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

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

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

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

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

This demonstrates the depth of your misunderstanding. The whole point of our
2nd Amendment and our very system of government is that the government does
not "permit" anything.

But you keep ignoring the _fact_ that your government and any government
can restrict rights. That is a fact. Your government has restricted
the rights of blacks, Indians, women and others in the past and still
can't muster full freedom for all citizens.

As long as you can't guarantee that your government will never change
rights, you will never be absolutely free. A few fat men with guns
notwithstanding.

Mike

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Oh well. Perhaps rick caught that post, and it might work for him.
It'd
be good viewing for Scott as well (and all those who live in an
insular
world).
============================
LOL Again, you've yet to find me praising the US system. Maybe
that's what you wish I said so that your own jingoistic blather
wouldn't look quite so outragious. It is amazing that you rely on
10-15 year old books for your current events, and dely that your own
health care system isn't working for every Canadian right now!

How your position has changed...first it was that people in Canada
were dying in waiting lines, now it is that the system isn't working
for every Canadian.
======================
LOL You really are a sad little boy, aren't you? Sarcasm goes right
over your head as much as facts do, doesn't it? There is no change
fool, you're still just as willfully ignorant as ever...

There's a huge change, right there for all to see. You are really quite
a king weasel!
====================
No fool, there was no change. Especially in your health care system,
and particularly in your ignorance. Must be really hard trying to keep
up, eh? There was no change in the fact that you cannot back up what
you say.

Perhaps it has all happened to fast you missed it.

You started off saying that Canadians were dying in line waiting for
health care.

Your new position is that the system isn't working well for every single
Canadian.
=================
Not is they're dead, eh fool?

Since the latter would be true for any system of health care, you've
watered down your position to something that is totally without meaning.
================================
No fool, the fact that people die waiting is hardly what I'd call a system
that is working for everyone. Again, sarcasm is above your level of
comprehension, isn't it?

Please post a link to any evidence that Canadians are dying in line waiting
for health care.

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

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

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by
guns
at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively
irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the
corner
drug-dealer.

Why are you offended by the term assault weapons?

Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal
media
in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on
their
visual appearance.

Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of
the
(specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by
"assault
weapons?"

Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the
FBI, and
the numbers are actually very small.

If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related
offences
I'd be interested to see them.

Then go look them up.

Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or
that, they should post them, or a link to them.
==================
ROTFLMAO You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were buying
assault weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed 1000s of
people every year. Seems you failed to ever back up that stupidity,
eh?

Since I never made that claim, seems you are wrong as usual.
=============
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! what part of...

"...I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...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..." kamn 2/20/2005 1:41

...doesn't sound familier to you? Or, are you now claiming that somebody
else here is posting fraudulantly using your name?

No look at what you said:

"You're the one that claimed that the drug dealers were buying assault
weapons at the corner gun-mart, and that they killed 1000s of people every
year"

I remain confident that the Framers did not have in mind that a crack dealer
could buy an assault weapon at the store on the corner and spray the park
with semi-automatic gunfire.

What I did not say was that such incidents aco****ed for 1000s of deaths
each year, and thus, you are wrong to attribute that position.

Oh, and I see that you are in fact capable of re-posting information.

We are all still waiting for your repost of the evidence that Canadians are
dying in waiting lines.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have
produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea.

DNA changes are produced by many things, not just gamma rays. In fact,
every fertilized egg is an example of recombination of genetic material
that is unique.

I've already pointed out that not all changes provide for forms that
are better suited. Even if one does, there is no guarantee that
that one survives. It's a tough world out there.

Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact.

A theory is a hypothesis backed by an abundance of fact. Get over it.

And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual variation which
drives evolution. What is it, pray tell?

It could be episodic change. No gods required. Get over it.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

You still insist on proving that you haven't got a clue what
you're talking about. Homo Sapiens has always walked upright.

Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue.

Bull****. The scientific community bases their science on
observation. The religious nut cases base their fantasies
on insisting on the existanc of God and then trying to force
fit the world to match their fantasies.

Any theory of evolution.

The only "theory" that you are using to judge the scientific
community is one of your own invention. Judge them on a
theory that actually exists.

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.

And who, in this discussion, has suggested that?

Nice backpedal. You did. To wit:

Where in that post did I state that God does not exist? I said that
it doesn't _prove_ that God exists. Big difference, twit. Learn
to read.

Mike

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

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

The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn.

No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies,
male
citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and
militia
kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after
services.

Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines!

We don't have a "massive" standing army in the US. We're not supposed to,
precisely so that military coups can be avoided. That's the purpose of the
Militia provisions of the Constitution.

Um. Do you feel that the current standing army is comparable to the
minutemen?!?!? It's, uh, kind of big!

Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse
population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern
day
juggernaut that is the US armed forces?

Only in degree

Like, 1000 degrees?

not as applied to the philosophical underpinnings of our
nation. In fact, a larger standing army actually militates for more and
better arms in the hands of the citizenry, since one of the points of the
2nd Amendment is to ensure that the armed citizenry always greatly
outnumber
the standing army.

Really! Please post the exact quote that says "the armed citizens of the US
should always outnumber the military forces of the government"

There was no
armed forces.

Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear
of
the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George
Washington?

LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons.

Evasion. You said "There was (sic) no armed forces." This is simply wrong.
Whether it's a lie or mere ignorance I cannot tell.

The armed forces of the day were insignificant in comparison to the US army
of 2005. It is as irrelevant as saying that a fleet of rowboats is the same
as a fleet of nuclear submarines.

There were no assault weapons.

The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and
technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the right.

Um. Indeed it does.

Um. No it doesn't.

Perhaps you don't understand that the usual result of change is...change.

Being concerned that without a musket in every barn the US could not be
defended has little to do with the ability of some angry husband to take
out
his wife and her family with an AK-47 he's purchased on the corner after
hearing about his pending divorce.

Wrong.

Why wrong?

And there weren't more than
30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their
neighbours.

There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a)
suicides
and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very
small
and getting smaller every year.

Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting
themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great!

You misconstrue...deliberately I suspect. Guns of every stripe are mostly
used to punch holes in paper and tin cans, along with punching holes in
game
animals. Less than 0.01% of all guns in the US are ever used unlawfully
against another human being. And that fraction is continuing to drop every
year.

And yet more than 30,000 (THIRTY THOUSAND!!!!) US citizens die every year
from them.

FBI crime reports, combined with BATFE gun ownership records prove
conclusively that 99.99 percent of guns in the US are never used
unlawfully
or unsafely.

Maybe the total number of guns should be reduced so that the .01 does not
account for so many deaths!

That's an admirable safety record by any metric.

Swimming pools and five gallon buckets are more dangerous to children than
guns are, by far.

Did you have over 30000 swimming deaths last year?

FYI, that's a silly argument, since pools are not built to be used to kill
people.

Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related
deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada.

Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and
Canada?!?!?

More than you did before you banned guns.

Well geezus christ you idiot, we live next to the US!!!!!!

But our gun deaths in Canada are MINISCULE compared to the United States.
Even in cities that are just minutes away from major US centers.

Violent crime in Great Britain,
for example, is running rampant. In all three places, violent crime has
jumped markedly and continues to rise at record rates BECAUSE your masters
in government banned the ownership and possession of defensive firearms by
law-abiding citizens. You see, criminals LIKE gun bans, because it ensures
that they can pursue their criminal careers with impunity. Moreover,
criminals don't care a fig for gun bans, because it's already illegal for
them to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime.

Ridiculous. The world is a more violent place, and (thanks in large measure
to the US) guns are more readily available. But you don't hear citizens in
the UK or Canada looking to have more assault weapons on the street so they
will feel safer, because, well, only a nut like you would argue that.

The opposite is true in the US, where violent crime rates continue the
dramatic reductions that began back in the 80s when the trend towards
lawful
concealed carry started to spread across this country.

Where'd you get that loony idea?

Well, from the Home Office, actually.

It seems to me like you've had 30000 - 35000 gun deaths every year for about
the past 20 years. No?

You really are a full on nut!

Pot, kettle, black.

What's my nutty attitude? That more guns does not create safer communities?
Then call me Mr. Planters!

If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have
interpreted
that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple
clip
semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault
weapon
and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure
they
would rethink the whole thing.

Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly
aware of the potentials of firearms.

Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for
example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value.
At
least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005
would
be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault
weapons.

The genius of the Framers is that they created a system that can both
respond to public need while protecting fundamental rights.

The problem on America's "crack house" streets is not too many "assault
weapons," it's too FEW. A few hundred good, law-abiding citizens resolved
to
drive crack dealers from their community by force of arms would have
things
cleaned up in a hurry.

Yup, and don't worry about the baby that gets shot in the head by accident.
Or the house that wasn't really a crack house. Or the anarchy and everyday
violence that comes from shooting your gun at whoever is bothering you.

Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal
semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully
automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding
semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily
convertible" to fully automatic fire.

Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made
to
fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious
federal
crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing
event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic."
They
were all, at best, semi-automatic.

It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the
conversion
to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying.

True. What really facilitates mass slayings is the lack of legally carried
firearms in the hands of law-abiding, responsible (and proficient)
citizens.
It's much harder to "spray bullets around" when someone is shooting back
at
you. That's why, for example, no Israeli school has been attacked by
terrorists in more than 20 years. Today, Israeli citizens carry
fully-automatic military firearms, often issued to them BY the military,
which they use to defend themselves against terrorists...pretty
effectively
too.

So if you want to feel safe, you would suggest moving to Israel?

Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their
temper."
Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the
single
common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was
the
ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more
good
citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have
occurred.

Ah yes, if only we all had a gun.

Indeed.

Scary that your ideal would not be that no one had a gun. Or wanted to have
one.

Then every office argument, domestic
disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking
lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?)

This is typical hoplophobe rhetoric. You falsely presume that the vast
majority of citizens will somehow be driven into insane, killing rages
merely because they possess a firearm. Problem is that your tripe is
simply
not true, as the 40+ states that have authorized lawful concealed carry
prove. Anti-gunners like yourself routinely predict "bloodbaths" and
"blood
running in the gutters" and "dead police officers at routine traffic
stops"
as a result of lawful concealed carry.

Unfortunately for you folks, it simply doesn't happen.

It doesn't? What are those 30,000 DEATHS PER YEAR all about? Oh, right, they
are all suicides?

People who are likely to use a gun to kill someone over a petty
disagreement
in an office are unlikely to be dissuaded by gun control laws in the first
place, and factually speaking, the only way to stop such things once
they've
begun is with firearms. Waiting for the police is not an option, as
Columbine proved. Thus, it is incumbent on all citizens to provide for
their
own safety in such situations by carrying their own gun that they can use
for self-defense.

Yup. If only all the kids at Columbine had been carrying guns.

Total up all the Americans killed in every
war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths
between
1979 and 1979.

Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous
thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the
Jews
of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond
and
you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens
killed
by firearms since 1776.

So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the
world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY
nut.

Facts are often inconvenient to gun-banners like you, but that doesn't
change the facts.

Um, there's no facts that indicate more guns = safer society, since you have
30,000+ deaths per year every year.

That's NOT what the framers had in mind.

Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with
firearms

Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys!

but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands
of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale
death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish,
and
the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the
planet.

Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around?

Probably.

Maybe you should run for head of state there on that platform.

Keep in mind that the Irish were disarmed by their generational
enemy, the British, who did so specifically so that they could oppress the
Irish.

Which has little to do with what we are talking about.

I think
they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland
were
best known as places to get shot.

Once again, the problem in Northern Ireland is not too many guns, it's too
few guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens. I'd bet that if you
lived in Belfast, and the kneecappers came busting in YOUR door, that
you'd
wish fervently that you had an AK-47, as a preference to being nailed to
the
floor through the knees.

I'd wish fervently to live in a society where the ideal is not to shoot
someone else before they shoot you.

They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good
people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect
themselves was to be armed.

You really have no clue about American history, do you?

Other than my university degree in History, not much.

Your university degree in Ultra-Left-Wing Socialist History? I'd have to
agree.

It's pretty hard to get a left-wing history degree. Historians tend to be
rather dry old conservatives.

Apparently you learned
all your history from the NRA sponsored texts.

No, I learned it from reading the actual writings of the Framers, who
wrote
extensively on their intent and purpose, and the Constitution, and the
majority of Supreme Court cases touching on the RKBA since the founding of
the nation.

Your claim to have a degree in history is highly suspect

I'll be happy to prove it to you if that would be important to you.

and if you do have
one, you don't deserve it, because you clearly learned nothing about
American history during your matriculation.

What you mean is that I was not indoctrinated by whatever forces have messed
up your own ability to think.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

"Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything."

Sounds pretty derisory to me.

That is a critisism of their foolish attempts at "proving" God exists.
It doesn't say anything about people believing in God being fools.
But then, you can't read very well.

Proof of the existence of God requires, first, a definition of what "God"
is.

How can you prove the existance of something if you don't even know what
it is you are setting out to prove?

The fact that such belief is an act of faith does not mean that either
church does not believe that God does, in fact, exist.

Belief is not proof. Proof is much more difficult.

Since God exists in a spiritual world and we exist in a physical
world, there is a permanent problem of proving anything about a
realm in which we don't exist.

Mike

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

You are one of the scariest sounding people I have ever encountered on
usenet. I imagine I will read about you one day.

The only people who need to be afraid of me are criminals, tyrants and
terrorists. If you are one of the above, then you should be afraid...very
afraid.

And that's the way I like it.

Yes, and you are happy to be the judge, jury, and executioner. And that is
why I am sure we will all read about you one day.

In fact, I
understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to
pick up
an AK-47 these days.

Wrong. AK-47's are fully-automatic battle rifles that are not
available
to
the general public.

So much for this line of crap.

My yes, you've certainly made me feel silly. I neglected to put the
word
phrase "a variation of" in front of "AK-47."

It's not even a variation. But you are indeed silly. You don't
understand
history, technology or law when it comes to firearms in the US. This is,
of
course, because you are a brainwashed slave of your government, which
makes
your ignorance entirely understandable.

I don't think my government ever speaks on these issues, how are they
managing to turn me into a brainwashed slave?

See, you've proven my point. You can't even understand what's being done
to
you.

Wow, you are so clever...I was brainwashed by a government that never fed me
any information.

FYI:

Why on earth are you presuming to give me information about firearms? You
are one of the most grossly ignorant hoplophobes I've ever met, and I know
more about firearms than you are even capable of learning in a lilfetime.

I'm sure you sleep with one up your ass every night.

The AK-47 is currently unavailable to the general public in the U.S.,
very
few were imported into the country and those that did got snatched up by
collectors.

Yup. And every one of them held legally is registered with the BATFE as a
"machine gun." More importantly, of the more than 500,000 legally-owned
machine guns in the US, only ONE has ever been used by its legal owner to
commit a crime, in the entire history of the Registry since it was imposed
in 1934. Again, an enviable safety record.

If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would
suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the
$200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of
our
sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood
furniture.
This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle.
You
will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global
Trades.

The key being "looks similar." Functionally, the firearm operates no
differently if it has look-alike parts installed.

Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a
variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon for
killing a lot of people quickly.

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

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

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by
guns
at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the
corner
drug-dealer.

Why are you offended by the term assault weapons?

Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal
media
in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their
visual appearance.

Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the
(specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by
"assault
weapons?"

Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI,
and
the numbers are actually very small.

If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related
offences
I'd be interested to see them.

Then go look them up.

Sorry, I don't play this game. If someone says statistics show this or
that,
they should post them, or a link to them.

IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it.
I'm
not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who
implied
substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to
substantiate that claim.

Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed
for anything but killing a lot of people quickly.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, the context of the question is gone, but

The context is what you are trying to avoid. Stop playing word games
and stick with the facts.

As I recall, average solar flux is 1watt/m2. If we create a solar panel
[...]
panel under development.

Compare that to the yield of using waste agricultural products and secondary
crop growth on the same land to produce ethanol. Direct Ethanol Fuel Cells
(DEFC) exist and can use the existing gasoline infrastructure without the
need to create a new hydrogen infrastructure.

There are few examples of proposed H2 technology that make sense. Iceland's
commitment comes close, but they have "free" geothermal energy to draw on
and are only serving a small population. H2 for a country the size of the
US is a pipedream.

Mike