scott wrote:
> Funny how whenever there is some shooting at a shopping centre or 
> whatever, suddenly nobody else seems to be carrying a gun and everyone 
> waits for the police to show up.

Most people don't *carry* guns. It's a right PITA in most places to get 
carry permits.  Lots of people own guns, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> and most of them are definitely ***nut cases***, who already are.
> 
> If you're saying that most armed people are nut cases, I think you're 
> wrong. Many or most vocal armed people are nut cases, but the last poll 
> I saw showed at least half the houses had a firearm and ammunition 
> somewhere in the house or garage. And that's self-reported, so all the 
> people who don't want to admit it showed up as unarmed.
> 
Uh, most of the people you see recently buying up guns are taking them 
to political rallies, arguing that they should be allowed to pack them 
on trains with them, and complaining that they can't take them into the 
local bar. I.e., nut cases. The ones buying them for their houses... are 
just imho, confused about the reality of the danger, which is a) most 
people that get shot in houses by guns are not criminals, and b) if 
people that break into houses all know than 90% of the people they 
encounter in them will be armed they will do what? Probably shoot first, 
then rob you. The best thing to do if some armed wacko breaks in is to 
stop being there, not confront the asshole. But, logic doesn't work with 
people "defending" their homes.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:54:05 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> Do it, you don't need a gun to be armed. Do you know where the kitchen
>> knives are? Do you know where the nearest exits are, and how to get your
>> family to them quickly? And do you know which few things in your house
>> are worth dying to protect?
>>
>> There, now you are armed. Use this knowledge with great care.
>>
>> Strangely, this works not just for intruders, looters, and other
>> neer-do-wells, but for fires, natural disasters, and lots of other
>> situations.
>>
> 
> Too much logic there not enough room for emotion or want ;)
> 

So? If someone was going to get a gun for home defense, a basic safety
course would teach the same thing.

>> When did the police become a means to prevent crime?
>>
> 
> Just after they stop breaking the law, themselves. :)

I was thinking more about how they shifted from an investigative force,
after a crime is committed, to existing with the purpose of preventing
crimes.

>> I hate to say it, but they are the same thing. One sides Freedom Fighter
>> is the other sides terrorist. One sides liberating force is the others
>> invading army. The only difference is which side you are on or, if it
>> was in the past, which side won.
>>
> 
> So cynical for one so young :P

That was just barely cynical, I could do much worse if you prefer ;)

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 
>> I hate to say it, but they are the same thing. One sides Freedom Fighter
>> is the other sides terrorist. One sides liberating force is the others
>> invading army. The only difference is which side you are on or, if it
>> was in the past, which side won.
>>
> 
> Funny that it's the Liberals in Che Guevara t-shirts who seem (or at
> least claim to be) most worried about blood-thirsty Conservatives.
> 
>  - Shay

The Liberals in Che shirts are worried about blood-thirsty Conservatives
for the same reason some Conservatives are worried about Death Squads in
nationalized insurance and internment camps for the GOP. Both are living
in separate versions of reality that just barely intersect with our own.

Personally, I think people are doing what they think is the best to help
themselves and as many other people as possible, perhaps in that order.

Post a reply to this message

>>
http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx
>
> Wow. That takes a sick mind to come up with that

I'm suprised it wasn't Care Bears, the pun alone is almost worth it.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> You know, this is the first time I've ever heard someone worried about a
>> citizen coup of the government. Every person arming themselves I've ever
>> heard of that has been worried about it has been arming themselves to
>> protect the government from the officials, not to overthrow the
>> government. I.e., to restore the constitution, not to overthrow the
>> elected government. I think this is probably a new GOP nutcasism, just
>> like the birthers.
>>
> 
> I don't think any of them believe they, themselves, will be the one to
> help over throw the government. But, there must be someone out there who
> believes more strongly, and will lead the uprising. And after that,
> while the opposing party is herded into the camps they were building for
> the secret NSA or Hollywood project, the righteous will need those guns
> to keep themselves safe from all the people that don't get picked up in
> the first round.
> 
> I think I lost the point of this hyperbole, when I started picturing the
> nutcase-caste as the invading army in any generic 80's Cold War invasion
> movie. And yes, didn't you know? The NSA is working with Hollywood movie
> makers to hide those camps in the 'on location' sets for various films.
> It has all been planned for years now, why can't anyone see it?!

Problem is, there are literally groups, many of them indirectly 
supported, for ideological reasons, by existing members of the 
government, (who have, in a few case come damn close to saying the same 
things, and in others ***are*** the ones saying it), who have actually 
convinced themselves that everything from the economy to the current 
non-white, possibly Muslim (they still insist this is true), likely not 
a US citizen (again they **still** insist this is the case), liberal, 
are signs of how corrupt the government is, and how it needs to be 
replaced. One of them, just this last week, stated that, "If the 
government continues down this path, I wouldn't be surprised if a 
bloodless coup took place, led by military officials, trained in nation 
building." One can presume this means the same people they sent to Iraq, 
under bush, and hand picked from the "Evangelical" groups in the 
military, which we have been hearing increasingly large numbers of 
complaints about. Others are vaguely more rational, and just suggest it 
might be better if Texas, or some other states, leave the union, to 
found their own **true** theocratic democracy.

No, I have no problem imagining these people are serious. I have no 
problem believing that too many people in congress, state officials, 
school boards, and many other places, where they have spent **decades** 
playing up the god card, and getting radicals elected, should, if not 
for it being "religious beliefs", be classed as clinically insane. And, 
I have no difficulty at all, based on who they fund, who funds them, 
their being board members, in some cases, of right wing think tanks and 
other such organizations, and the ties between those and even more 
radical groups, that if for one moment, they actually thought they 
already had enough military people, brain washed with evangelical 
gibberish, behind them, they wouldn't stop to think for one moment at 
trying to "save" the country from communism and liberal thinking, 
through military actions. Many of them have said as much one the various 
places they fund/get funding from, chair, or support, while never quite 
saying so *in public*.

Heck the current wacko they think is likely to be the Republicrat 
candidate in 2012 has hand picked what has been described as a laundry 
list of the worst right wing scandals and hypocrites, to be his 
"advisers". The only possible reason for doing this is because he, and 
they, don't think anything they got caught doing was wrong, and that 
anything at all is justified, as long as it supports the insertion of 
Jesus, "back into the nations government". One of them is a women who 
***Bush*** even had a problem with, and during her testimony, in the 
trial that lost her her job, she repeated stated that she made an oath, 
not to protect the "constitution", but the "president", despite the fact 
that her job required the former, and she couldn't have been given the 
position without taking the oath to defend it.

You have to understand, the sane ones are either jumping ship so fast 
its not funny, or sticking it out, in hopes to moderate the message, but 
if you look at most of the ones in office right now, the difference 
between the completely crazy ones, and the ones trying to "save" the 
party is almost nothing. They all think there isn't enough god in 
everything, they all think government is always bad, they all think no 
one, especially them, should pay taxes, they all appose health care, 
they all think poor people deserve to be poor, or they well.. wouldn't 
be, they all are jumping at shadows, and they all appose **liberals** so 
completely that they will, and have, and continue, to appose even their 
**own** additions to bills being put through, or even bills that say 
they same thing **they** proposed previously, based solely on the 
grounds that its "liberals" that might get the credit for passing the stuff.

Worse, they seem to have the mentality that *their* people can shout 
fire in a crowded theater, when there isn't one, but its absolutely 
horrifying if someone else points out that the other side let real moths 
loose in the same theater. The former is acceptable, for some reason, 
the later, an unconscionable act of rudeness. Why? Apparently because of 
who is saying it, and whether or not it supports the goal of putting 
more Republicans in office, or undermining the communist liberal agenda.

You have to be living under a rock to not get that these people are mad 
as a hatter, and clueless, if you imagine that none of them are serious 
about a coup, bloodless or otherwise, if they don't get what they want. 
The only reason they are not "serious" about it yet is because they know 
they don't have enough "soldiers" to pull it off. But, many of them are 
so completely deluded about their own positions that they will ignore 
"nation wide" polls showing the 75% of people want some options for 
health care, and instead say, "I have talked to tens of thousands of my 
own constituents, and they all say they don't want this options." Well, 
if you keep asking them, "Do you want the communist, government run, 
system that will kill your grand parents and force you to buy government 
health care?", then yeah, they probably all say no. If you asked them, 
"Do you want your neighbor to stab you with an ice pick?", they would 
probably say no too, but lying about their neighbors buying a truck load 
of ice picks doesn't make allow you to then go on national TV and tell 
people, "Everyone I talked to said they hate having neighbors."

If this was a comic book universe, half these idiots would be wearing 
funny costumes and conspiring with the Joker, in a plot to kill Batman. 
It actually seems to have gotten that bad, since these anti-science, 
anti-fact, make shit up, only our side is right, we need to save the 
nation for Jesus, and everyone that so much as suggests one of our 
factless, poorly planned, irrational, ideas might need to be rethought, 
is a damn liberal, including any Republicans that don't toe the line 
enough, are all ignorant, disinterested in *any* evidence, and barking 
frakking mad. And they are almost all convinced that saving the nation 
means making us more like Medieval Europe, under the Inquisition, where 
only those that accepted the absolute authority, and ideas, of one hard 
line religious view, and its **official** kings, and nobles.

Some have even gone so far as to suggest that democracy itself is a 
failure, though again, not in the direct public, but in their own books, 
web sites, and talks to some supporters, and we need to "fix" the 
problem by reinstituting some sort of monarchy, with, of course, them as 
the nobility.

How insane do these people have to act before you recognize that they 
don't have the same limits on their actions, or what they might plan, as 
the rest of us do? You can't reason with someone that rejects reason. 
**period** And most of these people have rejected everything and 
anything that doesn't make them "chosen", "better", "more moral", "more 
saved", "divinely chosen to lead", etc. Anything that does, including, 
and especially, someone leading that isn't one of them, is a direct 
affront to their world view, and since God can't be wrong about them, 
qed its everyone else that must be conspiring to undermine their god.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> and most of them are definitely ***nut cases***, who already are.
>>
>> If you're saying that most armed people are nut cases, I think you're 
>> wrong. Many or most vocal armed people are nut cases, but the last 
>> poll I saw showed at least half the houses had a firearm and 
>> ammunition somewhere in the house or garage. And that's self-reported, 
>> so all the people who don't want to admit it showed up as unarmed.
>>
> Uh, most of the people you see 

I'm saying the "you see" is the important part. The people who aren't nut 
cases who are buying guns? You don't see them.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:40:27 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

>> Too much logic there not enough room for emotion or want ;)
>> 
>
>So? If someone was going to get a gun for home defense, a basic safety
>course would teach the same thing.
>

I was, in my own way, agreeing with you. And I still do.

>>> When did the police become a means to prevent crime?
>>>
>> 
>> Just after they stop breaking the law, themselves. :)
>
>I was thinking more about how they shifted from an investigative force,
>after a crime is committed, to existing with the purpose of preventing
>crimes.

And I was thinking of the phrase "A law unto themselves".

>>> I hate to say it, but they are the same thing. One sides Freedom Fighter
>>> is the other sides terrorist. One sides liberating force is the others
>>> invading army. The only difference is which side you are on or, if it
>>> was in the past, which side won.
>>>
>> 
>> So cynical for one so young :P
>
>That was just barely cynical, I could do much worse if you prefer ;)

I know, I know ;-)
I used that concept on this newsgoup myself several years ago when writing about
Al Qaeda and the IRA. To the disgust of Bill deWitt.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Problem is, there are literally groups, many of them indirectly
> supported, for ideological reasons, by existing members of the
> government, (who have, in a few case come damn close to saying the same
> things, and in others ***are*** the ones saying it), who have actually
> convinced themselves that everything from the economy to the current
> non-white, possibly Muslim (they still insist this is true), likely not
> a US citizen (again they **still** insist this is the case), liberal,
> are signs of how corrupt the government is, and how it needs to be
> replaced. One of them, just this last week, stated that, "If the
> government continues down this path, I wouldn't be surprised if a
> bloodless coup took place, led by military officials, trained in nation
> building." One can presume this means the same people they sent to Iraq,
> under bush, and hand picked from the "Evangelical" groups in the
> military, which we have been hearing increasingly large numbers of
> complaints about. Others are vaguely more rational, and just suggest it
> might be better if Texas, or some other states, leave the union, to
> found their own **true** theocratic democracy.

There are those groups. Where I disagree is that the members of the
government actually believe what they are saying. Call it cynical, but
most of them are saying what ever it takes to get their 'base' to vote
for them. Since that occasionally requires out-right lies, that is what
they do.

> No, I have no problem imagining these people are serious. I have no
> problem believing that too many people in congress, state officials,
> school boards, and many other places, where they have spent **decades**
> playing up the god card, and getting radicals elected, should, if not
> for it being "religious beliefs", be classed as clinically insane. And,
> I have no difficulty at all, based on who they fund, who funds them,
> their being board members, in some cases, of right wing think tanks and
> other such organizations, and the ties between those and even more
> radical groups, that if for one moment, they actually thought they
> already had enough military people, brain washed with evangelical
> gibberish, behind them, they wouldn't stop to think for one moment at
> trying to "save" the country from communism and liberal thinking,
> through military actions. Many of them have said as much one the various
> places they fund/get funding from, chair, or support, while never quite
> saying so *in public*.

I don't disagree with you that the entire thing is a problem, but I do
have trouble believe that many of the people are serious about it. I
grew up in a coal and train city. I am certain there are people who
believe any of the points you made above. What I do not believe is that
any single one of them is actually going to act on it except to talk or
to vote.

There are always the militant figures, the quiet ones in militias and
the loud ones screaming on national TV. The ones in militias may be more
dangerous, as the past 20 years has shown. But the ones on TV, I won't
say they are harmless as they do a great deal of damage to the country
by causing people to simply vote against the other team instead of
thinking on a larger scale. However, I have a great deal of trouble
seeing any of them as actual participants in a revolution of any sort.

> Heck the current wacko they think is likely to be the Republicrat
> candidate in 2012 has hand picked what has been described as a laundry
> list of the worst right wing scandals and hypocrites, to be his
> "advisers". The only possible reason for doing this is because he, and
> they, don't think anything they got caught doing was wrong, and that
> anything at all is justified, as long as it supports the insertion of
> Jesus, "back into the nations government". One of them is a women who
> ***Bush*** even had a problem with, and during her testimony, in the
> trial that lost her her job, she repeated stated that she made an oath,
> not to protect the "constitution", but the "president", despite the fact
> that her job required the former, and she couldn't have been given the
> position without taking the oath to defend it.

Who is the current likely pick? I stopped getting cable and try not to
follow the primaries until it is time to vote in them. I know Caribou
Barbie is one, but she actually caused some long term Republicans in the
small coal and train town to vote for Obama or for a third party. They
were scared of her becoming President.

> You have to be living under a rock to not get that these people are mad
> as a hatter, and clueless, if you imagine that none of them are serious
> about a coup, bloodless or otherwise, if they don't get what they want.

I don't believe that none of them are serious. I think that the majority
of them, serious or not, do not have the ability to pull it off. Beyond
that, I feel that the few how think they have that ability would find
themselves hard pressed to shoot their neighbor for sedition from their
cause.

> Some have even gone so far as to suggest that democracy itself is a
> failure, though again, not in the direct public, but in their own books,
> web sites, and talks to some supporters, and we need to "fix" the
> problem by reinstituting some sort of monarchy, with, of course, them as
> the nobility.

So? I have suggested that democracy is broken before. I wouldn't be the
first. Goggle "panem et circenses", bread and circuses.

> How insane do these people have to act before you recognize that they
> don't have the same limits on their actions, or what they might plan, as
> the rest of us do? You can't reason with someone that rejects reason.

How insane would someone had to have been to charge the White House with
a water gun 4 years ago to protest water boarding? People on the left
talked about revolution, people on the right were scared that one might
happen any day now. Years later, nothing happened. Not having sane
limits to actions is one of the definitions of insane.

The populous is, in my opinion, in no shape to take part in a
revolution. To generalize: the voting blocks of the right, those who are
following but not leading at the moment, are too scared of government
control to trust a few people to lead a revolution. Those on the left
want the government to act for them, so they don't have to act for the
government.

This constant fear of what the other team might do to cheat and win is
exactly the problem. There is no discussion because the other side
doesn't warrant it, so we should just yell at the top of our lungs too.
There is no compromise because the other guy may try to stuff a loophole
in and cheat. Maybe, just maybe, the people who are not part of either
side of the two vocal majorities still have it in them to kick up a fuss
and cause trouble. That remains to be seen.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I'm saying the "you see" is the important part. The people who aren't 
> nut cases who are buying guns? You don't see them.
> 

Is this sort of like, "'you see' is the important part. The politicians 
on the right who are not completely insane, you don't see them." lol 
Touche! lol Seriously though, I will again repeat a simple principle, 
guns in people's houses are *presumed* to protect them, but the 911 
records seem to imply far more accidents and mistakes than actually 
"protection". This is sort of the "earth quake vs. tornado" mentality. 
People dealing with tornados are dealing with a known danger, which 
earth quakes are not. The odds of the ground opening up, like in some 
movie, and swallowing you whole, instead of just knocking a few pictures 
off the wall is like 1:1,000,000,000,000. The odds that a tornado will 
suck you into the sky, along with your house is.. probably more like 
1:2, if you are dumb enough to be *in* the house, and you got hit 
directly. Yet, people from areas where tornados are common often think 
people from California are insane for living where there are earth quakes.

I would argue that anyone buying a gun to "protect themselves" is a) 
exaggerating the possible dangers, b) failing to grasp the real ones, 
and/or c) actually think they are part of the great army of the faithful 
that will fight for the good of the country, when things go completely 
to hell. They may not plan to *start* it, but they are all damn sure 
they will help finish it. And, you can't just blame the news media for 
the current tendency for all of them to be class (c). You have to blame 
everyone from the conspiracy theorists pushing BS over emails and web 
sites, to the right wingers, who are lapping up all the conspiracies, no 
matter how insane they are, in order to justify their unwillingness to 
work with the current president. Under Bush, if you said something bad 
about the president you where a traitor. Why is it then that now, if you 
say something bad about the people "apposing" the president, you are a 
traitor? The only differences are that he is a) black and b) a democrat, 
and since Clinton didn't *quite* have so many wackos making things up 
about him, you have to wonder if the problem isn't a bit of good old 
Southern racism mixed in. After all, its not like all the groups like 
the KKK and other recent political failures, are flocking to the 
Democrats, or trying to get liberals, who completely hate their views, 
elected to high positions. In point of fact, we know for certain that 
some of them are, if not explicitly racist, then at least classist, and 
sectarian in their views of who should be running things. And, when you 
look at things like Palin has ties to, Morning Star Ministries, and one 
of the other crazy groups (I don't remember which one she is actually 
tied to), you find people proposing that, "entire regions of the world, 
ethnic groups, and even family lines, are possessed by demons, and 
saving the world requires somehow purging this influence."

Where are the sane Republicans in this mess? I am sure they exist, just 
as I am sure that there are sane gun owners, but, seriously..., it 
doesn't take a lot of crazy people to make a total mess for the sane 
ones, and the very existence of the crazies is what is "promoting" the 
conditions leading to more guns being bought. After all, these are the 
same people that refuse to take "rational" approaches, including proven 
ones, to social issues and law enforcement, but instead keep funneling 
money into, and promoting, shit that doesn't work at all, and often 
makes the problems worse. Or, as one person once said, "one of the 
definitions of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over and over 
again, and expecting a different results."


-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Yet, people from areas where tornados are common often think 
> people from California are insane for living where there are earth quakes.

Just so you know, where tornadoes are common, they're *usually* localized to 
a few small areas. That is, you'll be driving along, and you'll come to a 
stretch of undeveloped land a mile wide, with a bunch of houses on either 
side.  And you'll be told "that's where the tornadoes land."

Being in a tornado region is more like being in a flood-prone region than an 
earthquake-prone region.

> I would argue that anyone buying a gun to "protect themselves" is a) 
> exaggerating the possible dangers, b) failing to grasp the real ones, 
> and/or c) actually think they are part of the great army of the faithful 
> that will fight for the good of the country, when things go completely 
> to hell.

Sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

> And, you can't just blame the news media for 
> the current tendency for all of them to be class (c).

I disagree that most people you don't hear about are particularly worried 
about it.

I wasn't really talking about the politicians, but about the gun owners that 
you don't hear about.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Problem is, there are literally groups, many of them indirectly
>> supported, for ideological reasons, by existing members of the
>> government, (who have, in a few case come damn close to saying the same
>> things, and in others ***are*** the ones saying it), who have actually
>> convinced themselves that everything from the economy to the current
>> non-white, possibly Muslim (they still insist this is true), likely not
>> a US citizen (again they **still** insist this is the case), liberal,
>> are signs of how corrupt the government is, and how it needs to be
>> replaced. One of them, just this last week, stated that, "If the
>> government continues down this path, I wouldn't be surprised if a
>> bloodless coup took place, led by military officials, trained in nation
>> building." One can presume this means the same people they sent to Iraq,
>> under bush, and hand picked from the "Evangelical" groups in the
>> military, which we have been hearing increasingly large numbers of
>> complaints about. Others are vaguely more rational, and just suggest it
>> might be better if Texas, or some other states, leave the union, to
>> found their own **true** theocratic democracy.
> 
> There are those groups. Where I disagree is that the members of the
> government actually believe what they are saying. Call it cynical, but
> most of them are saying what ever it takes to get their 'base' to vote
> for them. Since that occasionally requires out-right lies, that is what
> they do.
> 
>> No, I have no problem imagining these people are serious. I have no
>> problem believing that too many people in congress, state officials,
>> school boards, and many other places, where they have spent **decades**
>> playing up the god card, and getting radicals elected, should, if not
>> for it being "religious beliefs", be classed as clinically insane. And,
>> I have no difficulty at all, based on who they fund, who funds them,
>> their being board members, in some cases, of right wing think tanks and
>> other such organizations, and the ties between those and even more
>> radical groups, that if for one moment, they actually thought they
>> already had enough military people, brain washed with evangelical
>> gibberish, behind them, they wouldn't stop to think for one moment at
>> trying to "save" the country from communism and liberal thinking,
>> through military actions. Many of them have said as much one the various
>> places they fund/get funding from, chair, or support, while never quite
>> saying so *in public*.
> 
> I don't disagree with you that the entire thing is a problem, but I do
> have trouble believe that many of the people are serious about it. I
> grew up in a coal and train city. I am certain there are people who
> believe any of the points you made above. What I do not believe is that
> any single one of them is actually going to act on it except to talk or
> to vote.
> 
> There are always the militant figures, the quiet ones in militias and
> the loud ones screaming on national TV. The ones in militias may be more
> dangerous, as the past 20 years has shown. But the ones on TV, I won't
> say they are harmless as they do a great deal of damage to the country
> by causing people to simply vote against the other team instead of
> thinking on a larger scale. However, I have a great deal of trouble
> seeing any of them as actual participants in a revolution of any sort.
> 
>> Heck the current wacko they think is likely to be the Republicrat
>> candidate in 2012 has hand picked what has been described as a laundry
>> list of the worst right wing scandals and hypocrites, to be his
>> "advisers". The only possible reason for doing this is because he, and
>> they, don't think anything they got caught doing was wrong, and that
>> anything at all is justified, as long as it supports the insertion of
>> Jesus, "back into the nations government". One of them is a women who
>> ***Bush*** even had a problem with, and during her testimony, in the
>> trial that lost her her job, she repeated stated that she made an oath,
>> not to protect the "constitution", but the "president", despite the fact
>> that her job required the former, and she couldn't have been given the
>> position without taking the oath to defend it.
> 
> Who is the current likely pick? I stopped getting cable and try not to
> follow the primaries until it is time to vote in them. I know Caribou
> Barbie is one, but she actually caused some long term Republicans in the
> small coal and train town to vote for Obama or for a third party. They
> were scared of her becoming President.
> 
Not sure if the guy is a likely pick, per say. Mostly its a case of 
suspicion, since he seems to be making a lot of noise in hiring 
"advisors" and generally taking steps that imply he may be trying. I 
might have over stepped things saying he is the likely candidate, but 
the current trend seems to be, "more of the same", which means either 
someone like McCain, who, now that he isn't running, seems to be acting 
a bit saner again, but who will pick a complete nut to run with them, or 
one of the complete nuts themselves. I have no doubt, for example, that 
Chucklebee is likely to make another attempt.

> The populous is, in my opinion, in no shape to take part in a
> revolution. To generalize: the voting blocks of the right, those who are
> following but not leading at the moment, are too scared of government
> control to trust a few people to lead a revolution. Those on the left
> want the government to act for them, so they don't have to act for the
> government.
> 
I think this is a bit too stereotypical. Truth is, the left doesn't 
trust government either. The problem is, they don't trust them to do 
*sane* things like regulating medicines, imagining instead that the FDA 
is out to poison people, or in the pocket of drug companies. The right 
is for "small government", only when it infringes on their right to push 
their moral messages, or religious convictions, or make lots and lots of 
money, while the poor starve. Ask them if they think we should limit the 
FCC (their morality cop for broadcasting), the FDA, or other agencies 
they find useful for pushing certain kinds of BS, *when* they can get by 
with it), etc., and you are likely to find them crying, "No! We need 
more, more, more!"

As I said to someone else, a lot of liberals have anarchist views. The 
government is there to secure their right to do any damn thing they 
please, so big government is good, when it does this, and protects them 
from things that would have inconvenienced this goal. The libertarians 
have it half right, imagining, rightly, that social systems need to 
operate on "community standards", and that the best standard will win, 
*if* allowed to. They however make the mistake of applying this rule to 
corporations, who a) don't think they belong to any community, b) often 
function like mini-kingdoms, c) don't think about long term consequences 
often enough, and d) will cut their own throats, and everyone else's, 
out of shear ignorance. The right.. Tend to deny that community 
standards or any sort of provisional concept of morality and ideology 
are possible, and will lie their asses off, if necessary, to promote 
their own as superior (and they have to lie all the time, since theirs 
tend to fail consistently, all across the board), but subscribe to the 
same sort of idiocy that the libertarians do, with respect to business.

1. Liberal - protect us from the stuff we can't, or won't protect 
ourselves from. The problem being that *some* of them confuse the 
"can't" and "won't" bits.

2. Libertarian - governments don't work, except we need them to protect 
us from unscrupulous people, only, they shouldn't actually have **any** 
power to do this, because having the power to pass laws to prevent those 
things makes them dangerous. Most fracking confused people I have ever seen.

3. Republicans - everything that goes wrong with your health, finances, 
or business practices are your own damn fault. We don't do a damn thing 
to protect you from any of those things, well, unless it involves you 
business, in which case we will offer a government run, socialist, 
program to provide flood insurance, even if you have been flooded, 10 
times, knew you where building where it floods, and know it will happen 
again, or you bought it *after* the flood already destroyed your 
property. Just don't ask us to do the same thing for health care reform. 
The only only **good** government protects "business owners" and 
mandates, "proper moral behavior", everything else... well, if you got 
hit by a damn meteor, it was because you where stupidly standing where 
the meteor hit, and probably didn't pray enough.

The only people that don't like government running people's lives are 
the libertarians. Everyone else simply disagrees as to what the 
government **should** be doing. Personally, a government based on, "You 
need to police how people think, act, and believe, but not what they 
spend, sell, or cheat each other out of", is a lot scarier, and no more 
functional, than one that you want to blow your nose and wipe your but, 
but **not** tell you that you shouldn't have eaten those 12 cheese 
burgers, while smoking crack, bought using a welfare check.

All of them have it bloody wrong, but.. I would rather live in a world 
where the local standards was to "not" help the later idiot, than one in 
which the local Inquisition shows up at the door once a week to ask, 
"Did you think any bad, or inappropriate thoughts this last week?" Both 
sides overstep the lines of sanity, with respect to what they "do" want 
done. And both as blind as a bat to when those things are not bloody 
working, and why the other sides solution may actually work better (or 
worse, **is** working better, in other counties).

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I wasn't really talking about the politicians, but about the gun owners 
> that you don't hear about.
> 
And, if you don't hear about them, they exist how? Is this sort of like 
the ID argument, "I don't see anything, so dog must be doing it." lol

All we know is that more people are buying them, not who, or what 
percentage of them are in the crazy category, but just don't got to 
rallies with their guns. We don't even know how many of these people are 
buying their 4-5th gun, or how many, instead of hand guns, already have 
one of those, and opted for an assault rifle, this time around. A 
decision that is likely to say something very different than even just 
buying another hand gun.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I wasn't really talking about the politicians, but about the gun 
>> owners that you don't hear about.
>>
> And, if you don't hear about them, they exist how? Is this sort of like 
> the ID argument, "I don't see anything, so dog must be doing it." lol

I was saying that the gun owners aren't all loud crazy people. Only the gun 
owners you hear about on the news are loud crazy people.  What makes you 
think quiet sane people don't own most of the guns?

> All we know is that more people are buying them, not who, or what 
> percentage of them are in the crazy category, but just don't got to 
> rallies with their guns.

We know that if half the households have guns, not half the people are loud 
crazy gun-owners.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>
http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx

>>
> 
> Completely unbelievable, what a complete idiot.  If this guy even had a 
> half a brain he would realise that making a real gun look like a toy and 
> encouraging others to do the same is a *really* bad idea.

I think you missed the whole point of it.  It's not like he's selling 
the thing at Toy R Us (in fact, he's not selling it at all).

He's highlighting the idiocy of California's gun control laws, because 
this gun is 100% legal while other, similar firearms are banned.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The ones shouting that are the same ones who believe that if the
> government gets just a little more corrupt, especially in an
> administration that they did not vote for, someone else will use that
> 2nd amendment right and over throw the government. Some of them really
> believe it is the threat of an armed populous that keeps the federal
> government in check.

If that were the case, then shouldn't all the other countries with 
tougher gun control have been replaced by totalitarian regimes by now?

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> If that were the case, then shouldn't all the other countries with 
> tougher gun control have been replaced by totalitarian regimes by now?

Many of them have been. The USA is arguably[1] one of the countries with the 
longest continuous government. (Altho I don't expect that's really due to 
the gun laws. :-)

[1] The argument being how you measure "continuous". One can measure it in a 
way that very few governments are older.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> The irony being.. this kind of BS makes me actually consider being 
>> armed, just to protect myself from all the nut cases,
> 
> Funny how whenever there is some shooting at a shopping centre or 
> whatever, suddenly nobody else seems to be carrying a gun and everyone 
> waits for the police to show up.  Either in reality nobody actually 
> carries a gun, or everyone is too scared to use it.  Maybe they are 
> scared to use it because they are not trained properly to use a gun, 
> that's even more scary.
> 
> 

The tragic results of an armed civilian populace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Y0zaDa4w4

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:31:51 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Chambers wrote:
>> If that were the case, then shouldn't all the other countries with 
>> tougher gun control have been replaced by totalitarian regimes by now?
>
>Many of them have been. The USA is arguably[1] one of the countries with the 
>longest continuous government. (Altho I don't expect that's really due to 
>the gun laws. :-)
>
>[1] The argument being how you measure "continuous". One can measure it in a 
>way that very few governments are older.

Yes, America is the best country in the world :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4-10-2009 4:31, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> If that were the case, then shouldn't all the other countries with 
>> tougher gun control have been replaced by totalitarian regimes by now?
> 
> Many of them have been. The USA is arguably[1] one of the countries with 
> the longest continuous government. (Altho I don't expect that's really 
> due to the gun laws. :-)
> 
> [1] The argument being how you measure "continuous". One can measure it 
> in a way that very few governments are older.

For this argument to make sense one would also need to give at least 
some believable arguments that armed civilians would have *prevented* 
Russia 1917, Germany 1933, and China 1949, to name a few.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Yes, America is the best country in the world :P

I didn't say best. Indeed, I already said it probably didn't have to do with 
gun laws.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> For this argument to make sense one would also need to give at least 
> some believable arguments that armed civilians would have *prevented* 
> Russia 1917, Germany 1933, and China 1949, to name a few.

You just have to show it happened sometimes, not every time.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> For this argument to make sense one would also need to give at least 
>> some believable arguments that armed civilians would have *prevented* 
>> Russia 1917, Germany 1933, and China 1949, to name a few.
> 
> You just have to show it happened sometimes, not every time.
> 

That's like saying that to ban apples, we need to show that someone 
somewhere died from eating too many apples.

That it happens once, a few times, or several times is of no 
significance.  Instead, we need to look at a proportion out of all 
countries.

How many countries during the same time frame have had their governments 
replaced by less controlling regimes?

How many countries during the same time frame haven't even had a change 
of government?

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On 4-10-2009 20:49, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> For this argument to make sense one would also need to give at least 
>> some believable arguments that armed civilians would have *prevented* 
>> Russia 1917, Germany 1933, and China 1949, to name a few.
> 
> You just have to show it happened sometimes, not every time.
> 
Actually in the majority of times would be enough to make the claim that 
on average it is better to have your civilians armed to protect the 
constitution. If we cut a few corners, in Russia and in China it was 
armed civilians that established the totalitarian regime. Germany may be 
a bit more complicated as that was a democratic 'coup'. Yet, I don't 
think anyone would argue that it would have been prevented if the 
civilians were armed.
Ok, let me think of other totalitarian regimes:
- Cuba: same as Russia and China
- Lybia: (would that count as totalitarian?)[off to wikipedia...] 
military coup. I don't know enough of the political situation at the 
time to judge if this could be a case in favor of fire arms for 
civilians. My guess would be that it would not have worked, but who knows.

How about arming the Russian civilians in the 80's or the Chinese 
peasants with guns. Would that have lead to a armed coup to install a 
democratic government? It is a hypothetical situation so you can invent 
your own answer. I'd say the idea is too improbable to even consider it 
seriously.

Anyone can think of other totalitarian regimes and if there might be a 
case to make that armed civilians would have prevented that?

Failing that, I summarize that also this argument for guns by civilians 
has been totally busted (as they say in a TV show).

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:48:29 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Yes, America is the best country in the world :P
>
>I didn't say best. Indeed, I already said it probably didn't have to do with 
>gun laws.

Sorry when I googled the phrase that is what I got. That and your new president
laying it on with a trowel during the election.
I'm sure that's not what you meant but I couldn't resist a gentle poke, cousin
:)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:48:29 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Yes, America is the best country in the world :P
>> I didn't say best. Indeed, I already said it probably didn't have to do with 
>> gun laws.
> 
> Sorry when I googled the phrase that is what I got.

I'm not sure what phrase you're referring to, but OK.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> How about arming the Russian civilians in the 80's or the Chinese 
> peasants with guns. Would that have lead to a armed coup to install a 
> democratic government?

Uh, they had a democratic government, and took the totalitarian one by 
preference. Most people in china are quite happy with their government.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> I wasn't really talking about the politicians, but about the gun 
>>> owners that you don't hear about.
>>>
>> And, if you don't hear about them, they exist how? Is this sort of 
>> like the ID argument, "I don't see anything, so dog must be doing it." 
>> lol
> 
> I was saying that the gun owners aren't all loud crazy people. Only the 
> gun owners you hear about on the news are loud crazy people.  What makes 
> you think quiet sane people don't own most of the guns?
> 
Not what I am saying. The sane people already had them. You don't get a 
lot of clear thinking people buying up guns, when people start making 
them all scared. Its people "prone" to fall for such paranoia that do. 
My own family owns some themselves. Most haven't been out of lockup 
since the last time one of us went hunting some place. The guy down the 
street, that just bought one to hide under his pillow... is not thinking 
rationally. And if he bought it because he "needed" to have it close, 
because running to the one under the couch cushions might not let them 
fight off the imaginary bad guys, well... lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> If that were the case, then shouldn't all the other countries with 
>> tougher gun control have been replaced by totalitarian regimes by now?
> 
> Many of them have been. The USA is arguably[1] one of the countries with 
> the longest continuous government. (Altho I don't expect that's really 
> due to the gun laws. :-)
> 
> [1] The argument being how you measure "continuous". One can measure it 
> in a way that very few governments are older.
> 
Its also the country with the highest number of people in jail, the 
highest levels of drug use, the highest cases of teen pregnancies, the 
highest rate of violent crime, the highest level of science denial, etc. 
Well, once you discount places like the ME, since compared to them, we 
have only the "second highest" number of religious fanatics.

Somehow, I would hate to think that "longest continuous government" 
requires any or all of these things, to survive this long. And, its not 
so clear why, "only modern country that has relatively weak gun laws", 
is on the "good things" side of the line, instead of right up there with 
the other list. ;) lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Not what I am saying. The sane people already had them. You don't get a 
> lot of clear thinking people buying up guns, when people start making 

Fair enough. But when 150 million people already own guns, the 2 million 
crazies are less of a problem. :-)

> And if he bought it because he "needed" to have it close, 

Yeah. I'll have to ask my cop brother where he keeps his. I know he has a 
bunch, but I naturally never saw them.

His kid is *very* gun-safety aware. Like, if he sticks his finger in the 
dart-gun trigger before he's ready to shoot, he gets scolded. But they're 
all afraid of him at the paint-ball games.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Its also the country with the highest number of people in jail,

Not necessarily. We count people in jail awaiting trial. Other countries don't.

> highest levels of drug use, 

Hard to measure, I'd think.

> the highest cases of teen pregnancies, the 
> highest rate of violent crime, the highest level of science denial, etc. 

That I'd believe.

> Somehow, I would hate to think that "longest continuous government" 
> requires any or all of these things, to survive this long. 

It doesn't. I'm thinking it's because of the flexibility of the constitution 
along with its inflexibility in some respects.

> And, its not 
> so clear why, "only modern country that has relatively weak gun laws", 
> is on the "good things" side of the line, instead of right up there with 
> the other list. ;) lol

True, but you also have to ask about the attitudes behind it. We're also one 
of the few countries where the soldiers don't swear to obey the leaders, for 
example, but rather the country's legal system.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Not what I am saying. The sane people already had them. You don't get
>> a lot of clear thinking people buying up guns, when people start making 
> 
> Fair enough. But when 150 million people already own guns, the 2 million
> crazies are less of a problem. :-)
> 

As one of the sane ones, I would have to go buy a gun now if I were to
keep one in the house. Apartment dwelling never lent itself to anything
with more reach than a baseball bat, and the practice ranges were quite
a distance away.

>> And if he bought it because he "needed" to have it close, 
> 
> Yeah. I'll have to ask my cop brother where he keeps his. I know he has
> a bunch, but I naturally never saw them.
> 
> His kid is *very* gun-safety aware. Like, if he sticks his finger in the
> dart-gun trigger before he's ready to shoot, he gets scolded. But
> they're all afraid of him at the paint-ball games.
> 

I hope that his kid didn't put up with the absurdity of junior high
school gun safety class. If I ever needed a reason to dislike the
stereo-typical southern, flannel-wearing, deer antlers in pickup truck
hunters, that was it.

Post a reply to this message

> I think you missed the whole point of it.  It's not like he's selling the 
> thing at Toy R Us (in fact, he's not selling it at all).

What's whether he's selling it or not got to do with it?  He's modified a 
lethal weapon deliberately to make it look like a child's toy, and what's 
worse he has advertised it to the world and seems to be encouraging others 
to do the same.  To assume that a child never gets sight of this gun, or any 
one of the number of copies he has influenced, seems a little naive. 
People, even gun owners, are only human, mistakes do get made, which is why 
we have thing in place to reduce the risks when mistakes get made - painting 
a gun like a child's toy just seems to be increasing the risk to me.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:18:38 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>> Sorry when I googled the phrase that is what I got.
>
>I'm not sure what phrase you're referring to, but OK.

"longest continuous government" but as you say OK :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> I hope that his kid didn't put up with the absurdity of junior high
> school gun safety class. 

He's not that old yet.

> If I ever needed a reason to dislike the
> stereo-typical southern, flannel-wearing, deer antlers in pickup truck
> hunters, that was it.

Sounds like a good idea to me. What's wrong with the idea of teaching gun 
safety in jr high?  They rarely taught us anything "practical" beyond shop 
class.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> If I ever needed a reason to dislike the
>> stereo-typical southern, flannel-wearing, deer antlers in pickup truck
>> hunters, that was it.
> 
> Sounds like a good idea to me. What's wrong with the idea of teaching
> gun safety in jr high?  They rarely taught us anything "practical"
> beyond shop class.
> 

Teaching it is a great idea. And in a county high school where lots of
the families hunt just to have enough food in the winter, it is a
necessity. Even at a younger age it would have been smart, since by 8th
grade most of these kids had been hunting with parents.

No, my reason was because these guys had no business teaching anything.
The lesson of "don't pull the trigger because the gun is always loaded"
involved the teaching handing a kid a gun, teaching them how to check if
it is loaded, and then when the kid refuses to pull the trigger the
teacher would continue to tell them the lesson says they need to pull
the trigger to demonstrate. After a few times of this "you need to" "but
you said not to" the kid inevitably gives in because the teacher says
they have to. Then the teacher gets to yell "I told you not to ever do
that!" Sure, it teaches them to not trust people in authority while
anyone is holding a gun. It also undermines the rest of the class,
because you realize these guys are idiots.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> No, my reason was because these guys had no business teaching anything.

Heh. Good story.

Reminds me of "physical education" classes.  Usually taught by geezers too 
old to actually demonstrate how to do a push-up, for example.

Plus, they never actually taught you anything. They'd decide that today 
you'll play football, and *assumed* everyone knew all the rules *and* how to 
play football, etc.  I didn't know how to catch a football, throw a 
football, or which way I was supposed to run when I got the football.

(Football being gridiron, for all you non-americans.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> (Football being gridiron, for all you non-americans.)

  Aren't we Europeans fools for calling soccer "football"? Soccer is for
wimps, football is for Real Men. :)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Aren't we Europeans fools for calling soccer "football"? Soccer is for
> wimps, football is for Real Men. :)

Actually, "soccer" is the term for a particular set of rules for playing 
ball games with your feet.  "Football" is ball games with your feet. So, 
like, technically "hacky-sack" is football, but not soccer.

Granted, calling what americans do "football" is a stretch, if not downright 
wrong. But there's more to football than just soccer, just like there's more 
to poker than five-card hold'em and there's more to billiards than just pool.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Granted, calling what americans do "football" is a stretch

  I have always wondered why they call it football even though playing the
ball with the feet forms only a very small part of the sport. It would be
akin to calling volleyball "fistball" because you are allowed to hit the
ball with your first, and that's often used.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Granted, calling what americans do "football" is a stretch
> 
>   I have always wondered why they call it football

Trolling backwards thru wikipedia history sections...

"The game of football which was played at Rugby School between 1750 and 1859 
permitted handling of the ball, but no-one was allowed to run with it in 
their hands towards the opposition's goal."  I don't know how relevant that 
is, tho, but apparently rugby was also called "football" originally.

American football is much closer to rugby than soccer.

Heard this weekend:
"Wow, that was quite a hit. It's taking him a while to get up."
"Well, he's moving his arms and legs, so he should be alright."
"They're carrying him off the field now."
"He'll be fine, but the nine players carrying him off all have hernias now."

Turns out he didn't fit in the MRI at the hospital, either.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 5-10-2009 2:19, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> How about arming the Russian civilians in the 80's or the Chinese 
>> peasants with guns. Would that have lead to a armed coup to install a 
>> democratic government?
> 
> Uh, they had a democratic government, and took the totalitarian one by 
> preference. 

Well, whose preference? I think the general opinion is that the 
revolutions were supported by more people than the change to 
totalitarianism and that actually not many people understood what was 
really going on. The last you might even say about Germany. Anyway I was 
scratching the options from a list of possible evidence or suggestions 
that having guns for might be useful in preventing a setting aside of a 
constitution. Whether you formulate it as I did or as you did, these two 
countries will not add even a weak suggestion that that might be useful.

> Most people in china are quite happy with their government.

Probably right, but also not quite on topic AFAIC.

Post a reply to this message

On 5-10-2009 5:18, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> If that were the case, then shouldn't all the other countries with 
>>> tougher gun control have been replaced by totalitarian regimes by now?
>>
>> Many of them have been. The USA is arguably[1] one of the countries 
>> with the longest continuous government. (Altho I don't expect that's 
>> really due to the gun laws. :-)
>>
>> [1] The argument being how you measure "continuous". One can measure 
>> it in a way that very few governments are older.
>>
> Its also the country with the highest number of people in jail, the 
> highest levels of drug use, the highest cases of teen pregnancies, the 
> highest rate of violent crime, the highest level of science denial, etc. 
> Well, once you discount places like the ME, since compared to them, we 
> have only the "second highest" number of religious fanatics.
> 
> Somehow, I would hate to think that "longest continuous government" 
> requires any or all of these things, to survive this long. 

As I understood it that phrase was for some definition of 'continuous' 
with a footnote that other definitions are possible. IMHO you have to 
carefully select that definition *knowing* that the US has to come up on 
top. For any reasonable definition that won't happen.

Let me try at a minimal and sufficient set:
- still in charge in 2009 (to exclude China, Japan and a host of other 
countries)
- a written constitution (to exclude e.g. the UK and the Vatican and to 
narrow it down to countries. Otherwise almost any European city would be 
longer)
- no major changes to the constitution (to exclude e.g. the Netherlands)
- major changes to the area of the country are explicitly allowed.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> revolutions were supported by more people than the change to 
> totalitarianism 

That's probably true, yes.  Given that, not all totalitarian states are 
evil. The main problem is that it's difficult to get rid of the evil ones.

> that having guns for might be useful in preventing a setting aside of a 
> constitution. Whether you formulate it as I did or as you did, these two 
> countries will not add even a weak suggestion that that might be useful.

Fair dinkum.

>> Most people in china are quite happy with their government.
> Probably right, but also not quite on topic AFAIC.

I will snarkily point at the newsgroup name. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>>> [1] The argument being how you measure "continuous". One can measure 
>>> it in a way that very few governments are older.

> As I understood it that phrase was for some definition of 'continuous' 
> with a footnote that other definitions are possible. 

Well, yes. See the footnote. :-)

 > IMHO you have to
> carefully select that definition *knowing* that the US has to come up on 
> top. For any reasonable definition that won't happen.


> Let me try at a minimal and sufficient set:
> - still in charge in 2009 (to exclude China, Japan and a host of other 
> countries)

Well, yes, I had thought of that. The right phrase is it's the "oldest" 
country, not the "longest surviving" country. :-)

> - a written constitution (to exclude e.g. the UK and the Vatican and to 
> narrow it down to countries. Otherwise almost any European city would be 
> longer)

Nah. I don't think you can say Venice has the same government it had before 
Italy was founded.  Certainly the Medici aren't the supreme lawmakers any more.

And for countries without constitutions, having the government replaced by 
force is sufficient. So, for example, going from one monarchy to a different 
family running the monarchy thru conquest would count as a "new country."

> - no major changes to the constitution (to exclude e.g. the Netherlands)
> - major changes to the area of the country are explicitly allowed.

I would think as long as it's just expansion that makes sense. Even 
voluntarily selling off territory would count. Having it taken away wouldn't.

But yeah, I wasn't arguing it was the case. I was arguing you could 
*consider* it to be the case, which is pretty good right there.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 6-10-2009 0:11, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> revolutions were supported by more people than the change to 
>> totalitarianism 
> 
> That's probably true, yes.  Given that, not all totalitarian states are 
> evil. 

for certain values of totalitarian and evil

 > The main problem is that it's difficult to get rid of the evil ones.
> 
>> that having guns for might be useful in preventing a setting aside of 
>> a constitution. Whether you formulate it as I did or as you did, these 
>> two countries will not add even a weak suggestion that that might be 
>> useful.
> 
> Fair dinkum.

Geographical error in line 6.

>>> Most people in china are quite happy with their government.
>> Probably right, but also not quite on topic AFAIC.
> 
> I will snarkily point at the newsgroup name. ;-)
> 
No need, I know where I am.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> No, my reason was because these guys had no business teaching anything.
> 
> Heh. Good story.
> 
> Reminds me of "physical education" classes.  Usually taught by geezers 
> too old to actually demonstrate how to do a push-up, for example.
> 
> Plus, they never actually taught you anything. They'd decide that today 
> you'll play football, and *assumed* everyone knew all the rules *and* 
> how to play football, etc.  I didn't know how to catch a football, throw 
> a football, or which way I was supposed to run when I got the football.
> 
> (Football being gridiron, for all you non-americans.)
> 
Snort. The ones that do know are worse. They just want to pick out the 
3-4 people in class that are good at sports, and screw everyone else.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Its also the country with the highest number of people in jail,
> 
> Not necessarily. We count people in jail awaiting trial. Other countries 
> don't.
> 
>> highest levels of drug use, 
> 
> Hard to measure, I'd think.
> 
>> the highest cases of teen pregnancies, the highest rate of violent 
>> crime, the highest level of science denial, etc. 
> 
> That I'd believe.
> 
>> Somehow, I would hate to think that "longest continuous government" 
>> requires any or all of these things, to survive this long. 
> 
> It doesn't. I'm thinking it's because of the flexibility of the 
> constitution along with its inflexibility in some respects.
> 
>> And, its not so clear why, "only modern country that has relatively 
>> weak gun laws", is on the "good things" side of the line, instead of 
>> right up there with the other list. ;) lol
> 
> True, but you also have to ask about the attitudes behind it. We're also 
> one of the few countries where the soldiers don't swear to obey the 
> leaders, for example, but rather the country's legal system.
> 
No. We reserve that for the first 6-8 years of school, depending on the 
state, in the form of the pledge of allegiance. Since, after all, kids 
are a) too stupid to know what an oath is, b) it still means something 
after the 584th time you say it, and c) its not a bit insulting to 
assume that, if you don't keep saying it, you might backslide and turn 
into a commie. lol

Oh, and.. I wouldn't be too sure some of them don't. We had at least one 
moron state, multiple times, even after being admonished for it, during 
a congressional hearing, that she had, "taken an oath to defend the 
president", rather than say... the constitution.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> No. We reserve that for the first 6-8 years of school, depending on the 
> state, in the form of the pledge of allegiance.

No. That's swearing to support the country, not the leaders.

> a congressional hearing, that she had, "taken an oath to defend the 
> president", rather than say... the constitution.

Well, she's a moron. That doesn't mean she actually took that oath.

Thanksgiving: I am thankful my country's leaders wear business suits and not 
military uniforms.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> No. We reserve that for the first 6-8 years of school, depending on 
>> the state, in the form of the pledge of allegiance.
> 
> No. That's swearing to support the country, not the leaders.
> 
Its still over the top, and in insult to anyone that has to retake it 
like 200 days a year, for 6-8 years.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message