 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
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
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> 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.
Interestingly, there are people who sell things like screwdrivers and
electric drills that are all pink and cutesy. Supposed to appeal to
women doing DIY. (Personally I think it's insulting...)
THIS thing, on the other hand, is... well, scary, actually. O_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Interestingly, there are people who sell things like screwdrivers and
> electric drills that are all pink and cutesy. Supposed to appeal to
> women doing DIY.
That's kind of odd way of thinking. Usually only tomboys will use such
tools for anything, and usually tomboys don't like pink and cutesy things.
Their target consumers must form a really, really small minority of the
population.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx
Gotta love the pro-gun comments. "The second amendment is the only
thing standing between us and utter disintegration of the rest of the
constitution! Rawr!" ...um...ok, but...why? Having a Cause is all
well and good, but libertarians being able to own a gun don't actually
form a fundamental pillar of society in the US. The rest of the Bill of
Rights would not suddenly cease to exist if the 2nd amendment hadn't
been in there. You can get your panties in a bunch over your particular
special interest group being denied what you feel are your fundamental
rights, but the fact of the matter is *there are a lot of other people
out there, too*, and when erosion of the rights of minority A does not
equal erosion of the rights of minority B (or majority C), unless you
have something like Political Correctness, nobody's going to care much.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/1/2009 4:49 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
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
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Gotta love the pro-gun comments. "The second amendment is the only
> thing standing between us and utter disintegration of the rest of the
> constitution! Rawr!" ...um...ok, but...why? Having a Cause is all
> well and good, but libertarians being able to own a gun don't actually
> form a fundamental pillar of society in the US. The rest of the Bill of
> Rights would not suddenly cease to exist if the 2nd amendment hadn't
> been in there. You can get your panties in a bunch over your particular
> special interest group being denied what you feel are your fundamental
> rights, but the fact of the matter is *there are a lot of other people
> out there, too*, and when erosion of the rights of minority A does not
> equal erosion of the rights of minority B (or majority C), unless you
> have something like Political Correctness, nobody's going to care much.
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.
The federal government that has more guns, more chemicals, and more time
than any of those individuals. The government must be terrified.
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.
>
> The federal government that has more guns, more chemicals, and more time
> than any of those individuals. The government must be terrified.
The irony being.. this kind of BS makes me actually consider being
armed, just to protect myself from all the nut cases, and most of them
are definitely ***nut cases***, who already are. Sadly, the only thing
likely to change this trend towards shear stupidity is a good old
western shootout some place. Betting it will be between a teabagger and
someone they conclude is "liberal" because they wore the wrong shirt to
an anti-liberal rally. Ironically, the wacko politicians are at least
partly right. More people are getting armed because they are fearful and
don't think the cops can help them. What they fail to grasp is that they
realize that a) there are seldom enough cops, and even less now in a
recession, b) many places the cops are in the pocket of local politics,
and some of those **hate** certain neighborhoods, c) crime rates, for
the most part, where dropping before now, especially violent crime, but
that might have reversed, and not because 4 people some place stopped
praying to the right wings dog, d) under the current conditions,
promoting "more" guns is a recipe for disaster, not a solution to making
things safer, in the absence of cops that the government can't/won't pay
for, or which have been corrupted by politics to not help certain parts
of the cities.
All in all, I am much more worried, today, that one of these idiots, who
watched a few too many episodes of Walker Texas Ranger, will shoot
someone for looking too not-right wing enough, than that an army of
liberals will try to storm the capitol building. Why? Because if the
later happens, it will be **because** the WTR sort will have shot a
bunch of people, then holed up in the capitol building, with hostages,
and the right wing spin engine will be busy calling them "freedom
fighters" for it, instead of insane, or terrorist, thereby helping to
cement the civil war these idiots seem to want so badly.
Frankly, I wish they would just save us the idiocy and bloodshed, move
to Texas, secede, and the rest of us where smart enough to let them turn
themselves into a third world country, instead of bothering to stop them.
--
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:
> 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.
> promoting "more" guns is a recipe for disaster, not a solution to making
> things safer,
I think the evidence is ambivalent on that.
> than that an army of
> liberals will try to storm the capitol building.
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.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:56:18 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sadly, the only thing likely
> to change this trend towards shear stupidity is a good old western
> shootout some place.
That's unlikely to stop it. We've already had events like that, hell, we
had one here in Salt Lake City about a year ago or so at a shopping mall.
Didn't change a damned thing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The irony being.. this kind of BS makes me actually consider being
> armed, just to protect myself from all the nut cases, and most of them
> are definitely ***nut cases***, who already are.
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.
>Sadly, the only thing
> likely to change this trend towards shear stupidity is a good old
> western shootout some place. Betting it will be between a teabagger and
> someone they conclude is "liberal" because they wore the wrong shirt to
> an anti-liberal rally.
I don't see that happening. Maybe as a false flag incident, but most of
the very conservative people I know, know each other. They might joke
about the 'liberal' for a few months, or call them out to other family.
But shooting a stranger who just might be a real liberal sent to the
rally to bait them into breaking the law, no sir.
>Ironically, the wacko politicians are at least
> partly right. More people are getting armed because they are fearful and
> don't think the cops can help them. What they fail to grasp is that they
> realize that a) there are seldom enough cops, and even less now in a
> recession, b) many places the cops are in the pocket of local politics,
> and some of those **hate** certain neighborhoods, c) crime rates, for
> the most part, where dropping before now, especially violent crime, but
> that might have reversed, and not because 4 people some place stopped
> praying to the right wings dog, d) under the current conditions,
> promoting "more" guns is a recipe for disaster, not a solution to making
> things safer, in the absence of cops that the government can't/won't pay
> for, or which have been corrupted by politics to not help certain parts
> of the cities.
When did the police become a means to prevent crime?
> All in all, I am much more worried, today, that one of these idiots, who
> watched a few too many episodes of Walker Texas Ranger, will shoot
> someone for looking too not-right wing enough, than that an army of
> liberals will try to storm the capitol building. Why? Because if the
> later happens, it will be **because** the WTR sort will have shot a
> bunch of people, then holed up in the capitol building, with hostages,
> and the right wing spin engine will be busy calling them "freedom
> fighters" for it, instead of insane, or terrorist, thereby helping to
> cement the civil war these idiots seem to want so badly.
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.
You have to be slightly insane to say to yourself, "You know, this
government isn't really working. I think if I could just get a few
thousand people to follow me, we might be able to overthrow the whole
thing." But, history shows that it keeps working.
> Frankly, I wish they would just save us the idiocy and bloodshed, move
> to Texas, secede, and the rest of us where smart enough to let them turn
> themselves into a third world country, instead of bothering to stop them.
>
Where is the fun in that?
The loud rally-attending folks are not the ones ya ever need to worry
about. Neither are the talking heads that they listen to. Those are not
the people who are going to start a revolution, they wouldn't know how
and they would brag about it before they found 5 other people to
actually trust. No, if the people attending the rallies suddenly go
quiet because they realized that the tide was turning against them and
biding their time would work better, then you need to worry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/01/09 18:54, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> You have to be slightly insane to say to yourself, "You know, this
> government isn't really working. I think if I could just get a few
> thousand people to follow me, we might be able to overthrow the whole
> thing." But, history shows that it keeps working.
Observation/Selection Bias?
I could as well say "History shows it keeps failing."
--
A Mexican newspaper reports that bored Royal Air Force pilots stationed
on the Falkland Islands have devised what they consider a marvelous new
game. Noting that the local penguins are fascinated by airplanes, the
pilots search out a beach where the birds are gathered and fly slowly
along it at the water's edge. Perhaps ten thousand penguins turn their
heads in unison watching the planes go by, and when the pilots turn
around and fly back, the birds turn their heads in the opposite
direction, like spectators at a slow-motion tennis match. Then, the
paper reports "The pilots fly out to sea and directly to the penguin
colony and overfly it. Heads go up, up, up, and ten thousand penguins
fall over gently onto their backs." -- Audobon Society Magazine
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 of want ;)
>When did the police become a means to prevent crime?
>
Just after they stop breaking the law, 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
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:22:17 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>
>Too much logic there not enough room for emotion of want ;)
Or want, oops!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
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.
>
>
Maybe there are fewer mass-shootings where law-abiding citizens have
armed themselves.
Ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun range?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Frankly, I wish they would just save us the idiocy and bloodshed, move
> to Texas, secede, and the rest of us where smart enough to let them turn
> themselves into a third world country, instead of bothering to stop them.
>
We might get to see it pretty soon. I suspect you all will go after our
401ks in the very near future, and that may very well be the incident
that begins the next revolution. I doubt it will be an armed revolution,
however. My guess is the middle class will just bail out, possibly by
succession of one or a few states.
The rich will stick around collecting "bailouts" till the well runs dry,
and then the historical cycle (if not otherwise interrupted) will be
complete. It'll be the left-behinds waiting in bread lines who are the
next to take up actual arms against the state, but that's a long way off.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
