|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/9/05 9:56 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or effect other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the location of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a stolen gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and description is entered in the national stolen property database. It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only to facilitate the return of stolen guns. It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!? I'd like for there to be some legitimate reason to collect and retain the data beyond providing a tool for confiscation that this list could actually accomplish. What do you see its purpose as? How does it enhance gun safety? How does it prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns? What, precisely, is its purpose? It's exactly like a car registry. It tells you who the rightful owner is. So what? Why do you need to know who the "rightful owner" of a gun is? As with being able to match a car to who the rightful owner is, this information can be useful for any number of purposes ranging from returning one that is stolen to the owner, to finding a starting point for investigating a crime. What other purposes? As for "starting point for investigating a crime," since the vast majority of crimes involving firearms involve firearms that have been stolen and are being used by criminals, knowing who the firearm belonged to before it was stolen can be accomplished through the stolen property registries without having to register every firearm on the off chance that it will be stolen. As I said, the reason for car registration is not identification as much as taxation. The license plate that comes with the registration is used for traffic enforcement and is intended to allow identification of the car from a distance, by a witness or police officer, in order to facilitate apprehending a violator. Unless you are proposing that every firearm be supplied with a 6"x10" number plate so that convenience store clerks can identify the owner of the gun from a distance, there is no congruence between the motor vehicle registry and a gun registry. Again, the actual purpose of gun registries is to give the government information on who owns what guns and where they are. The only reason the government needs to know this information about *every* gun is to facilitate confiscation. There is no other legitimate purpose that cannot be better served by only "registering" guns reported stolen. How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and I believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases. Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the occupant is doing something wrong. Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles too! Are you fighting against that at present? No, because there is no constitutionally prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and drive a car. That's not the case with guns. They have a higher level of protection against government interference. LOL. I see. Somehow I doubt it. Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information on where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can provide specious analogies. The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be. For what purpose? Why is the government interested in who owns what gun? What possible difference does it make if I own one gun or twenty, so long as I do so legally? The answer is that there is no legitimate government objective to be achieved by registering guns. The only possible reason is to provide a tool for future confiscation and gun owner harassment, much like is taking place in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere. I note that even you cannot explicate a rational reason for collecting this information. Your argument boils down to "because it's there." Not good enough. You never asked previously, that I can remember. Thus far I have been trying to explain to you that the gun registry is just a list that tells you the name of the person corresponding to the serial number on the gun. Indeed. But the important question is what the government plans to do with that information. It has not greater or lesser purpose than the registration of vehicles, a widely accepted practice. I understand that there is a bicycle registration available in many places. They had it here when I was a kid. But it's VOLUNTARY. You are not compelled to register your bike. The only reason that you're compelled to register your car is so that they can collect use and ownership taxes. In Colorado, for example, we pay an "ownership" tax each year on automobiles, whether we license them and drive them on the streets or just leave them parked in our garage. Unless the government plans to impose an "ownership tax" on firearms, the only reason to compel registration is to facilitate confiscation. I have no problem with voluntary registration schemes at all, but mandatory registration served no useful purpose that outweighs the danger of using such registries for confiscations. You may come up with specious reasons why you think a gun registry is necessary, but the real reason is, without exception, to provide the information required for the eventual confiscation of firearms. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun. Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now you're trying to weasel out of your lie. ROFL. I was not lying. Certainly you were. Or, you're just a moron. Which is it? Neither. Sorry, but you lied, and you got caught. Now you're weaseling. I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were identical processes. Except that precisely what you said: "You can buy a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum." You lie. No, Scotty. That's a precise quote, and it is a lie. It's like when I say "Scott Weiser is nuttier than a fruitcake." Sorry, but you don't get off the hook by claiming hyperbole at this juncture. Your clear claim, in context, was that one could buy a "wicked assault weapon" at the corner convenience store with no more scrutiny or difficulty than that of buying a pack of gum. That's a lie. You did not qualify your statement by saying that it was your opinion that guns are too easy to acquire at the time. Now that you've been caught, you're trying to backpedal. You could just admit that you were wrong. Even though it may be easily proven (I'm assuming this is true) that there are more nuts in a fruitcake than may actually be found on your physical person, few people (only those who are nuttier than a fruitcake) would interpret this as lying. The point of my comment was to indicate that I think it is too easy to acquire a gun. Well, of course you do. Any ability to get a gun would be "too easy" for you. Are you admitting that you made a false statement? I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a decision about blowing someone's head off. Once again, this is specious claptrap. No, it isn't. I really don't want those people making such decisions. I'm sure you don't, but your delusions don't dictate public policy. You presume wrongly that merely because someone possesses a gun that they will inevitably become berserk killers. No, I assume they will be normal people, only being normal people with a gun, instead of giving someone the finger, they might shoot someone instead. Not good. And yet you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is any credible risk...because it's not. Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than guns. Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!? Every DUI-caused death is a murder. Every crash caused by deliberate negligence is a murder. Someone does something they aren't supposed to do, and somebody else dies. Happens all the time in cars, and lots of people are convicted and sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter for killing someone with a car, many more than are convicted and sentenced to prison for shooting someone with a gun. I think you are stretching the definition of "murder" pretty far there Scotty! Not at all. Deliberately engaging in conduct that results in the death of another human being that is not permitted by law is murder. What degree of murder it is is determined by the circumstances and mens rea, but it's all murder. I'll ask it another way. What is the ratio of people who aimed their car at someone else with the intent to kill them and succeeded vs the number of people who aimed their gun at someone else with tthe intent to kill them and succeeded? What's the ratio of otherwise law-abiding citizens with no prior history of criminal violence randomly going berserk and shooting someone with their lawfully-carried firearm to known violent felons shooting people with stolen, illegally possessed firearms. I don't know the exact numbers, but if it's less than 50 million to one I'd be very surprised The point is, however, that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to be so to suit your anti-gun agenda. An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife. Which falsely presumes that the majority of people are idiots. Since an idiot test is not required before buying the gun, your point is moot. Remember, you managed to get one. Indeed. Not only that, but I got my CCW permit (the tenth issued) from a Sheriff who previously didn't issue them to ANYONE, after a detailed background investigation. Oh, by the way, "idiots" cannot buy firearms legally, federal and state law prohibits it. I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun, much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't if it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need. How would you know? You wouldn't, but you'll be insulting anyway just because you're intellect is not up to the task of arguing rationally. Well Scotty, I believe you made the initial accusation that I wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need. It turns out I help people in need as a daily routine. Wiping up feces at the nursing home is not the same thing as putting your life at risk to protect others. I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed. It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, and I've explained it to you numerous times. You choose to ignore that information. I didn't ask you about the Bill of Rights. I asked you why assault weapons are needed. And I've explained it to you several times. Go look it up. I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks. The only people who need to be scared of me are criminals. If the shoe fits, wear it. Well Scotty, I'm not a criminal, but someone who admits to having delusions of grandeur about being a gun-toting superhero (and actually carries a gun hoping to make the fantasy come true!) is very scary indeed. I said "need." You may, of course, be as paranoid as your medication allows. I think the fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your idiotic ramblings. Whatever. Wear your chains however you wish. No chains on me. The cops are 100% clear that lives are endangered by goofs like you walking around hoping to shoot someone and be a hero. They're wrong. What makes you think cops are infallible? Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers who are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what Wilson did just the other day, and he died doing so. The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community safer. They are enamored of their own opinions. Down here, the police work for us, we don't do obesience to them as our masters and superiors like you do up there in Canada. LOL. So all cops in the US want goofs like you walking around with concealed weapons? Most line cops in the US, at least outside of the leftist liberal bastions like New York, Chicago and LA understand that armed citizens benefit the community and pose no credible risk to police officers. I've been in contact with police officers on numerous occasions and not one of them has shown your sort of paranoia when I tell them I'm carrying a weapon. Not everybody lives in your paranoid, delusional world. Most cops live in the real world and understand their place in society quite well, and they respect and appreciate citizens who are willing to step up and fulfill their duties to society. And yes, they don't have a problem with "goofs" like me because they know that we pose no risk to them, are indeed likely to assist and defend them at need, and serve as a potent deterrent to criminals, which makes the cop's job easier. If it would be safer here with goofs like you walking around with concealed weapons, why wouldn't the police say so? Because in Canada there is a political predilection towards tyranny, and the police, as I said, are enamored of their own opinions and they think that THEY are in charge, and that citizens exist to obey them. Sir Robert Peel puts it best: "To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence." It must be some sort of national conspiracy, perhaps Fidel Castro is behind it. It is indeed a national conspiracy, and given Canada's distinctly leftist leanings, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Castro had something to do with it. Again, that's why you're a Canadian slave and I'm a free American. I'm free from goofs like you, which makes being Canadian even sweeter than it already is. The more I hear from you, the more happy and grateful I am to be Canadian. The hilarious thing is that you really think that just because you have anti-gun laws you're "safe" from guns. But, I'm in agreement with you that it's a good thing you're a Canadian. -- 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 |
Weiser says:
============ That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts criminals at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so many of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why violent crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal. ============= If I may suggest an analogy: Iran and North Korea should see to it that they acquire a nuclear arsenal ASAP so as to "threaten" any nation which might wish to impine on their sovereignty. But, it would be foolish to stop there. Clearly we need nuclear proliferation, with ALL nations developing adequate firepower to blow any intruder into another world. Of course! Why didn't we think of this before. Since arming every Tom, Dick, and Harry will seriously reduce crime, according to the Weiser Theory of Law Enforcement, it stands to reason that arming every nation to the max will reduce the number of wars we have to worry about. Scott, remind me one more time why we care if North Korea has nukes? frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts I don't see the word "size" or "dimension" anywhere in here. That's because you're an idiot, ****-brick. Biometry is specifically related to measurements and the statistical analysis of such. Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology. One measures the relative sizes of the form and structure of organisms. Without the form and structure of the organism, there is nothing to measure, and biometry is pointless. Thus, morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure. Morphology is not, however, a sub-part of biometry. Tastes yummy, dip-****? Size is a part of "form and structure." Without size, there is no form or structure. Form and structure have size. Thus, you're proven wrong again. You prove nothing. Two items can have the same form and yet be different sizes - that's what scale is all about. And those are morphological differences that are measured and analyzed using biometric methods. Cart horse, not the obverse, ****-head. I see no discussion of any of the subjects you claim. I see only a book title. That's what references are all about, dickhead. You have to read the pages referenced in the book. I know that represents a serious difficulty for you, since your reading skills are so poor, but that's life. You mistake the Usenet for real life. I have no interest in tracking down an obscure textbook just to satisfy you. If you think that there are pertinent quotes that support your argument, then YOU may type them in and post them. Until then, your reference is nothing but an empty argument. Besides, it's the work of less than ten seconds to come up with a categorical and authoritative refutation of your idiocy using Google. Read on, ****- breath. If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased substantially in recorded history. There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity. And then there's the change to upright gait... The only species of human are H. sapiens. You are still full of ****. Hm. Amusing but uninteresting display of ignorance. How about Ardipithecus ramidus and australopithecus anamensis and australopithecus afarensis and australopithecus africanus and australopithecus garhi and paranthropus aethiopicus and paranthropus boisei and paranthropus robustus and homo rudolfensis and homo heidelbergensis and homo erectus and homo habilis and homo ergaster and homo neanderthalensis? Seems like the real scientists at the Smithsonian Institution, as opposed to Netwits like you, classify them all as "humans." "The species to which you and all other living human beings on this planet belong is Homo sapiens. Anatomically, modern humans can generally be characterized by the lighter build of their skeletons compared to earlier humans." Source: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor...ha/a_tree.html Re-read the last two words of that quote: "earlier humans." How's it taste, ****-eater? Well, I'm sure you'd be happy to misquote me again... Again? When have I misquoted you? Provide proof, dickhead. It reamins that you are consistently lying and refuse to provide any substantive proof of your ridiculous claims. You will say anything and don't give a damn for facts. How's them "human facts" from the Smithsonian taste, ****-for-brains? -- 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 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: So, his civil rights have not been violated because we are at war and he is not entitled to a writ of habeus corpus. What a pile of bull****. The law allows the restriction of civil rights because it's the law. Well, yes, since the law defines the parameters of "civil rights." I'm glad that idiots like you never get to write laws and constitutions. Pot, kettle, black. You only care about the status quo and your own sorry little ass. Your pretense of concern for rights is just like everything else about you - a lie. Ho hum. -- 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 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: What, precisely, is its purpose? The purpose of gun registration is to allow politicians to pretend that they are doing something useful and to allow many people to get a false sense of security that something is being done to protect them. Unfortunately, registration does nothing to prevent the spread of illegal guns. I'm amazed! We actually agree on something. -- 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 |
Weiser says:
================= Sorry, but you don't get off the hook by claiming hyperbole at this juncture. Your clear claim, in context, was that one could buy a "wicked assault weapon" at the corner convenience store with no more scrutiny or difficulty than that of buying a pack of gum. That's a lie. You did not qualify your statement by saying that it was your opinion that guns are too easy to acquire at the time. Now that you've been caught, you're trying to backpedal. You could just admit that you were wrong. ================ In this context, there is nothing wrong with stating that a particular comment, made earlier, was hyperbole. Why can you not accept that. Could it be because, when you make such statements, you don't have the jam to just say "hey, it was a figure of speech" or "I exaggerated to make a point" or "It was poetic licence". No, you just keep defending your dumb-assed statements. I think everyone following this thread understood perfectly well what KMAN intended with his statement. Sure, it was a mild case of hyperbole, but he got his point across. Why don't you deal with the larger issue instead of nit-picking. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel 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. You claim to be the expert, go right ahead and cite the appropriate case law. Nah. IOW, you aren't such an expert. Oh, I am. I just don't feel the need to defend my actions to a bunch of ignorant Netwits. If you think I violated copyright law, feel free to cite the law and explain how it applies. -- 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 |
Weiser says:
============= The hilarious thing is that you really think that just because you have anti-gun laws you're "safe" from guns. But, I'm in agreement with you that it's a good thing you're a Canadian. ================ The hilarious thing is we ARE safer from guns. And I'm in agreement that it's a good thing you're not a Canadian. We try to keep gun-toting terrorists out, so they can't slip into the USA.... Whoops, you got in.... frtzw906 |
Weiser says:
=========== Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun rights or religious freedom. ================= Hmmmm.... so supporting people's freedom not to be confronted by religious symbols in public buildings does not, in your eyes, constitute fighting for religious freedom? If not, then what is it? frtzw906 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com