A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that
society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic
process.

So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd go
along with it?

I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea. This is because
registration is ALWAYS the precursor to confiscations and seizures by
authorities, no matter how much they may promise it's not going to happen.
Australia, Canada and GB prove that, and we've had several instances in the
US as well, specifically New Jersey and California.

Further, nothing in the Constitution prohibits gun registration, and indeed
most guns are "registered" through the Form 4477 you have to fill out when
you purchase a new gun from a dealer, although this system has been kept
deliberately cumbersome so the BATFE would have great difficulty in using
the forms as a way to confiscate firearms.

However, if gun registration is imposed over the objections of gun owners, I
will then, of course, obey the law...while I work extra hard to unseat those
who approved it and get the law repealed.

What I might do when the government attempts to *confiscate* my firearms is
a different matter entirely.
--
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:
===========
Um, because they choose to?
===========

Why?

Because that is their will and desire?

--
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 , BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/1/05 3:35 PM:

TnT, your are clealy trying to make KMAN's case aren't you? Did you
even READ these sources?

"Interpretation: Patients awaiting CABG in Ontario are at a much
greater risk of death than the general population. However, when
compared with thousands of other patients living with coronary artery
disease, they are at similar or decreased vital risk." from
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/162/6/775

Duh! where are people dying in line-ups here? It says: "at a much
greater risk of death than the general population"... well, hardly
surprising, right? THEY'RE FRIGGIN' ILL!!!!! OF course they're at
greater risk!

BUT, "at similar or decreased vital risk." when compared to others who
are also ill.

KMAN must be loving these!

frtzw906

LOL. I'm loving your analysis, anyway.

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent.

Sez

The Donald Kennedy, the Editor of Science. Says the NAS Firearms
and Violence Panel.

Notorious anti-gun polemicists.

snicker

You just are the stereotypical, ignorant gunhugger, aren't you?

" WASHINGTON * While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents
that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new
U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253
journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80
different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short,
the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower
rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one
of its members were known to favor gun control."

WorldNet Daily


"It should come as no surprise to most readers that "objective" government
studies are often anything but. In fact, the game is an old one: If you put
the right people on a panel, and ask them the right questions, you can
pretty well be assured of getting the answers you want. That appears to be
what is going on with a Clinton administration-inspired National Academy of
Sciences study bearing the innocuous title of "Improving Research
Information and Data on Firearms," which opens its formal hearings on
Thursday.

According to the NAS, "The goals of this study are to

1.) assess the existing research and data on firearm violence;
2.) consider how to credibly evaluate the various prevention, intervention
and control strategies;
3.) describe and develop models of illegal firearms markets; and
4.) examine the complex ways in which firearms may become embedded in the
community."

Conspicuously absent from these goals is any research into the benefits of
firearms becoming "embedded" in communities, as demonstrated by the research
of scholars like John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute and Gary
Kleck of Florida State University.

Most of the people selected for the panel have reputations as good scholars,
but none of them have specialized in firearms policy. Most of them have
reputations as being antigun. Steven Levitt, has been described as "rabidly
antigun."

The panel also includes former Jimmy Carter Attorney General Benjamin
Civiletti ‹ a long-time antigun advocate, and a strong supporter of
America's leading gun-prohibition group, Handgun Control, Inc. (formerly
known as "the National Council to Control Handguns," and recently renamed
"The Brady Campaign").

The closest that anyone on the panel gets to not being entirely antigun is
James Q. Wilson ‹ a distinguished scholar (but no specialist in gun policy),
who has said that most gun control doesn't work, but who expresses almost no
concern for the rights of legitimate gun owners who are harmed by
ineffective laws, and who supports high-tech spy cameras to find people
carrying guns. (Notwithstanding the fact that handgun carrying is legal in
33 states by statewide law, and is allowed in many of the rest, on a county
by county basis.)" By Dave Kopel & Glenn Reynolds.

You can say the NAS study wasn't biased all you want, and it will be a lie
still.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
rick says:
===============
Yet you bypass the whole gist of the article, there are wait
times across Canada. Otherwise, why the hand wringing over it?
Besides, it was written for a(gasp) american Foundation...
==============

No. The gist of the article is that the media hype about wait
times is
exaggerated. Hence the comment about skewed statistics, etc.
The entire
article says pretty much everything KMAN has been saying.

NOTE: "very long waits are the exception"
=====================
That wasn't the discussion, now was it? Nice strawman.



NOTE: "Very few patients who felt waits were "too long" wanted
to see
additional public funds used to reduce wait times"

And, central to their argument, because they preface the
article with
it, is the notion that wait lists and wait times are difficult
to
define.

And I didn't bother citing the condemnation they have of the
American
system because, as you keep saying, you're certanly no advocate
for the
market system in health care either.
================
So now we have the truth about why you are so eager to embrace
this report. It neglects to find, or tell, the whole truth about
the Canadian system because they, like you, are agenda building.
Nice that you like to show your stripes so well.

Here, let me restore a couple of sites that you don't want to
see...

"...An Ontario study reviewed the experience for 8,517
consecutive coronary bypass patients following the establishment
of a
provincial patient registry in 1991. While in the queue 31
patients (0.4%) died and 3 had surgery deferred after non-fatal
myocardial infarction..."
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Shortt.pdf

"...Based on data from tens of thousands of patients, it is now
clear that queuing according to this system limits the risk of
death for patients awaiting surgery. Currently about one in
200 to 250 patients will die while awaiting isolatedcoronary
artery bypass surgery (CABG) in Ontario..."
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/atrevised3.pdf

Plus, you failed to reply to kmans claim that no one waits for
treatment in Canada.




frtzw906
==================
I notice that you dishonestly deleted all the info that says that
Canadians die on wait lists.
the site you keep refering to now, which I had posted before
anyway, does not claim there are no deaths from waiting.
The sites I provided, and you deleted, do.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
, BCITORGB
at wrote on 3/1/05 3:35 PM:

TnT, your are clealy trying to make KMAN's case aren't you?
Did you
even READ these sources?

"Interpretation: Patients awaiting CABG in Ontario are at a
much
greater risk of death than the general population. However,
when
compared with thousands of other patients living with coronary
artery
disease, they are at similar or decreased vital risk." from
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/162/6/775

Duh! where are people dying in line-ups here? It says: "at a
much
greater risk of death than the general population"... well,
hardly
surprising, right? THEY'RE FRIGGIN' ILL!!!!! OF course they're
at
greater risk!

BUT, "at similar or decreased vital risk." when compared to
others who
are also ill.

KMAN must be loving these!

frtzw906

LOL. I'm loving your analysis, anyway.
======================
Which is just agenda building, and strawmen...

Why not respond to the sites I posted that prove you are a liar?
Oh, yeah, you're too afraid, eh?

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:15 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

KMAN wrote:
...snipsss...

My apologies for being unclear Tinkerntom.

Can I please try again?

Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for
health
care?

If you will excuse and accept the following babble?

I deleted it.
==============
Of course you did. You don't like the truth, it hurts too much,
right?



Has he proven it?
=================
Yes...


For example, did a coroner's inquiry say "Person X died while
waiting for health care, and if the health care system had not
responded so slowly, she'd still be alive?"

That fact that a person was on a waiting list for something and
died doesn't mean that caused the death.

Has rick PROVEN to you that Canadians are dying waiting for
health care?

Please note (in case not obvious) this means that it was the
waiting that caused them to die.
==================
ROTFLMAO Waiting doesn't kill tghem fool! The desease is what
kills them. Sometimes because they don't get the treatment they
need.

You've provided no evidence of this.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:12 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
, rick at
wrote on 2/28/05 6:49 PM:

snip

Is there a coroner's report that says Mr X. died because he
was
waiting?
=====================
Read the sites fool. As you know, patient info is not
released.

There are stories about health care issues in the media all
the time.
Something as serious as someone dying while waiting for care
would
definitely make the front page.
==================
It has before fool.

Never. Prove it.
=======================
Yes, fool. Try some researchof you own. You made the claim.

I've done it. It hasn't happened, save for your weasel imagination.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:18 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
, rick at
wrote on 2/28/05 7:06 PM:


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

"KMAN" wrote in message


snippage...

Or are you going to be consistent and be a liar and a
coward
on
this issue
as well?
====================
Anything you open your mouth about, like Canadians never
waiting
for treatment.

I never said that. Every health care system requires that
people wait.
==========================
Yes, you did liar. Do try to keep up with your own spews,
dolt.


What part of your claim:
"...No one is waiting for treatment..." don't you
undersatnd?
You said it fool, 2/20/2005


Big lie there fool...

Never said it. Prove that I did.
================
See above fool. You made the claim, liar.

Why none of your pithy spews here, fool? Finally realixed
how
stupid you really are, and how much you lie?

Post the entire quote, and reference it, weasel.
============================
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

That's is a quote by you fool. feb 20, 2005. That you are
still too stupid to fully use your computer is no surprise,
liar.

Post the entire quote.
==================
What I posted stands by itself. You lied.
"...No one is waiting for treatment..."

Still afraid to look things up for yourself, eh liar?

Only a scumbag posts the middle of a quote with no context or reference.

in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:20 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
, rick at
wrote on 2/28/05 6:52 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..

"rick" wrote in message
.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..


snip...







If you are using cars as a justification for
assault
weapons,
then you are
comparing the two, fool. LOL.
==========================
No fool. It is you that is trying to justify
something
based on
what YOU determine to be a need. You failed.

You brought up cars, not me.
======================
No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the
determination whether or not people should have them.
You
lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant
spews...

You brought up cars. Check.
===============
LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar?

Nope. You brought up cars. Check.
======================
No

So you didn't bring up cars?
========================
Nice bit of dishonesty there fool.

So you didn't bring up cars?
=======================
You didn't bring up need as the basis for owning anything,
liar?

Here, let me restore your dishonesty again, liar..

"No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the
determination whether or not people should have them.
You lost, again, and now have you resort to your
ignorant spews... checkmate, proven liar..."

What is the need for assault weapons to the general public?
It's a valid question. They are only useful for spraying
bullets. Why else do you need them? In response to this YOU
brought up the fact that people get killed by cars. But cars
have many other valid and valuable purposes.
================
So do weapons.

What are the valuable purposes of assault weapons that are comparable to the
valuable purposes of cars?