|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did *understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster and tyranny. The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands" were just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back then too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk) comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that if they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to limit access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug than an unarmed citizenry would be. They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault. Never did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically constructed our system to prevent precisely that. And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted with arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now permit lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is lawful, violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment. -- 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 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: No, Americans are free because they have the right to keep and bear arms, not because of the Constitution. They only have that right because of the constitution. Take that away and their "right" goes with it. Rights are accorded by those in power, whether by might or by vote. I've told you several times that you are incorrect. You are now willfully refusing to recognize reality. Once mo "Rights" are not granted by the Constitution. Rights exist as an inherent part of one's humanity, even without the existence of government, and they cannot be repealed or removed by government on a wholesale basis. All the Constitution does is CONSTRAIN government power and authority. Nothing more. The 2nd Amendment forbids government to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. That is all. If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the right to keep and bear arms does not cease to exist. The only thing that changes is to what degree the government might be authorized to infringe on that right. And the point of an armed citizenry is to ensure that even with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, government would be unable to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, because the citizenry would view such an infringement as a usurpation of power and a tyrannical act, and would use the arms they have, in exercise of the right, to put down the rogue government that presumes to usurp power and infringe on our rights, thus restoring the 2nd Amendment and putting government back in its place. The right to keep and bear arms that each and every citizen on the face of the planet has CANNOT be removed by anyone, except as a result of some malfeasance on the part of a particular individual that makes him/her untrustworthy and a danger to society. No blanket infringement of the RKBA is permitted, and the use of force is authorized to prevent such infringements. -- 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 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: After they've cleaned up their own mess, then we'll consider their requests. Kyoto was driven by people who waste far less and produce far less CO2 than Americans. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. And when their emissions are zero, then they can ask us to join them. Until then, we'll do what we think is best. -- 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 |
rick wrote:
Nice little strawman you're trying to build there. Too bad that wasn't the discussion. Ah, strawmen talk... now I'm able to place the name again: Rick Etter, eh? This being usenet, it's the discussion *we* make out of it, you don't tell anyone what they can talk about. It so happens that this discussion is mostly about what a few U.S. posters refuse to acknowledge, that there is a way to get better results abroad. Whether that is about using violence instead of diplomacy to get what you want, using medical healthcare that is available to everyone instead of just a portion of the population or about using a free media displaying the facts instead of propaganda, religion intermixed with politics and terrorising your own population to get elected. He made the cooment about 'poor' people not getting proper care in the US. I mentioned one area where the percieved ideas he has is false. Looks like you overlooked a number of other areas there... Besides, you failed to come up with numbers backed by facts, so I'm curious to hear which in Fox news program you heard that little fable. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/20/05 1:41 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote: Wilko P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid. Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up most of them before they could fire a shot, Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the 2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a feature specifically intended by the Framers. LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. ================== I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation and bans. Hoods and angry ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street corners. ==================== You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault weapon"? Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior? Apparently he's the President of the United States of America. He ssems to know what an assault weapon is. ================== LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh. ? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...t/2004-10-14-d ebate-fact-check_x.htm Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons that expired last month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had been told the bill couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most Republicans opposed extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time it came up for a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only 6 Democrats opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that most of the opposition came from Bush's own party. http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44 Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines. A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat. A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed. A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm. A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon. A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose. ==== So, along with George Junior, do you now know what an assault weapon is? I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind... ====================== Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons were not that much different then(or really now either)means nothing. The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military purposes, not hunting. Are these weapons being purchased and used for military purposes? As I said: ==================== That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is protected by rights. And actually, you have said nothing... that a crack dealer can arm his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to automatic) gunfire. Yep, that's an important freedom to protect. In fact, I understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up an AK-47 these days. ===================== Ignorant spew... You're too hooked on hollywood for your information, aren't you? |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... rick wrote: Nice little strawman you're trying to build there. Too bad that wasn't the discussion. Ah, strawmen talk... now I'm able to place the name again: Rick Etter, eh? ====================== Yes, and too bad you haven't yet learned how to annotate your snipping of posts. Is that from ignorance, or a deliberate attempt at deception? Your choice... This being usenet, it's the discussion *we* make out of it, you don't tell anyone what they can talk about. It so happens that this discussion is mostly about what a few U.S. posters refuse to acknowledge, that there is a way to get better results abroad. Whether that is about using violence instead of diplomacy to get what you want, ======================== LOL Something that you have failed to use in your posting, eh? using medical healthcare that is available to everyone instead of just a portion of the population or about using a free media displaying the facts instead of propaganda, religion intermixed with politics and terrorising your own population to get elected. ================== Really? Nice spew, but when was I elected to anything, or even tried to be? He made the cooment about 'poor' people not getting proper care in the US. I mentioned one area where the percieved ideas he has is false. Looks like you overlooked a number of other areas there... Besides, you failed to come up with numbers backed by facts, so I'm curious to hear which in Fox news program you heard that little fable. ========================== Unfortunately for you and the chest thumping kman, I used mostly Canadian sources, and I can't find a Fox cananda.... As for facts, you have yet to post anything that even resembles one. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Could you please post a reference to such a definition and also a reference that clearly demonstrates that such definition is the only one that is widely accepted by the scientific community. Do you have an alternate theory? You still didn't answer the request. But then, you can't. Quite right, because the question is unanswerable. Once again, it's because you don't know what you're talking about. No, it's because I disagree with you. Which simply dismisses intelligent design while touting evolution without explaining your version of evolution and without a rational analysis of my question as to why sharks are still sharks 400 million years down the evolutionary line. You haven't identified what _my_ version of evolution is Correct. I asked you for your theory above, and you chose not to answer. - in fact you haven't identified what any version of evolution is and you haven't demonstrated that _your_ version of "evolution" even exists in the scientific community. I disagree. You understand nothing about evolution of any kind. That's a remarkably broad statement, given the fact that you don't know what I know. You don't understand sharks, either. I understand that they have not "evolved" noticeably in 400 million years. You have yet to explain why they have not. First of all, the only thing that remains constant in shark evolution is gross morphological characteristics. Well, it's not the only thing, but it is the most noticeable. In fact, over millions of years, many shark species have died out and have been replaced by new species. Does that constitute "evolution" in your dogma? And, how do you know this? Is the fossil record complete and unbroken for sharks? Can you say with absolute certainty that none of the species in evidence today never existed before? The fact is that DNA is changing all the time. We know that. However, we know that most DNA plays no apparent role in morphology, so a mutation is not always likely to result in a visible change. Agreed. In fact, many mutations produce no change at all. If you move beyond gross morphology, sharks have changed a lot over time; Compare a great white to a whale shark. But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of human beings. Given that the emergence of identifiable humans dates back a bit over 1.5 million years, and that in that time we've "evolved" from simian-like proto-humans to creatures capable of flying to the moon, one has to wonder what the problem is with sharks, who have had 400 million years to become something other than what they are. They have shown no signs of substantial increases in intelligence, communication or technology. They don't even communicate as complexly as whales or dolphins. Changes to gross morphology do not prove the theory of evolution. What would prove the theory of evolution is documentation of an unbroken series of biological changes that result in not just gross morphological changes but enhancements in intelligence, communication and the ability to conciously and deliberately manipulate the organism's environment. No such continuum of change has yet been found, and no scientist can say with certainty how, for example, eohippus became modern horse. At best they can conjecture and extrapolate, but they cannot identify the actual mechanism or process of change, either gradual or sudden, that causes one species to become another. The same is true of sharks. While a "Mega-mouth shark" may be morphologically different from a white shark, there has been no demonstration of how, or even if one became the other. At best, you can say that over time, different gross morphological examples of sharks have existed. You cannot say, at this point, how they came into being. We know that DNA mutations occur in humans as well, and at a fairly quick rate. In spite of that, there have been no morphological changes in skeletal remains during the entire history of Homo Sapiens. I disagree. If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased substantially in recorded history. And how do you link, for example, Homo Neandrathalsis to Homo Sapiens? Where are the intervening morphological changes that show that one became the other? Sorry, but that record simply does not exist. There is not just one "missing link," there are BILLIONS of missing links. If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes that result in the evolution of a species, one would expect to find a panoply of slightly different specimens in different geological strata that would show the evolution. Instead, what we see are a very, very few examples of fossil remains that are morphologically distinct from one another, with no evidence of the co-existence of different "Darwinian dead-end" variants. Some paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but the overlap is speculative at this point. No favourable change means no lasting change. But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable changes. A minute morphological change, such as the number of fingers or the presence of an extra thumb ought to be in evidence, showing some proof of non-viable changes. But, there are no gross morphological changes to proto-humans or humans that show such shifts. We don't see fossil records of hominids with four arms or four legs, or no neck, or ten fingers to the hand. Even the earliest proto-humans all have the same gross morphological pattern. I believe this indicates that something other than gradual evolutionary change is at work. Changes do not necessarily result in morphological differences. Indeed. There is a single species of iguana that swims - all others are dry land creatures. The swimmer evolved as a result of a change in habitat from a change in ocean levels. It lost its food supply and survived by learning how to swim and feed on the bottom of the ocean. Only an expert can visually tell the difference between the swimming and dry land species, since the morphology is much the same. Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution. The marine iguana has not "de-evolved" into an aquatic form with gills, for example. Nor has the land iguana evolved intellectually to a tool-using species, despite millions of years of opportunity to do so. Can you explain this lack of evolution? In the Amazon, there are flowering plants that produce a toxin used by the Yanomami to hunt and fish (by putting the toxin on their spear and dart points). There are two species - one that produces a strong toxin and one that produces a weak one. There are _no_ morphological differences between the two. Evolution isn't just about morphology. True, but not really relevant. The question is how many millions of years does it take for a shark to evolve intelligence, communication and tool-using capacity? Evidently, 400 million years isn't enough for sharks, while 1.8 million years is enough for hominids. Please explain why evolution evidently doesn't apply to sharks, but does to hominids. As Rick has pointed out, Darwin did not observe constant change - he observed statis. He observed that when an environment changes, an organism _may_ change to match its new environment. This is due to DNA mutations or recombinations that produce a favourable result in the new environment. Once that match has established, there is not reason to change again and the organism retains its current characteristics. And yet there is a universe of "favorable change" out there for any organism to take advantage of that would provide a Darwinian leg up. For marine iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful evolution that would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the development of a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that permits sharks to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the lines of whales and dolphins) and thus band together to obtain resources (food) ought to have occurred sometime in the 400 million years they've been "evolving." In both cases, the lack of evidence of evolution casts doubt on your theory, and indeed the entire theory of incremental evolution. And here's another little conundrum: Even if the theory of evolution is true, it does not preclude the possibility of intelligent design. What prevents such an intelligence from creating evolution? If, as some posit, that intelligence is capable of creating matter and formulating the physical properties of matter, creating DNA based evolution would hardly be a stretch. Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed. -- 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 difference between the US system and socialized medicine is that under socialized medicine, the government runs the operation and dictates who gets what care when and at what cost. ================= OK, if that's your definition of socialized medicine, then Canada definitely does NOT qualify. Weiser says: ================== I think public schools are a big waste of money, and that people should seek out and pay for private school education for their children. =============== I might agree in those cases where football and cheerleading are the primary learning outcomes. Weiser says: =============== It is acceptable, however, for the federal and state government to supply funds to local schools...if they have no control over the use of the funds or control over teaching. =============== Yeah, and pigs might fly. What level of government is going to turn over huge wads of money only to let another level of government control that spending -- with no strings attached? This is NOT a matter of political conviction or a left-right thing. Your proposition is just not reality. In the long term, no government is going to dole out money with no accountabilty and without their finger in the pie. Weiser says: ================ Besides, public education is entirely different from health care. The costs of public education are easily calculable and controllable, ================== So, your point is what? That because figuring costs out in healthcare is difficult, we'll just not do healthcare. Wouldn't it be better to establish a metric for healthcare if that's an issue for you. Is that the Scott Weiser prescription: "If it's too hard to figure out, we won't do it." frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM: just after Bush stole his first presidency. Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times. ??? Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount. Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on the law, not on politics. As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost. -- 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com