|
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. Biometry is specifically related to measurements and the statistical analysis of such. 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. 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. Except that you have elided the context, which clearly indicated that we were discussing the precursors of homo sapien. Bull**** again. You won't quit until you've proved you're a pathological liar. Here's the preceding section: 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 ****. Um...make me. Coward. 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. Mike |
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. I'm glad that idiots like you never get to write laws and constitutions. 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. Mike |
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. Mike |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink opines: ============== Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New, and what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to check the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine to check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you have an idea of its condition. ================ I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN. Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty. So now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to say, "Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at a pretty simplistic level. But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are forewarned, I'm not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical deity on your squad. OK? frtzw906 Regret that I was not able to get back to you more last night, but I was beat, and kept falling asleep at the 'puter! I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest, intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify your reasons for entertaining this discussion. However, interestingly your statement about keeping it simple, bring us back to to where we started. "God loves you!" That is as simple and as sublime as it gets. You can say, you don't believe in God! Ok, that does not change anything, He still "Loves you!" No matter what you protest, object, evade, deny, obtuse, parse,too smart, too simple, think-you-are-cute, mean, nasty, hateful, unloved, and unloveable; my answer is always the same, "God Loves you." That for sure makes it simple on me, I don't have to memorize a bunch of arguments or proof scriptures. I don' have to convince you of anything to to try and win you to my squad. That is not my responsibility. That is why the word "prosyletize" is not applicable, why I am not talking about religion. And why even a child can know what I am talking about! Though the smartest men in the world, have stumbled over this cornerstone! As far as being able to accomadate your "Hey I've heard of that" list, I have yet to see your list. So it is difficult to know what you have heard of, or as you say "better known examples." If you had something specific in mind, let me know and I will see if I can enlighten you. :) Tnt, and know that God Loves you! |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... 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. Mike I don't understand how the registry ever got understood as some sort of superhero that would dive in front of bullets. It's just a list that matches names with numbers. It is not useless, it just has a much more limited purpose than is commonly discussed, and there's no way maintaining a list has to cost so much. They should have given the contract to the private company that does the vehicle licensing in Ontario. |
"Nisarel" wrote in message news:1110478066.52fcf97ec98b72e6227d97a89b5b0f96@t eranews... Scott Weiser wrote: Funny, I haven't noticed any substantial impairment to my freedoms. That's because you are not particularly intelligent or perceptive. LOL! I just spit on my keyboard. Second time this week. Fortunately, once again, I was only drinking club soda, so aside from some minor salt erosion, I don't expect major problems to result. |
KMAN says:
============= a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. ... .... g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. ============== Great! Then I are one. frtzw906 |
KMAN wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Tink asks of KMAN: ===================== So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? =================== Can one be an atheist and a secular humanist at the same time? frtzw906 I think so... What Is Secular Humanism? Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles: a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. b.. Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions. c.. A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general. d.. A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it. e.. A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us. f.. A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called God? TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: KMAN says: ============= a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. ... ... g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. ============== Great! Then I are one. frtzw906 We posted past each other, and I just got your "I are one." I'll give KMAN a chance to respond as well. TnT |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN says: ============= a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. ... ... g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. ============== Great! Then I are one. frtzw906 Heh. It's hard to say "I don't want that!" isn't it? |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Tink asks of KMAN: ===================== So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? =================== Can one be an atheist and a secular humanist at the same time? frtzw906 I think so... What Is Secular Humanism? Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles: a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. b.. Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions. c.. A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general. d.. A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it. e.. A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us. f.. A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called God? TnT I will say that if I were forced to choose to be associated with some sort of identifying label in the realm of sprituality, I suppose I might choose Secular Humanist. But I'm not a member of any such organization and don't know that I agree with everything they stand for. You may definitely say however that I do not believe that there is some sort of invisible man or other mythical entity managing the affairs of the planet earth. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... BCITORGB wrote: KMAN says: ============= a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. ... ... g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. ============== Great! Then I are one. frtzw906 We posted past each other, and I just got your "I are one." I'll give KMAN a chance to respond as well. TnT It all sounds quite good and fine, but I aren't one. |
TnT asks:
============ Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called God? TnT =================== I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me. frtzw906 |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... TnT asks: ============ Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called God? TnT =================== I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me. frtzw906 I'm good for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular turn of phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long bumper sticker. |
Tink says:
============ I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest, intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify your reasons for entertaining this discussion. ================ OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term, rabid Christians. Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican attraction? frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============ I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest, intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify your reasons for entertaining this discussion. ================ OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term, rabid Christians. Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican attraction? frtzw906 Now this is getting really interesting, and I hate to do this, but I got to go do some "work stuff." But I appreciate you both getting back to me and I will have somethings to think about now this afternoon. I will get back to you later. TnT |
"KMAN" wrote in message news:uk2Yd.25572 I'm good for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular turn of phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long bumper sticker. I prefer being labeled agnostic--if I'm gonna be labeled, at all. My view is that I neither believe nor disbelieve in some ethereal being or beings, as I have no knowledge such and don't give a **** one way or the other. Mark |
BCITORGB wrote:
OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term, rabid Christians. Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican attraction? In the last presidential election, the Republicans mobilized, polarized and manipulated voters over several "moral" issues: gay marriage, women's right to choose, court reviews of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the right to display the Ten Commandments on government property. The Republicans drew a hard line between themselves and the Democrats on these issues. Discussion of these issues found its way into many churches, and congregations felt sympathy with the Republican stance. Republicans, including the President, used the buzzwords "activist judges" and suggested immorality was being legislated from the bench. The 2004 Republican Party Platform goes as far as to say activist judges are exercising a "self-proclaimed supremacy." In a Christian context, this "supremacy" is seen as an affront to God, and not just a powerplay between the judicial and the other two branches of government. From the 2004 Republican Party Platform: "Supporting Judges Who Uphold the Law In the federal courts, scores of judges with activist backgrounds in the hard-left now have lifetime tenure. Recent events have made it clear that these judges threaten America's dearest institutions and our very way of life. In some states, activist judges are redefining the institution of marriage. The Pledge of Allegiance has already been invalidated by the courts once, and the Supreme Court's ruling has left the Pledge in danger of being struck down again - not because the American people have rejected it and the values that it embodies, but because a handful of activist judges threaten to overturn commonsense and tradition. And while the vast majority of Americans support a ban on partial birth abortion, this brutal and violent practice will likely continue by judicial fiat. We believe that the self-proclaimed supremacy of these judicial activists is antithetical to the democratic ideals on which our nation was founded. President Bush has established a solid record of nominating only judges who have demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes of our republic, and Republicans in the Senate have strongly supported those nominees. We call upon obstructionist Democrats in the Senate to abandon their unprecedented and highly irresponsible filibuster of President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees, and to allow the Republican Party to restore respect for the law to America's courts. The sound principle of judicial review has turned into an intolerable presumption of judicial supremacy. A Republican Congress, working with a Republican president, will restore the separation of powers and re-establish a government of law. There are different ways to achieve that goal, such as using Article III of the Constitution to limit federal court jurisdiction; for example, in instances where judges are abusing their power by banning the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or prohibiting depictions of the Ten Commandments, and potential actions invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Additionally, we condemn judicial activists and their unwarranted and unconstitutional restrictions on the free exercise of religion in the public square." -- "This president has destroyed the country, the economy, the relationship with the rest of the world. He's a monster in the White House. He should resign." - Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003. |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of ill. What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of paper or a tin can. But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack. That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that you have lost touch with reality. Take a pill. Get off whatever pills you are taking. People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense. No one but you suggested anything of the kind. They wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that should be off the force. Your statement is non sequitur. Not at all. You said: "That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that you have lost touch with reality." I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using their guns as a necessary evil. Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that it is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to harm another person for any reason, even in self defense. 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. Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the mere presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart the crime. This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when encountering a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying hands on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many officers who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it applies to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone, civilian or police officer. Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his victim. On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself required to be done to him through his actions. -- 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: They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of ill. What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of paper or a tin can. But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack. That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that you have lost touch with reality. Take a pill. Get off whatever pills you are taking. People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense. No one but you suggested anything of the kind. They wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that should be off the force. Your statement is non sequitur. Not at all. You said: "That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that you have lost touch with reality." I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using their guns as a necessary evil. Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that it is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to harm another person for any reason, even in self defense. I wouldn't water down my own sentiments to quite that degree, but your manner of response is appreciated. 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. Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the mere presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart the crime. Or back to reality, the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and deaths occur where they needed to be one. Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the death of innocent parties. This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when encountering a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying hands on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many officers who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it applies to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone, civilian or police officer. Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his victim. On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself required to be done to him through his actions. Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone carrying a gun. That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress. |
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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote: And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where enforcement of the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on ANYONE'S civil rights. http://communication.ucsd.edu/911/shenon.philip.html Nice try, but the malfeasances (which is to say illegal acts) by agents of the government are, well, illegal, and are not authorized by any law, including the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act does not authorize such illegalities, and so any such illegal acts are not legitimate enforcement of the law. Any government worker can abuse the civil rights of a citizen, but that does not mean that the law sanctions that abuse or authorizes the employee to engage in such abuse, it merely means that the government employee has exceeded his authority and violated the law. Such illegal acts are not authorized or sanctioned by the law, and the Patriot Act offers no protection to government agents who do such things. The story you cite makes it perfectly clear that the government takes very seriously reports of ILLEGAL acts by government agents, and that it is investigating them and will likely prosecute and/or sanction those off-the-reservation employees appropriately. So, once again, I defy you to cite a single incident where enforcement of the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on anyone's civil rights. Better luck next time... -- 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: Funny, I haven't noticed any substantial impairment to my freedoms. That's because you are not particularly intelligent or perceptive. Pot, kettle, black -- 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:
I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using their guns as a necessary evil. Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that it is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to harm another person for any reason, even in self defense. I wouldn't water down my own sentiments to quite that degree, but your manner of response is appreciated. See, I told you so... 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. Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the mere presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart the crime. Or back to reality, Sorry, but that is reality. It's your utopian illusion that's unreal. the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and deaths occur where they needed to be one. I"m not quite sure what you're saying, but if I have it correct, you are claiming that unarmed victims are less likely to be killed or injured by an armed predator than armed victims are. I'd like to see some statistical evidence to support this conclusion. Trusting to the altruism of a violent armed criminal is stupid. Killers kill because they don't want to be identified, if they kill at all and aren't merely using the weapon as a threat. Whether you have a gun or not is not likely to affect the actions a killer intent on eliminating witnesses, unless, of course, you do, and you use it to kill the criminal and save everyone's lives. Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the death of innocent parties. Can you cite even one such instance? I can cite a number of instances where many people died at the hands of a deranged killer BECAUSE nobody but the killer had a gun. I can also cite a number of instances where many people were saved because some citizen DID have a gun, and was willing to use it. One excellent example is that of Dr. Suzzane Hupp, now a state representative in Texas. She and her parents went to the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas for lunch. Dr. Hupp had a CCW permit, and usually carried a gun. However, Texas law forbade the carrying of guns in places that served alcohol, and the Luby's cafeteria sold beer. So, Dr. Hupp, obedient to the law, left her handgun in her truck. Shortly after they sat down, a deranged killer drove his pickup through the wall of the cafeteria, got out and began methodically executing patrons. Dr. Hupp and several others were able to escape, but her father had been injured and his wife would not leave him. Dr. Hupp watched as the killer calmly shot both her parents in the head. She testified that before she escaped, she had several opportunities to shoot the killer in the back, from close range, had she only had a gun. But she obeyed the law, and her parents, and 21 other innocent citizens were brutally executed because NOBODY BUT THE KILLER HAD A GUN. Now, do you still think that the risk of "collateral damage" by an armed citizen trying to prevent the murders of 23 people outweighs those 23 lives? This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when encountering a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying hands on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many officers who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it applies to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone, civilian or police officer. Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his victim. On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself required to be done to him through his actions. Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone carrying a gun. It's certainly enhanced by a large number of people doing exactly that. That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress. No, the end of civilization is when law-abiding citizens give up their means of protecting themselves against criminal predators and must suffer, sheep-like, the predation of the evil men of the world. Standing up and fighting criminals toe-to-toe is the very essence of civilization. You fight them and you fight them until they are all dead or run away, and then you have peace. But, you must remain armed and ever vigilant to prevent their return. "The only thing that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke -- 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:
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. Indeed. That's exactly what they are doing. 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? You engage in the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a substantial difference between an armed citizenry and nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have no mind and no conscience, can be controlled by one person, and once released, can kill millions in an instant. An armed citizenry has millions of independent minds, both an individual and a group conscience, are under individual control and one bullet can only kill one person. Your analogy fails. -- 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:
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. Because that would be letting him off the hook, which I don't intend to do until he admits that he was wrong. All he has to do is admit that buying an "assault weapon" in the US is not as easily accomplished as buying a pack of gum. 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. He's free to call me on it if I do. I'm free to defend my statements to my heart's content. It's called a debate. So far, his claims have fallen apart while mine have held up. 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. Because one good nit-pick deserves another. He's the one who started the nit-picking, I'm just following his lead. Any time he wishes to engage in reasoned, dispassionate debate, I'm happy to oblige. But since he's just being a Netwit, I'm going to pick at his arguments like a crow on a corpse until there's nothing left of him. And I disagree that he "got his point across." His point was fallacious to begin with, which is exactly why I challenged him. -- 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:
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. "Safer" /= "safe." 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.... Actually, I was born here. I've been to Canada too. Be afraid, be very afraid... -- 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:
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? The First Amendment protects the "free exercise of religion," not "freedom from religion." What this means is that the Constitution prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another in its public acts, and it forbids the government from SUPPRESSING the free exercise of religion by any individual or group. This happens to include the exercise of religion on public property, within certain limits. Thus, the government may not forbid a Christian rally on the courthouse lawn, nor may it say only a Christian rally on the courthouse lawn is permitted. It may forbid a Christian rally *inside* the courthouse, however. As to religious symbols on public buildings, it depends on the context of the symbol and the potential effect that the symbol might have on either the acts of government officials towards people who do not subscribe to that religious belief, and to some degree how such a symbol would impair a non-believer's trust in the government's religious neutrality. The SCOTUS is now considering the Ten Commandments plaque issue. I believe they will come down with a ruling that says that while a religious symbol may be placed on public property, generally, whether it is allowed depends on the nature of the property involved. Thus, where a Ten Commandments plaque might be allowable as a part of a public display of historical documents in the context of a neutral public forum like a park or museum, such a display in a courthouse or government office would be disallowed because of the potential for harm to the civil rights of non-believers engaged in conducting public business. The demarcation line would seem to me to be wherever someone engaged in business with the government will be unlikely to avoid exposure to a religious message in, on, or around public buildings where public business is conducted, such as courthouses, city halls, and other such venues. Where the venue is a public one, but there is no business with the government being transacted, such as a public park, it is unlikely that a reasonable person would view such a display as some sort of government mandate or policy, and thus it should be allowed according to the will of the people. I think I'd suggest that a vote be required before any religious displays are permitted on public property, however, so that the display can be justifiably within the public will. As for the ACLU, for example, the ACLU does not defend Christian students who wish to form religious clubs and use school property for their meetings, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that they have a First Amendment right to do so. As I said, the ACLU carefully picks its agenda, and it's universally and without exception a far-left, socialist, secular, anti-religious 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 |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/10/05 8:18 PM: 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. Goofy gun nut paranoia. It is for the same purposes as a car is registered. It makes it possible to match a gun with the rightful owner. If the firearm is stolen and used in a crime, it should be obvious to an ex-cop like yourself that knowing where the firearm came from is important. If the police suspect the person living at 22 Scotty Lane and the gun used in the crime comes from 24 Scotty Lane, it could be a rather important link in solving the crime. 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. You are right. What I really mean is "I'm sure that makes sense to someone who is totally insane." 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. That is in fact a different question, even if you think it is important. Perhaps part of your concern on this comes from living in a country where the government wishes such a level of control over its populace that they regulate such things as which orifice(s) are utilized in consensual sex. We have a lot more respect for individual rights here. 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. I was talking about purpose. 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. Yes, it's partly a tax grab. But it is also used to match up a car with its owner in the event that it is stolen and/or used in a crime. Or if you are speeding down the highway at 200 and a cop pulls you over, he says "license and registration please" and he can figure out within a few seconds if it is your car, and if not, who it belongs to and whether or not you should be in it. Unless the government plans to impose an "ownership tax" on firearms Now there's a GREAT idea. If there's anything that should be taxed heavily, it is ownership of firearms. the only reason to compel registration is to facilitate confiscation. Again, this is gun nut American paranoia. 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. I haven't offered anything specious on this topic. I'm just trying to help you understand that a registry is just a list, and I think that's been accomplished. I've further tried to explain the purposes of such a list, other than the paranoid "the government is coming to get me" that you are shrieking about. 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. It was exactly as I said. I know that it is not truly like buying a pack of gum. I know that you know this too. The point of comparing it to buying a pack of gum is to poke fun at how easy it is to buy a gun (even if it is not actually the same as buying a pack of gum). 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. Oh, and I would, if I were actually trying to mislead anyone. Did you really think I thought Scott Weiser would be unfamiliar with the details of gun purchasing? Be real Scotty. 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? The veracity of a statement must consider intent. Are you suggesting that I real intended to argue that buying a gun was literally the same process as buying a pack of gum, and that my reference to the gum was an attempt to mislead, thinking that Scott Weiser the gun nut would not actually know what is involved in buying a gun? Be serious. This is pathetic. 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. Actually, this is a view shared by many Canadians, and collectively such a view does influence public policy. I'm happy to be a part of it. 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. Really? You mean you want me to waste my time and yours quoting case after case of a gun being fired in anger? What the hell do you think is going on with 30,000+ gun deaths in the USA every year? Not one of those is some idiot losing his temper? They were all just instances of detached superheros coming to the defence of grandma and her cat? 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. You may be an ex-cop but you are definitely not an ex-lawyer. 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. Oops, I think you just tried to weasel out of answering the question. I don't know the exact numbers, but if it's less than 50 million to one I'd be very surprised Of the 30,000+ gun deaths per year in the USA a great number of them were nothing more than an angry person who happened to have a gun at the time they lost their cool. What do you think is going on with all wives that are murdered by their husbands? 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. Again, you got one. 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 don't actually do that, but frankly, someone who wipes some senior's ass and does it in a way that helps that person to experience as much dignity as possible and have as good a quality of life as possible in their declining years is contributing far more to society than you ever will carrying your gun around and hoping to get a chance to shoot someone. Wait until you need your ass wiped and then decide what is more important, some dufus walking around with a concealed weapon hoping for the chance to kill someone, or someone who will care for you without making you feel like a worthless piece of crap that would be better off dead. 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. No, you've just shrieked about the Bill of Rights. I'm not asking about that. Why are assault weapons needed? 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. Careful Scotty, I might send "the government" to confiscate your weapons. 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? Cops don't want to die, and they don't want innocent people harmed. Their position is blatant self-interest. The last thing they want is a bunch of yahoo vigilantes like Scotty Weiser running around the city waiting to shoot someone and be a hero. They know that you'll likely end up shooting one of them, or one of your stray bullets will go through a nearby window and kill a sleeping baby. 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. What sort of idiot cops think like that?!? 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. They are probably hoping you will just move on, so they tell you whatever you need to hear to keep the conversation as short as possible. Then once they are sure they have a safe separation from you, they call in your information and see if you are wanted. Then the information comes back that you are that nut, Scotty Weiser the ex-cop, and that so far you seem harmless. 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. The vast majority of cops, other than the imaginary ones you know, understand that citizens can fulfill their duties to society without walking around with a concealed weapon hoping they will get to "play cop" and shoot the bad guy. 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. I think most cops do have a problem with goofs like you. 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. Ridiculous, paranoid, and silly. Our cops here are far from tyrannical, where do you get such nonsense? You must live in a country where individual rights are very weak. 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." Yawn. 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. Oho! You are onto something now. I think it's called LSD. 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. Actually, as I've tried to explain to you, it's not really about laws. As you've pointed out, gun ownership in Canada is pretty high. But in most of the country we don't have a gun culture, and that's what makes our communities safer. You can't legislate away a gun nut mentality like yours. It has to be a way of life. |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/10/05 8:19 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/9/05 9:58 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Michael commenting on Weiser: ============== Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights. =============== And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation. To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist agenda. They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of town on a rail, at the very least. 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. |
in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 3/10/05 9:02 PM: 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 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 ;-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com