BoatBanter.com - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/27823-re-bill-moyers-environment-politics-christian-fundamentalists.html)

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

KMAN wrote:

I actually nominated Miami-Dade for an
award. And it definitely didn't have the feel of a gun
culture...everyone seemed to be having too much fun to be worried
about carrying a gun.

Well, it is hard to carry a concealed handgun in your Speedo...

Not if you know how...

I'm sure that's where you carry yours. In fact, I have no doubt that your
gun has many strange sources of your own DNA all over it.

On 11-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

Do you REALLY want to leave that hanging out there like that? You
really are making the life of the would-be comic too easy....

He has it hanging in the back - for him, that looks normal.

Mike

On 11-Mar-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the
counter next to the gum and you just buy one?

Before you give up on how trivial it is to buy a gun, check into
the lack or regulations or rules on private sales in some states.

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 11-Mar-2005, "KMAN" wrote:

So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the
counter next to the gum and you just buy one?

Before you give up on how trivial it is to buy a gun, check into
the lack or regulations or rules on private sales in some states.

Mike

I know, that was my whole point...that is too easy.

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

Weiser meets a scientist:

Scientist: Here we have categorized the specimens according to morphological
similarities. These two, for example, are similar as they are both spherical.

Weiser: They can't both be spherical - they aren't the same size!

Scientist: Er... Now these specimens are all similar due to their conical
shape.

Weiser: They can't all be conical - they aren't the same size!

Scientist: Hmm... finally, the remainder of these specimens are similar
in that they are all cylindrical.

Weiser: They can't all be cylindrical - THEY AREN'T THE SAME SIZE.

Scientist: Security... SECURITY

You are both a bull****ter and an idiot.

Uh huh. Try this:

Scientist: Here we have categorized the specimens according to
morphological similarities. These two, for example, are similar as they are
both spherical.

Me: True, the gross morphological similarity of the form is that of a
sphere, however, they are morphologically different because sample one is
two micrometers in diameter while sample two is two meters in diameter. This
biometric measurement suggests that they are not the same organism. Further,
while sample one shows a structure of a non-vertebrate bacterial form,
sample two shows the structure of vertebrate organism similar to a blowfish.

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?
"

They are hominids - human ancestors, early humans not human beings. It
says so in the web page.

Interesting that you excised the QUOTE from the Smithsonian website which
clearly refers to them as "earlier humans."

"The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships
among early human species, as we best know them today."

Source: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor...ha/a_tree.html

Give it up, you're beaten.

--
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 BCITORGB wrote:

Scott says:
================
Well, it is hard to carry a concealed handgun in your Speedo...

Not if you know how...
======================

Do you REALLY want to leave that hanging out there like that? You
really are making the life of the would-be comic too easy....

"This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun."

--
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:

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut
(perhaps
just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.

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.

Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre
things
as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes
that could hardly be termed far-left.

Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march

Thus, I am correct.

Only partly.

Even a blind hog finds a acorn occasionally.

but
you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that
they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group
of
kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist
agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while
actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise
march.

Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps

Yes, indeed they are.

...deliberately going out of their
way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are
interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to
fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when really
then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda.

It's not me they are fooling, but they do manage to pull the wool over the
eyes of the illiterati.

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are leading
the prayers.

Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend school
without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them.

Perhaps. But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.

or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our
preeminent and most jealously guarded civil liberties. That's the problem
with the ACLU, it only considers a "civil liberty" to be something that
forwards their leftist-socialist/collectivist agenda. They are wrong.

the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
civil liberty to own a gun. Once again, it's the
collectivist/socialist/leftist agenda at work to the denigration of
individual civil liberties that makes the ACLU dangerous and wrong.

or the rights of the unborn

Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard to
what happens to the unborn.

Perhaps. And yet they see no nuance. Their position seems to be one of
supporting abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, including the
instant before birth without any consideration for the life of the unborn
child. That's rather less than "some consideration" for the unborn.

and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their
leftist
agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent.

Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties, not
sure.

Evidently you are confused about the concept of civil liberties. Civil
liberties embrace ALL of the rights and liberties that individuals enjoy,
not just some sub-set that fits into a liberal-socialist agenda that they
can try to twist into some "collective" civil right. Fact is that there is
no such thing as a "collective" civil right. All civil rights are individual
in nature and applied to individuals. Thus, the infringement of any
individual civil liberty is as bad as the infringement of any other
individual civil liberty. All must be protected with equal vigor. The ACLU
however, doesn't believe in protecting ALL civil liberties, they pick and
choose a select set of civil liberties to defend that happens to forward
their leftist-socialist agenda.

--
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:

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

What's particularly silly here is the idea that I would try to "fool"
Scotty
"Gun Nut" Weiser regarding the process of purchasing a gun. Obviously
(OBVIOUSLY) I knew that Scotty would be familiar with what it takes to
buy a
gun, since he brags about his own guns on a routine basis. I was must
pulling his chain about how easy it is to get a gun (and it IS pretty
damned
easy!) by comparing it to buying gum. It's more like renting a tuxedo ;-)

The question is not what I know, it's what he knows. It's hardly uncommon
for know-nothing hoplophobes to spout anti-gun rhetoric and cite specious
anti-gun information without actually having a clue.

So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the
counter next to the gum and you just buy one?

It would not be an unprecedented show of ignorance. You are free to simply
admit that you are wrong.

Give it, Scotty, this is totally disingenuous and you are acting like a
petty fool.

Don't make stupid, overbroad proclamations and expect to get away with it
while I'm around.

--
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:

So, when some group of robbers is planning to knock off a bank, they
don't
make different plans depending on whether or not they are going to
experience armed resistance? Get real.

Of course they do.

There you go.

Your implication is akin to the long-discarded argument "When rape is
inevitable, lay back and enjoy it."

and most of the time, as most bank robbers are single
individuals, not gangs, they will deliberately choose banks that do NOT
have
armed guards because they don't want to get killed. Most banks today do
not
employ armed guards because they think that it will provoke a
confrontation,
and since the federal government insures the money, they'd rather just
give
the crook the money and let him walk. And usually that's a good plan, and
nobody gets hurt.

OK.

Sometimes, however, particularly violent robbers decide to kill witnesses
anyway, and when that happens, not having any armed people in the bank
ends
up costing many lives.

How often does it happen that bank robbers decide to kill witnesses and
those witnesses would have been saved had there been a Scotty in the crowd
ready to draw and fire?

Once is enough, if I'm in the bank. I'm not going to disarm myself and allow
myself to be put at risk for execution just because you're paranoid that you
might get shot in the ensuing gun battle. That's the risk you take when you
walk out your front door in the morning. If you don't like the odds, then
stay home or carry your own gun.

The solution is obvious: Banks should retain armed guards, but they should
be undercover, in plain clothes, and under orders not to do anything other
than cooperate unless and until the robber starts threatening to shoot
people. Once it becomes known that someone, if not several someones in any
bank is highly likely to be armed, but unidentifiable, crooks will be much
more reluctant to rob banks in the first place

Um. No. It will work once or twice, and once the new policy is known,
they'll start treating every bank just as they would a bank with regular
armed guards, and assume that blasting away will be part of the robbery.

Not usually. The MO of the typical bank robber is to be low-key so that
nobody but the robber and the teller know there is a robbery in progress.
They want money, and they want to get away to spend it, which makes it
unlikely that they will engage in gunplay, which draws immediate attention.

If I'm going to die in such a rampage, I'm at least going to go out trying
to put down the killer, not on my knees with a bullet in the back of my
head, and I'll do it any way I can. If I don't have a gun, I'll use a
knife,
or a chair, or a pen or any weapon available including my teeth and
fingernails.

I'm sure you are dreaming of the day!

Nah. But being mentally prepared to defend onesself does tend to keep one
out of trouble. For example, I still have the cop habit of sitting in my car
for a few moments while watching the inside of the convenience store before
I go in, just so I don't walk in on a robbery in progress. Tactical planning
and situational awareness can keep you out of a lot of trouble.

I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is
walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is not worth
anything.

You weren't in the Luby's cafeteria, or Columbine or at any of the other
mass murders worldwide. You might believe differently if it was your life
on
the line.

I don't think so Scotty.

Oh, I think you would. You'd be insane not to.

In fact, I don't think you'll hear a lot of Columbine surivivors saying that
the lesson they learned from it was they should become gun nuts themselves.

Actually, many people, including several students who were there, said they
wished that somebody, anybody in that school at the time had had a gun. I
talked to several of them the day of the shootings.

When you don't need a gun, having one is innocuous and harmless.

Until innocent people end up dead.

Way more innocent people end up dead because there was not some law-abiding
citizen around with a gun than have every been killed by "friendly fire"
during a gunfight, by many orders of magnitude.

When you
need one, however, nothing else will do.

If your goal in life is to kill people, absolutely.

So, what's your trigger point? How far would someone have to go before you'd
kill them with a gun? I've never met anybody who was able to honestly say
that they would never, ever, under any circumstances use a gun to kill a
criminal.

What would it take for you? The imminent rape and murder of your child,
perhaps?

What you appear to be incapable of understanding is the difference between
being forced to use deadly physical force in order to save someone's life
and your idiotic notion that just because someone carries a gun, and knows
how to use it, they are champing at the bit to kill someone.

I have a fire extinguisher in my car, but that doesn't mean I hope it
catches on fire.

Your comments are nothing more than lame attempts at demonization because
you are intellectually incapable of defending any sort of rational anti-gun
position.

--
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