you're just too dimwitted to realize it. Is that an admission that you've been lying and bull****ting all along? Or are you too cowardly to stand up for your ridiculous claims? I'm still waiting for you to refute them with any kind of credible rebuttal. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: For, without the right to keep and bear arms, one is a slave With guns, one is still obliged to obey every other restriction on rights that the government chooses to propose. Not necessarily. You're amazingly inconsistent. No, you're just amazingly ignorant. -- 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: 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. No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation about "that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something like that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as though it is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture. Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't. Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of "gun culture" is specious. 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. I trust that we don't need to shoot each other. Which is true, until it's not. 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? Amazingly enough, thus far my walking around without a gun hasn't gotten anyone killed. But your advocating that other people not be allowed to walk around with guns almost certainly has. 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. What do you think the registry is intended to do? It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no other purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible one of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a gun registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns because it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who register guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose whatsoever for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to eventual bans and confiscations. How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. 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. Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Then perhaps we have little to argue about. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. What plan? I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun threads is the elimination of assault weapons. Other than that, what plan have I put forth? That'll do. 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. That's not what I said. That's what you implied. 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 Extremely often. How often, exactly? particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime? You made the claim, so you tell me. 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. Heehee. What a group of saints they are. Indeed. 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. Hold on their pardner. What happened to the police? And the armed forces? Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants. I don't think you know what is meant by "culture." I do. But the question is whether you do or not. You can have a culture that includes guns without having a gun culture. Since you have yet to define "gun culture" your statement is non sequitur. 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. My utopian icon? Who or what are you talking about now? You mean Gandhi? I think you brought him up, not me. But just because the world is a violent place full of gun nuts doesn't mean Gandhi was wrong...in fact, the state of the world might be proof that he was right. Er, no. 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. Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in self-defense. 22 times more likely. Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books. 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. Sad. No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark. 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? When fire extinguishers and insurance start killing people, get back to me. You miss the point, again...predictably. - 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? It will probably be an issue for you, and the person you kill. Um, I believe we're talking about suicide here, so the only person killed would be me. 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? There's an awful lot of lucky people. Yup. Some not so lucky though. 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. Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north america. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. 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. LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows a law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily. So does driving a car, only more so. Your wife has a vagina, which allows her to turn into a prostitute quite easily. Should we therefore conclude that she is a prostitute? Strawman argument that has been conclusively disproven by facts and history. 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. Sorry, gun nuts like yourself have nothing to do with the freedoms I enjoy. Wrong. 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. What is courageous about carrying a gun around? It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it, at significant risk to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous. What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to provide for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police, or on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their safety on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil and cowardly. I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to the ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life. The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly that, for you, one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so because it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity you weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone like you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society. You take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are unwilling to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable. I guess to you the bravest person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park. Yes, that would be your guess. -- 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 |
Tink, commenting on my new view of JC:
================= I clearly made a false assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you, and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty notions. Yes, and Good. ====================== But, Tink, why do you see this as good? Are you thus definitely saying that JC was neither kind, loving, or forgiving? The only reason I repeat my question is because this revelation stuns me. Tink wonders: ==================== I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about the kind and caring prophet, and I would be interested where you got those ideas. ==================== I must get these notions from the society around me. I'm a non-believer, but I have some intellectual curiousity about the people around me (some of whom purport to be Christians). They tell me of a kind, caring, loving, forgiving JC. I guess I've believed them in the past because, in my non-believer mind, the only way I could come even close to accepting this religious stuff, is if it offerred a life philosophy worth emulating: kindnees, peace, charity etc. Now you've explained to me that it isn't so. In your words, they were "silly notions". However, what am I to replace those silly notions with? What, then, if not love and peace, is the true nature of JC? frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... The exception only serves to prove the rule. What rule is that, Sparky? Hundreds of millions of disarmed dead prove that your examples are aberrations, nothing more. Hundreds of millions of armed people have found ways to get dead, too. It ain't that hard to do. Wolfgang |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com