"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm guessing you've gotten to know a lot of blind hogs in a way that few can
understand.

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.

Why would the ACLU go to all the trouble of establishing their organization
just 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.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

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.

Mm.

But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil
liberties.

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.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.


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

Who is "our" here?

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.

Or it could be that the right wing agenda is all about reducing civil
liberties in puruist of a narrow agenda.

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.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties.

Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to
park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you
might well expect the ACLU to disagree.

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 right-wing agenda of "more guns and more jesus" is a threat to civil
liberties and the ACLU is just doing their job taking an objective approach
to issues regardless of whether or not Scott Weiser has sent them death
threats.

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.

You are starting to undersatnd the ACLU.

Don't you think Holocaust survivors were mad as hell to see the ACLU
defending the right of Nazis to march through their streets?

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.

I don't think that's quite their position.

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.

Take your finger off the trigger...that's it...relax Scotty...just place the
gun on the table...that's it.....

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.

They have an agenda to be sure, but it's clearly not leftist-socialist.


--
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 Weiser" wrote in message
...
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.

I'll ask again.

When you read my comment about buying guns and buying a pack of gum, did you
honestly believe that I was intending to communicate that there is in
reality no difference in the process between buying gum and buying a gun?

Yes or no.

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.

You have gone from acting like a petty fool to being a petty fool.

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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.

Sorry Scotty, I'm going to continue going to the bank...and...shudder...I
won't be carrying a 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.

Unless the new Scott Weiser policy is in effect in which case they'll have
to assume everyone in the bank needs to be shot.

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

note: Scotty's code for "dreaming of the day" is "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.

It can also get you into a mental institution.

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.

Only in your bizarro world.

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.

Geezus, I bet that messed them up real good (talking to you).

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.

Innocent people end up dead because someone shoots them.

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.

You've never asked me anything along those lines. I don't think you even
have a clue as to my views on this issue.

I never said I would not take the life of another human being, or that using
a gun to do that is something I would never do.

I don't like guns. I don't like gun nuts. I don't like people getting shot.

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

That would do.

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.

Unless your persona here is a complete put-on, that's exactly how you come
across. Like a classic ex-cop with a hate for the world and a grudge in his
pocket, longing for the day he can blast away and maybe be a hero.

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

Er, good, Scotty.

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

The fact that you think a love of life needs to be defended shows how
twisted you are.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


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

in article 1110519448.701b72c2e1f5e9e9ec659957df8742c3@terane ws, Nisarel
at
wrote on 3/11/05 12:37 AM:

KMAN wrote:

I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is
walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is ...

what life is like in Texas and Florida.

Heh. Well, I recently took a group to South Beach and I have to say that
we
felt quite safe and had a great time there. All of the front line people
in
the service industry and particularly the public transit workers were
much
more helpful and friendly than here. 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.

BWHAHAHAHAAH!

Well, you really stepped on your generative organ this time.

Guess which state STARTED the liberalization of CCW? Guess which state has
the LARGEST NUMBER of citizens carrying concealed handguns?

Florida.

Yes, I know Scotty. And I know about Jeb Bush.

I'm Canadian. I probably know more about Florida than most Floridians.

I'm just being honest about our experience in South Beach. The people were
kind, and I did not sense any gun culture there. I'm also aware that South
Beach is a pretty unique area.

Again, merely because you did not "sense" something does not mean that guns
were all around you. They were. You can bet on it. The fact that people
don't openly display them is merely proof that your "gun culture"
appellation is spurious.


That's why they call it a CONCEALED weapon. You were without a doubt in
the
presence of several people who were armed, and the REASON you felt safe is
BECAUSE of Florida's CCW program, which radically reduced street crime,
particularly in Miami and its environs.

Oh, I could see various crimes taking place right in front of my eyes. But
it was the type of community where people walk with their head up and say
hello, and don't act like they'll whip out a semi-auto and blow you away if
you look at them wrong.

Hyperbolic amphigory.

--
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:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
news
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.

You'd still be wrong.

While one does not have to file a form 4477 or have a background check in
most states, it's still illegal to sell a gun to a disqualified person, even
in a private sale.

--
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:

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.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.


But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil
liberties.

Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
things like religion and private property.


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.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.

"Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk all
day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.



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

Who is "our" here?

Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.


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.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties.

Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear arms.


Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to
park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you
might well expect the ACLU to disagree.

Hyperbolic amphigory.


--
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

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink challenges:
=============
So clue me in to this legacy that will live. I have gotten to know
you
a little, and I expect that you have been holding some cards close to
your chest. Show me your hand, I call you! TnT
===============

Tink, my interactions with fellow humans are vast. Let me give you
insight into non-work related stuff. I coach 4 different teams: 1
soccer and 3 field hockey (2 girls & one womens). If, a decade or two
from now, one of my players, perhaps coaching a team of her own,
passes
on something that I taught or models some behavior, that's awesome. I
can't ask for more.

frtzw906

You mention non-working, indicating that there is work related as well,
can you high-light. I am trying to get a general total idea of what you
as a representative Secular Humanist, finds as an acceptable expression
of Secular Humanism. What you participate in that would be defining
activities.

You mention the coaching, which is good, but hardly defining of SH.
There are many who coach and would probably make no such claims. Are
you involved in any identifiable groups that allow you to illuminate
others with your understandind directly, not indirectly?

Can you voice a personal philosophy that you typically would share with
someone if they are interested. Not KMAN's list which was instructive,
though not helpful in determing personal involvement and commitment!

It is easy to say I belive such and such, which is what so many
supposed Christians do, but when pressed, really have no idea of what
they really believe. They just make the claim because they have learned
the religious language, and try to get you off their bank by answering
what they think you want to hear.

Basically I am saying, I am giving you opportunity to proselytize me
with what you believe. Convince me of the wisdom of your way! TnT

Tink asks:
==============
Basically I am saying, I am giving you opportunity to proselytize me
with what you believe. Convince me of the wisdom of your way!
=============

What can I say, Tink, except that I found KMAN's list more than
adequate.

As to the other stuff, you may recall that you made some innane comment
about whatever I do ending up on a scrap heap (I can't recall your
exact words, but that pretty-much sums it up). And I explained to you
that whatever I do likely will NOT end up on a scrap heap but, would,
rather, live long past my physical demise. This legacy (for lack of a
better word right now) constitutes my after-life. I'm content with
that. That gves me a warm fuzzy feeling right now.

By way of example, I was up at the field hockey clubhouse last night.
In one of the meetings for novice coaches, I saw 6 girls/young women
who I had coached earlier in their careers. They may well have their
own motives for wanting to coach, but I also know them well enough to
know that by modelling behavior, I influenced them (and I know for a
fact they'll use many of the coaching drills and tactics I used). So,
already a "legacy". Now, if these young ladies have a similar impact on
their players, isn't that one hell of an "after-life" even before I'm
gone. That, Tink, is what an after-life means to me -- making
differences in peoples' lives that they'll not soon forget.

frtzw906

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


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

in article 1110519448.701b72c2e1f5e9e9ec659957df8742c3@terane ws,
Nisarel
at
wrote on 3/11/05 12:37 AM:

KMAN wrote:

I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is
walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is ...

what life is like in Texas and Florida.

Heh. Well, I recently took a group to South Beach and I have to say
that
we
felt quite safe and had a great time there. All of the front line
people
in
the service industry and particularly the public transit workers were
much
more helpful and friendly than here. 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.

BWHAHAHAHAAH!

Well, you really stepped on your generative organ this time.

Guess which state STARTED the liberalization of CCW? Guess which state
has
the LARGEST NUMBER of citizens carrying concealed handguns?

Florida.

Yes, I know Scotty. And I know about Jeb Bush.

I'm Canadian. I probably know more about Florida than most Floridians.

I'm just being honest about our experience in South Beach. The people
were
kind, and I did not sense any gun culture there. I'm also aware that
South
Beach is a pretty unique area.

Again, merely because you did not "sense" something does not mean that
guns
were all around you. They were. You can bet on it. The fact that people
don't openly display them is merely proof that your "gun culture"
appellation is spurious.

Gun culture is not about the existence or non-existence of guns. Obviously
there tends to be a correlation, but the link is not causal.

That's why they call it a CONCEALED weapon. You were without a doubt in
the
presence of several people who were armed, and the REASON you felt safe
is
BECAUSE of Florida's CCW program, which radically reduced street crime,
particularly in Miami and its environs.

Oh, I could see various crimes taking place right in front of my eyes.
But
it was the type of community where people walk with their head up and say
hello, and don't act like they'll whip out a semi-auto and blow you away
if
you look at them wrong.

Hyperbolic amphigory.

Perhaps only because you have been a gun nut for so long that you forget
what it feels like to live without fear.

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


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
news
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.

You'd still be wrong.

While one does not have to file a form 4477 or have a background check in
most states, it's still illegal to sell a gun to a disqualified person,
even
in a private sale.

It's too easy to own a gun. I'd recommend about a 50 year waiting period,
and then, only if you were certifiably non-nutty.