Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

July 31st, 2012   Submitted by Davi Barker

Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it’s important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.

I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don’t even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.

The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here’s a spoiler… It’s not that different.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

I was so close! Here’s what I think accounts for the difference. In the first sample there was likely a selection error based on what grabs headlines. Larger shootings get more press, so if you take a small sampling you’re going to be working with a data set of the worst shootings. As for the consistency of the civilian statistic, it makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:

BANG!
“Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.”
BANG!
“He’s just going to keep shooting people.”
BANG!

And the shooter goes down.

Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than three people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. An astute reader informed me that at least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don’t own a firearm. I’ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it’s not an issue of gun rights. It’s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn’t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ’till they’re blue in face. I frankly don’t care about people’s ideas for managing society.

What I am is a math enthusiast. So, without further delay, here’s how I arrived at these numbers.

Step One: Amassing a data set

I searched for timelines of shootings and selected 5 that appeared the most comprehensive.

  1. Info Please
  2. CNN
  3. Denver Post
  4. News Max
  5. TruTV

While doing this I learned some important vocabulary. A “spree shooting” is when a killer murders in multiple locations with no break between murders. As in the Virginia Tech killer who began shooting in one hall, and then walked across campus and continued shooting in another hall. A “mass shooting” is when a killer murders multiple people, usually in a single location. As in the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people at one military base. A “school shooting” can be either of these as long as one or more locations is a school. As in the Columbine shooting, which is also classified as a spree shooting because they went from room to room. The term “rampage shooting” is used to describe all of these, and does not differentiate between them. So that is the term I’ll be using from here on out.

As many have pointed out, none of the weapons involved are “automatic weaponry” or “assault rifles” but they are often misreported as such by media outlets that lack knowledge of firearms.

I selected these lists because they were the most comprehensive of those that I found, and I was seeking as large a data set as possible. I combined them all, including the first 10 from my previous post, and removed all redundant data for a total list of 100 shootings.

Step Two: Trimming irrelevant data.

While the list was comprehensive, the details about each shooting were not. In each shooting I had a date and a location, but often important details, like the number of people killed, or how the shooter was apprehended were missing. So, I set to the long task researching each incident to fill in the missing data. I didn’t incorporate the number of wounded people because so many were not reported. But the reason they call a single death a shooting rampage is because there were many injuries. All relevant data is contained in the links in the finished list below or in the timelines linked above. Most of the data came from either Wikipedia, a mainstream news article about the incident, or a handy resource I discovered called Murderpedia.

Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.

Suicide presented a tricky variable in the analysis. Roughly half of the remaining rampage shooters ended their own lives. So, I removed all incidents where the shooter killed themselves before police arrived reasoning that they had killed all they were going to kill and police had no impact in stopping them. Theoretically these incidents could have been stopped sooner by a civilian, but let’s not speculate. What I left in were incidents where shooters commit suicide after engaging the police, either during a shootout with police, or after a chase. I included, for example, Jiverly Wong, who witnesses say stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard sirens but before police arrived, crediting the police’s response time with stopping the murders. But I did not include the shooters themselves in the total number of people killed.

I also removed cases like Edward Charles Allaway who shot up a library, then fled to a nearby hotel and called police to turn himself in, and cases like Darrell Ingram who shot up a high school dance and fled the scene only to be apprehended later after a long investigation. I was only looking for incidents when intervention from police or civilian saved lives.

What remained was 32 cases of gunmen firing indiscriminately whose rampage was cut short through the intervention of either a civilian or a police officer.

Step Three: The List

I divided the remaining cases into two categories, those stopped by police and those stopped by civilians. I included both armed and unarmed civilians for reasons that will become clear in the final analysis. I also removed cases like Dominick Maldonado and Charles Joseph Whitman. Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle. I’m calling incidents like this an assist from civilians and removing them from the analysis as anomalies.

  • 9/6/1949 – Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.
  • 7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shot and killed him.
  • 10/16/1991 – George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He committed suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.
  • 12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed six people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.
  • 11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed two people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.
  • 2/2/1996 – Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed three people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.
  • 10/1/1997 – Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed three students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.
  • 12/1/1997 – Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing three girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.
  • 4/24/1998 – Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed one student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.
  • 5/21/1998 – Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing two students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.
  • 4/20/1999 – Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. Fifteen people died, not including the shooters.
  • 7/31/1999 – Mark Barton was a day trader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.
  • 1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. Three people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by three students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.
  • 8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed six people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.
  • 9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed two people before PE teacher Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.
  • 2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
  • 3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed seven people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.
  • 11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.
  • 9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed one person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.
  • 4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually committed suicide after murdering 32 people.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed two people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing two more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and committed suicide before police arrived.
  • 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed six people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.
  • 3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed eight people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.
  • 4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. Thirteen people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.
  • 11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.
  • 2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed three people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed her out of the room and blockaded the door. Bishop was arrested later.
  • 1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.
  • 2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. Three students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.
  • 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. Parker killed one person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.
  • 7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Twelve people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.
  • 8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing six people. He committed suicide after being shot by police.
  • 12/14/12 – Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a rifle, going room-to-room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and committed suicide after police arrived.

Step Four: Final analysis

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far fewer people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?

* Updated 12/15/2012 – This article was originally posted shortly after the Dark Knight premier shooting in Aurora, Colorado, but I have continued to refine the data set and update the statistics. I am especially grateful to all the knowledgeable commenters who have helped correct my errors. I was also contacted by a college professor who I supplied with all my research notes, so they can be peer-reviewed and perhaps published in a more academic setting. So, in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that has left 27 dead, including 20 children, I updated this article to reflect shootings that have occurred since the Aurora, Colorado shooting, and corrected the errors that readers brought to my attention. I have preserved the integrity of the original analysis and have only updated the raw numbers and a few factual errors.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

12,776 Responses to “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”

  1. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    cavtrooper says:
    August 3, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    “One of my Korean war guys is a firm disciple of that philosophy.I suppose after the Frozen Chosin and multiple tours in Viet Nam,he learned to value his own life over that of a thug.”

    Maybe he is the one who originated that philosophy.

  2. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    Resolved QuestionShow me another »
    Is there higher crime rates in red states or blue states?
    6 years ago Report Abuse

    Dee B
    Dee B
    Best Answer – Chosen by Asker

    The crime rates are much higher in blue areas of all states.

    Crime tends to occur more in areas where a large portion of the people are immoral, uneducated, lazy, weak of character, and hateful; these type of people vote for democrats by a rather wide margin.
    6 years ago

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Are these people masochists?

    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

      One thing I, and I suspect most people, can always count on is that conservatives lie — a lot. Here are actual maps.:
      http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.c om/politics/election-outcome.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.vaughns-1-p agers.com/politics/red-blue-states-summary.htm&h=499&w=599&sz=69& tbnid=Vasa6QdE8Tu4PM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=115&zoom=1&usg=__n4driIdCbPNvl 1RjnTs64fB4JHY=&docid=GzoFG6d4AHW4LM&sa=X&ei=DZ2fUomBOI7roAT0kYDY Bw&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAA

      http://www.policymap.com/crime-statistics/index.html

      Now you might think from this, that — well in california they have a high crime rate. Yep they do. But if you break it down by county, the read areas are more violent than the blue areas.

      And as a general rule, red states lead in almost everything bad, and trail in almost everything good. They even take more in taxes then they pay in. They are, in Romneys words, TAKERS!. Being a libertarian, I find this depressing.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Of course there’s more crime in the affluent areas, there’s nothing to steal in the socialist enclaves.
        You call yourself a libertarian, but your post screams socialist.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            bank robber Willie Sutton was once asked by a reporter: “Why do you rob banks?” His iconic response was: “Because that’s where the money is.”

            “The main vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the even distribution of misery.” –Sir Winston Churchill

        • “Of course there’s more crime in the affluent areas, there’s nothing to steal in the socialist enclaves.
          You call yourself a libertarian, but your post screams socialist.”

          To paraphrase Mary McCarthy “Every word you write is wrong, including the words ‘and’ and ‘the’.
          1. The affluent areas. I would suggest that you look this up, but since you did not understand what I wrote, it is not likely that you would be able to look up anything, or understand what you found. You simply regurgitate what your conservative superiors write. The states that voted for Obama are almost all better off, by almost any measure, including wealth, and taxes paid, then the conservative states. Conservative states consume taxes and have high crime and lower incomes. You need only look at the maps: Here is one. Red states are TAKERS http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.h tml

          Here is another. The greater the gini coefficient, the poorer the state, and the more likely it is to vote republican. I guess you could call that socialism. I call it a preference to have better health, less crime, and less stupidity.

          2. What you call an enclave is also an enclave of health and education. Kind of the place that most people with more brains than a plant would want to live. Of course, most people with more brains than a plant are smarter than plants and thus like plants actually are aware of global warming. Yes, you ignorant fool, plants are aware of global warming, and are actually moving to cooler areas to stay alive.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Do you have adult supervision? You sure need it.

            • name calling. The rhetorical technique used by a person who has neither logic not information to support their position. And if they had either or both, would probably lack the mental ability to use wither one.

              Do you have any information at all to refute my statements. Any? Just a little?

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                You libs are so delusional that any cogent reply would be wasted effort.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  So instead you spend your time with these meaningless 1 liner responses. Effort well spent! You showed him!

                • KrystynaNo Gravatar says:

                  Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I definitely enjoyed reading it, you’re a great author.
                  I will make sure to bookmark your blog and may come back from now on.
                  I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great job, have a nice holiday weekend!

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Ad hominem is all they’ve got. I wonder if they have any brain cells outside of the amygdala.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  “Ad hominem is all they’ve got. I wonder if they have any brain cells outside of the amygdala,” Mark The Troll says in an insult, without even the merest hint of irony.

                  • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                    thanks.

                    You might appreciate a piece that I wrote. Enter the two words orwells boot into any search engine. My article will be the first returned after paid links, and usually under the name factotum666. On Yahoo, I am 1,2 and 3 🙂

                    Constructive criticism is welcome. It is how I learn.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Since you seem to have learned so little about so much, I am guessing that you have gotten little constructive criticism.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      There’s a reason these guys have up as down, good as evil, black as white, and stupid as intelligent. They are just trolling for a reaction. They have no intention to have real debate. It’s why the name calling and insults are so prevalent.

                      Now watch as they turn this into the exact opposite. Seldom will an original debatable subject come up. It’s mostly hyperbole, lies, and ad hominem.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      …Says Mark The Troll, who is a proven troll on this site. Once again without the tiniest wisp of irony. Here’s a debatable item, which in fact I have brought up many times: it is disingenuous, unethical, and even evil, to include those firearms crimes, injuries and deaths in any discussion of further firearms restrictions (even down to mandating background checks at gun shows), which occurred in locations where ordinary (non-police) citizens were legally allowed to carry firearms for their own protection. Such places include schools (Columbine, VA Tech), some antigun businesses (Xerox, the Cinemark theater in Aurora, some shopping malls) and viciously anti-gun cities such as Chicago, Washington DC, and other such places. Including whatever firearms homicides, or whatever, that happened in those places, as a *justification* to further restrict guns elsewhere, is beyond the pale. (E.g. by citing the overall US firearms homicide rate, which includes a lot of homicides in places where people aren’t allowed to carry guns.) And Mark The Troll has done it repeatedly, even after I have objected multiple times. Which is why he will be forever known here as Mark The Troll. Which is not an ad hominem, I might add; it’s an accurate label on a website dedicated to anarchy, i.e. the reduction of government to the point of removal, when Mark seeks the opposite.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      If you want to make the immoral claim that the deaths of innocents are justified by claiming that some number of DGUs equals one death then we need to also include the illegal and unjustified uses of guns and include the use of guns to commit more crimes where no one died. I don’t think you want to go down this path. For one thing, it’s unmeasurable and any attempt by anyone to quantify it will fail given the dishonesty of gun owners so somehow thing they are Rambo.

                      There is no “good outweighs the bad” comparison here. Trying to balance the two is an immoral act.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      Mrak. You seem to be one of the smarter people here but maybe that is just because you have agreed with me — sort of.
                      This statement “justified by claiming that some number of DGUs equals one death then we need to also include the illegal and unjustified uses of guns and include the use of guns to commit more crimes where no one died. ” is, however in my mind evidence of stupidity.

                      If you prevent a crime by showing a gun, what do you gain by reporting it? You get to interact with the police How fun. And of course if your gun is not acceptable to the authorities for any reason then you get to be arrested. On the other hand when a gun is used in a crime — well how often do you think that goes unreported?

                      If you do research on the internet you will find that people lie, and it would seem that most people doing firearms studies have an agenda. What can not be denied is that as CCP has increased, murder rates have decreased. There is evidence that this may be a coincidence. What can not be argued is that honmicide rates in any area is directly proportional, (actually greater than directly) to percent of blacks. Only five states of 22 whose homicide rates are greater than the national average have a black population of less than 10%. Conversely Connecticut and Ohio are the only states with black populations of less than 10% whose homicide rates are below the national average (I may be off by a state or 2) These are what are known as racists facts.

                      This may be informative: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defen se-important-crime-deterrent
                      as this: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

                      I do not know how many here have been victims. (home invasion, robbery, getting shot) Lucky me, I have endured all three. And as an example of literal truths being lies, the first two above fall into that category, and one could make the argument that so does the last, though I still have the bullet, and was shot by a robber. But even if the evidence is not overwhelmingly in favor of guns being used more often for defence than crime, I still come down on the right of people to be armed to defend themselves.

                      the right to protect your life comes with the fact of being alive. If it did not, then you are just wandering food. The fact that are predators out there with weapons, means that, failing some way of removing those weapons/predators, I see no justification to preventing peaceful citizens from carrying weapons. Yes bad things will happen. But if you are concerned about non criminals dying from bad behaviour, then I suggest that your efforts would be put to better use fighting big pharma, the food-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex, and other systemic death causing businesses. And here we are speaking of very smart people out in the open engaging in practices that are known to kill people, for the simple reason that it improves the bottom line, and adds a few bucks to executives salaries.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Doug, my assertion is that claiming that uses of guns for “good” justifies uses of guns for “bad” is in error, and in fact immoral.

                      As an example, I can compare the millions of miles driven each year in automobiles (good) versus the number of auto deaths (bad). Such a comparison with guns is not possible nor is it even moral to do so since the main effort to make guns safer is “more guns”. I do not oppose the second amendment as it has been loosely interpreted by gun lovers but denying there is a problem or addressing the problem in this way is stupid.

                      I think you misunderstood my statement to Bruce.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Well mark, again you weasel and fishtail rather than plainly state your agenda.
                      You are all for the “Second Amendment”, as long as it is only the object vilified rather than the person responsible for the use or misuse of that object, be it an automobile, power tool, communications device or gun. The only person that tried to kill me in the United States used an automobile as his weapon of choice.
                      More guns in the hands of responsible citizens result in less crime. More education about the safe handling of guns results in safer handling of guns. IMO, gun safety and responsible use classes should be taught public schools.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      Such a comparison with guns is not possible nor is it even moral to do so since the main effort to make guns safer is “more guns”.

                      I see this as a subtle mutilation of language. People seldom die because cars cars fail and harm people. They die because of the people using them. The same applies to guns. Being very simple things, guns cars will be less likely to fail in a catastrophic manner than cars. You are correct that more guns do not make guns safer. What more guns do, or rather making it easier for naturally peaceful, law abiding citizens to have and carry guns is to make people safer Specifically it makes them less likely to come to harm from lawbreakers who do not pay a whole lot of attention to gun laws.

                      Use language carefully, and you will be more likely to arrive at the correct solution. And in that line of thought, I would like to suggest that readers become familiar with e-prime.

                      Please notice how seldom I use forms of the verb to be. Now if Ray were to do that, then he could now post here, since in his own mind he has godlike powers, and his pronouncements define reality. No evidence or logic needed.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      How does this address the point if justifying the unmeasurable against the measurable?

                      Bruce’s claim is that since guns are used for good we should look the other way when they are used for evil. The so-called “good” cannot be evenly remotely measured since it is polluted with assaults, and robberies. I am unwilling to accept such a nebulous concession.

                      I am familiar with e-prime. Is it important to you that it be used here?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      BTW “Such a comparison with guns is not possible nor is it even moral to do so since the main effort to make guns safer is “more guns”.” can be expressed in other terms.

                      Bruce claims there exists an exchange rate between good gun uses and bad. I maintain that this relationship cannot exist when one parameter has an undefinable measure.

                      I question the morality of comparing the known loss of lives to the unknown.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “You are all for the “Second Amendment”, as long as it is only the object vilified rather than the person responsible for the use or misuse of that object”.

                      Fabricating an argument like this serves no other purpose than to reinforce your own negative opinion of those who desire changes to who gets to own a gun. Remind me, Foreign Nationals, are they allowed guns under the Second Amendment?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “On the other hand when a gun is used in a crime — well how often do you think that goes unreported?”

                      Assault with a deadly weapon? Pretty sure a lot of those DGUs end up being assaults actually. See, I’d put those on the bad side along with the murders but Bubba just don’t think that way.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              “Lord of the Flies”

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            I must say, your second point is pretty funny and well put. Props. I’ll have to borrow that.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Conservatives have no lock on dishonesty, whether one wishes to speak of Bill “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” Clinton, or Barack “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” Obama. Among many other examples. (“I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” also comes to mind … Where’s Jon Corzine?) But the fact that you single out conservatives places some doubt about your motivations here, given that this is nominally a pro-gun site and conservatives do a lot better protecting related freedoms than liberals or progressives do.

        • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

          Another rhetorical flourish, the straw man attack. I never claimed that liberals are honest. They do, in fact, lie less than conservatives. Their greatest problem is that they worship at the shrine of the state. The problem with conservatives is that they claim one thing — small government. But they want one small enough to fit inside a womans vagina, and be able to control it.

          Liberals are at least somewhat consistent. When they lie, it is kind if service of their goals. Conservatives seem to lie whenever it is convenient. Small government, but large military, and large police forces, and laws out to wazoo to control use of your wazoo.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            You have the most distorted, disjointed, confused view of the world that I’ve come across and then you lie about it and make things up to fit your idea of what the world is really like.

            Your biggest error is confusing conservatives and Republicans, They are most often not one and the same thing.

            Democrats lie every time they move their lips. Doing it for something as ‘noble’ as advancing their agenda is just hogwash. They lie to amass and hold onto to power. They want to control every aspect of our lives.

            Conservatives don’t want to control a woman’s womb. They just don’t condone the slaughter of innocent life. Is that really so terrible?

            If you want to make a conservative angry, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a liberal, tell them the truth. You’ve been told.

            • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

              Conservatives don’t want to control a woman’s womb. They just don’t condone the slaughter of innocent life. Is that really so terrible?

              If you want to make a conservative angry, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a liberal, tell them the truth. You’ve been told.

              “They just don’t condone the slaughter of innocent life. Is that really so terrible?”
              Wow — that sounds familiar. Where have I heard that??? Let me think. Oh yea. From the liberals when arguing against people owning guns. At least they are talking about claiming to prevent the killing actual human beings as opposed to sacrificing the life of a mother in order to protect a fertilized egg. But it is an “innocent” fertilized egg.

              And I have seen enough of conservatives and their writings to be familiar with their behaviour.

              As to controlling aspects of my life. Lets see, conservatives do not want to control any of that. Except my sexual behaviour. What substances I can ingest in the privacy of my home. If, when a doctor kills a member of my family, can I sue him? (You call it tort reform) If when a company cranks out toxic or otherwise harmful products, can I sue them, and let a jury decide.

              Should we have a state relifion? Should we have Sharia law — OOPS, I meant Christian law. Should children be forced to prey? When Grandma is terminally ill, who should decide on how, when, and where her life ends?
              What kind of pain meds should be provided?

              Nope. Conservatives hardly want to control any aspect of my life, other than the ones that are among the most important.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Over a million babies are aborted every year. During that same year, about 40,000 people will die from gun shot wounds. Of those half are suicides and half of those remaining (roughly) are criminals killed in the course of their criminal career. Still you see no difference in terms of quantity or circumstances?

                There is NEVER a circumstance that requires the murder of an unborn baby to save the mother’s life. NEVER, and that is according to doctors who perform abortions. That lie you told is just salve for a woman conscious.

                Christian law protects the lives and liberty of people, quite unlike Sharia law.

                I could go on, but you will never learn because you choose to wallow in your ignorance.

                • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                  There was no reply link to this;
                  Since you seem to have learned so little about so much, I am guessing that you have gotten little constructive criticism.
                  You would not know, since you did not take the time to read my article. That would, of course be typical. Now about those babies. You are obviously unfamiliar with both biology and the bible.
                  A foetus is not a person in the bible, it is the property of the father. With regard to actual science.
                  http://pregnant.thebump.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-tools/articles/ho w-big-is-baby.aspx
                  80% of those abortions happen to something smaller than a prune. Only an authoritarian desiring to control peoples language (humpty dumpty speak) and their bodies, would call something like that a baby.

                  Also, I was not speaking of quality of circumstances. I was talking of people like you wanting to control others “in the name of the children” Because that is one of the things that authoritarians do. They grab control “in the name of (your good thing here). And if they have to lie, and make up things, like calling a blob of material a baby, well that is never a problem.

                  And speaking of lies: You can offer no evidence for this statement:
                  There is NEVER a circumstance that requires the murder of an unborn baby to save the mother’s life. NEVER, and that is according to doctors who perform abortions. That lie you told is just salve for a woman conscious. Well, none from a reputable source.
                  I found this, but they do not support the claim
                  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-absolutely-never-medica lly-necessary-maternal-care-expert-symposiu/

                  Then we have this. An actual source, from actual doctors on the scene
                  http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/21/nun-excommunicated-for-ab ortion-decision-to-save-mothers-life/

                  But actual information does not matter to true believers. Besides, if the baby is aborted, then there will never be the chance for the clergy to molest it later.

                  Unless they are queer, or pregnant, or otherwise undesirable. (see christians wanting to follow the bible and kill people who practice homosexuality) And you do not think much of unbelievers (atheists) either. Oh … and do not forget capital punishment, which probably only kills the wrong person no more than 10% of the time.

                  And yes you could go on. Not with any accurate information, but I have no doubt that you could go on

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    If being gay was genetic, and there was a prenatal test for that gene in the fetus, could abortions based on this information be banned, because doing so would amount to discrimination based on sexual orientation? Or would such a ban infringe on a women’s absolute right to choose? And if so, does a woman have an absolute right to choose which type of gun she may use to protect this fetus, if she instead chooses that it should live?

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    I can barely stomach your drivel here. There is no way that I would subject myself to an entire article filled with lies and nonsense.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      On the assumption that there is actually some semblance of a functioning brain in your skull, I now know what has replaced your logic circuits, and those given to an attention span of more than 30 seconds. You have psychic powers. Without even reading an article, you can tell that it is filled with lies and nonsense.

                      Maybe you could come to las vegas and be a street magician?

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Ridicule as a weapon. Straight from the alinsky strategy.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Severe irony alert!

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Say, you never answered whether you’d like abortion laws and gun laws to be exchanged, after my post about it. So obviously I utterly destroyed you on that particular point. You can’t even mention it. You’re wishing it never happened.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Bruce often tries to cloud the issue by bringing in irrelevant information or invalid comparisons. Maybe we should exchange abortions with first amendment rights. Makes about as much sense.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You said you thought guns were less heavily regulated than abortions. I responded to that. Now you are distancing yourself from the argument, because you lost so badly. You can’t even admit it.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Bruce, I don’t recall the last time you admitted being wrong in the countless arguments you have lost. Maybe you can remind me?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Sure, I posted a link to a graphic represented as crime rates across the country, which I later retracted because I think it was misrepresented. How about yourself?

                      Btw thanks for admitting that I pwned Mark on the abortion question.

                      I also believe that it’s illuminating to compare voting laws and gun laws. Some people think that it’s “intimidating” to force voters to show proof of identity, let alone proof of residency, but somehow this doesn’t or shouldn’t apply to gun sales. Ah, double standards: what’s good for one Constitutional right isn’t good for another, apparently. Even though voters control the coercive and violent apparatus known as The State. (Ask raw milk sellers about it.)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Btw thanks for admitting that I pwned Mark on the abortion question.”

                      pwned? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. You and Doug need to sort this one out.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            What exactly is the straw man attack you claim I have used? I merely said that your singling out conservatives, when this site is pro-gun and liberals have a terrible record on that account, casts doubt on your intentions. A straw man attack requires, as an element, that I falsely attribute an argument to you that you did not make.

            As for your other point, I basically agree in that liberals say they will control, tax and constrain you (and, in particular, deprive you of your choice in guns), and proceed to do so, while conservatives say they will simplify, shrink and de-fund government, but then vote to expand it anyway. That hardly makes the liberal honesty something honorable, though. Do you hold a rapist and murderer in high esteem, who tells you that he is going to rape and kill your family, steal all your belongings, and then burn your house to the ground, and then does it? After all, he told the *truth,* unlike those horrible, horrible, conservatives, WHO LIED!! Honesty isn’t the only worthwhile thing here; committing unethical, criminal, or just plain evil acts should also weigh in. Both sides are chopping down the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, generally, although with respect to firearms rights the conservatives are decidedly less evil. Do you disagree?

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Is it possible, even in principle, for someone debating you to bring up a new fact, without suffering the accusation from you that “I never said [fact] wasn’t true! That’s just a rhetorical flourish on your part, the Straw Man Attack!!”? Because it certainly appears so from your response to me, what with the hypocrisy of calling my post a “rhetorical flourish,” when your post should instead look itself in the mirror. If anything, the words “rhetorical flourish” are, themselves, a rhetorical flourish that falsely accuses me of such, when they themselves are it. That, coupled with your chumminess with a known troll, coupled in addition to your one-sided attack against conservatives, who do more to protect gun rights than anyone else, on this here pro-gun website, does indeed call your intentions into question. Although, it might well be that you are actually a libertarian, who, however, sure seems to come off as a progressive. To that end, I’d like to mention that your freedom to have abortions, or take drugs, or engage in alternative sexual behavior is *entirely* meaningless if you do not have the right to defend your own life against deadly attack. Because you have to be alive for the other rights to have any meaning at all. Furthermore, it is not only conservatives who support the drug war, or are willing to place limits on abortions or sexual “expression.” In particular, both sides of the aisle are enthusiastic supporters of the drug war, which I believe is one of the two largest threats to liberty in this country (the other being Marxism) but yet you single out only one side of the political spectrum for derision and excoriation. Whence the slant?

            • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

              I got busy. I will say this for your posts. I do not understand them. I think that we are both on the same side of most issues, but you seem to have a mild case of testosterone poisoning that takes the form of “must win at all costs”. I am sure that you are aware that it is possible to lie, while technically telling the truth. For example “Furthermore, it is not only conservatives who support the drug war, “. Technically true, but that gives an entirely different impression from actual statistics, of which this is an example: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-leg alizing-marijuana.aspx. Here we see that over twice as many conservatives support the marijuana part of the drug was as liberals.
              To answer your question of wence the slant? If you are going to make a convincing argument you need to be honest. If you are in favor of big gov, and someone else opposes it, then the two of you can have some discussion and offer evidence and logic. But when you start to lie, then you have lost the argument, and any hope of changing the mind of the other person. So, in that sense, lying is worse than having a wrong belief. Because when the other person comes to conclude that you lie (argue for freedom, but want government to severely restrict personal freedoms, want to redefine a fertilized egg as a person, want to use government schools to force children to pray to your particular god, etc. etc.) they will walk away.

              I am arguing for as small a government and as much freedom as possible. In a liberal I know who my enemy is. With many conservatives I am dealing with someone who is, either consciously, or unconsciously, lying and in that sense is more of a threat to the cause of freedom than a socialist.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                If only one side of the aisle supported the drug war, it would be over by now; it would certainly be put on hold when different parties hold the different houses of Congress. Additionally, there is anecdotal evidence such as, Clinton massively increased the scope and funding of the drug war. The Senate has had a majority of Democrats for quite some time, and yet it continues. While I will concede that republicans, generally, support the drug war more than democrats do, not only do I not think it’s a lie, I don’t even think it’s misleading in the slightest, to say that conservatives aren’t the only ones who support the drug war. In fact, some of the more radical conservatives oppose/opposed it, such as William F. Buckley. Then again, Nixon started it and Reagan expanded it.

                As it happens, I’m not a conservative, I’m a libertarian. (I was an RP delegate in 2012.) However, I consider it undeniable that both the media and also academic institutions are overwhelmingly slanted to the left, and not because lefties are smarter, but because of self-reinforcing feedback loops that dissuade those on the right from pursuing higher academic studies within the bastions of socialism/liberalism that universities have largely become.

                I’m sorry that you don’t understand some of my posts. The “kindred spirit” post was intended partly for you and Fritz, as opposed to Babs who is somewhere well on the anti side, and Mark who is an intentional troll and disrupter, even though he can appear polite if need be. But he seems clearly to be enemy, from a gun rights standpoint, noting especially his tendency to intentionally cite criminal gun misuses as examples of “stand your ground” or other lawful self-defense, or representing that such crimes make NRA members happy. I could observe, tying this point and the one I just made about the media, that the most recent school shooter in Colorado, was actually an anti-gun socialist, however, the media seems to have abruptly stopped discussion about such topic; apparently, the political leaning of school shooters is only relevant to them when the shooters are right-leaning. Which has been pretty rare, lately. http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/media-in-colorado-school-shooting-cove r-up/

                Meanwhile, life intervenes and I don’t often have the time to dedicate to longer replies as your posts typically deserve.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Bruce,
                  In regards to the “war on drugs”: It’s the drug lords themselves who are the most fervent advocates to continue that “war”. clinton used the offices of the government to eliminate his enemies and competitors. Should these prohibited substances be legalized, the huge profit margins will disappear. Refer to the 18th Amendment, which made organized crime a political power in the nation’s government (Recall the kennedy clan?) and the resulting gang wars over territory.

                  In regards to the recent school shooting incident in Colorado, the liberal press has dropped the story for two primary reasons. The first being that the incident was stopped before a body count could reach even high single digit numbers BECAUSE of the presence of an armed officer (good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun). This one fact negates the entire “gun control” argument. The second factor is that the shooter is known to have been a hard core liberal/gun control leftist, like all too many if not all of the perpetrators of such mass murder crimes in the last fifty years of “gun control”.

                  ***”If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 – establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime.” — Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) quoted from “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington”***

                  ***”[the United States] can’t be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” – President Bill Clinton, Piscataway, NJ March 1, 1993
                  “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!” – NY Representative Charles Schumer November 30, 1993
                  “The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security.” – Louis Freeh 1993 (FBI director)***

                  ***.”Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.” ~Yoshimi Ishikawa
                  ”These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.” ~Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor***

                  • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                    Are you sure that you belong here? You are using actual evidence and logic. Where is the name calling and insults? A post without an ad hominem or an insult is like ray with a crayon. Yea I know it makes no sense, but it sounds nice, and makes me feel good. 🙂

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      What a mindless, hypocritical piece work you are.

                      You decry the use of insults and personal attacks and yet in that short post, you manage to hurl an insult my way.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      Yes I did. And I did it because you appear to me to be so richly deserving of it. Or I am jealous of your raw intellect that can boil down a paragraph from Stephen Hawking to blah blah blah… However, here I present you with a challenge. Write a post that follows the rules of e-prime.

  3. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
    Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
    Presidential election:

    Population of counties won by:
    Gore=127 million
    Bush=143 million
    Square miles of land won by:
    Gore=580,000
    Bush=2,2427,000
    States won by:
    Gore=19
    Bush=29
    Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
    Gore=13.2
    Bush=2.1
    Professor Olson adds:
    “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned
    by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory
    encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living
    off government welfare…”

    A bit dated,but still relevant.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Clearly whoever wins Alaska should be president.

    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

      authoritarians (which conservatives are, almost by definition) are also stupid. I looked at this, and knew immediately that the numbers could not possibly be true. And guess what? They, to a great degree, they were not

      http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/election_stats.htm

      By the way, this inability to do actual research, a refusal to actually think independently, etc. etc. is why conservatives are so under-represented in highe education, and especially in the physical sciences. As Feynman said, Nature can not be fooled, and so much of what conservatives, well any idealogues actually, spout is nothing more than attempts to fool others, themselves and nature.

      And in the interest of accuracy (which I realize that exactly zero authoritarians care about when it is agains their point of view) here is a number that was left out.

      Popular vote 50,456,002 50,999,897
      Percentage 47.9% 48.4%

      Gore got over 1/2 million MORE votes than bush.

      also this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp
      When contacted via e-mail, Professor Olson confirmed that he had no authorship or involvement in this matter,

      In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending.

      Cavtrooper: I have access to a Nigerian Bank account. Just send me $1000.00 and I will send you the access code.

      What is it about the ideas of Conservatism that attracts such uncritical, unthinking, gullible morons???

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Speaking of unthinking and gullible . . .

        Do you realize that the total popular vote has absolutely nothing to do with the election of a president?

        Are you likewise unaware of a recent study that baffled the liberal professor who conducted it that conservative were much better informed on scientific issues than liberals? He set out to prove what you just state but was unable to confirm his theory. At least he was honest enough to report his findings.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Thanks for backing up my point. Cave troopers numbers are pure bullshit.

        • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

          “Do you realize that the total popular vote has absolutely nothing to do with the election of a president?”

          Right. That is determined by the number of counties voting for the President. Or is it the square miles? I believe that your statement qualifies as a non-sequiture.

          As to your remark about the relative knowledge of conservatives. I notice a typical behavior of true believers. No need to provide evidence.

          You may have been referring to this: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/10/yale-study-finds-tea-partiers -know-science-liberals/

          those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn’t, Kahan found.

          Which simply shows that highly motivated people may have more knowledge in a lot of areas than those who are apathetic. Honestly, I can not say for sure, since I can not find the actual study

          Oh wait… here it is: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/03/republicans-are-more-scient ifically.html

          The differences were small and were among people who are almost all, for the most part, scientifically illiterate with no formal training. Probably, less than 10% of them had ever taken a college science course. I suspect that none of them have the foggiest idea how cell phones work, or that they use basic theories that are logically inconsistent with each other. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what those two theories are 🙂

          But where the rubber meets the road
          https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&v ed=0CG4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ropercenter.uconn.edu%2Fpublic- perspective%2Fppscan%2F25%2F25086.pdf&ei=iK6iUu6_A8K2yAGbloD4Bg&u sg=AFQjCNFSrX0niNWeR7TPnuRuJpg5U4y1dw&sig2=OT0vfTR72uTJqfA1i4eDwg

          You will note that liberals do not make up less than 50% of the faculty until you get to the two year community colleges — the last rung on the table.

          Now your reaction is going to be that this is because academia is supported by big government. Of colurse, like most stuff you believe, this is not true. MIT for example has a 10 billion endowment, at 2% per year, that would be 200 million, far less than it gets in gov grants.

          http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1992/grants-0916.html
          so if recent ment this past week we are talking only 80 million a year, which is probably way high.

          But I was on my way to this little bit
          http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/10/17/conservatives-and-s cience

          Interestingly, conservatives are not just underrepresented in the social sciences, but also the physical sciences where ideology matters less. It’s a bit old, but there’s a Pew study from a few years ago that shows scientists identify 55% as liberal and only 9% as conservative

          That is the physical sciences where opinion does not count. Only actual testable theories

          When it comes to doing the hard work of dealing with the physical world in a way that really matters (Yes, plumbers are fin, but that is not what I mean)
          and requires a mensa level IQ, very vew conservatives cut it.

          You may do some research on conservatives, liberals, brains, functioning etc. Grab a good bottle of scotch however. You will need it.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            May I recommend both spell check and a dictionary for you?

            In all of your copy and paste postings, you may have forgotten that in the post that I replied to, your first comment was that Gore beat Bush by 1/2 million votes. Hence, my point that popular vote has no bearing on those elections. Electors in each State elect the president. States matter, individual votes do not.

            • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

              Your posts show evidence of an extremely limited attention span. It appears that your eyesight is also limited. So let me make this clear. I agree with everything that you say about what counts in a presidential election. But did you notice that I was responding to CavTrooper who said among other things:

              Gore=127 million
              Bush=143 million
              Square miles of land won by:
              Gore=580,000
              Bush=2,2427,000
              States won by:
              Gore=19
              Bush=29
              Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
              Gore=13.2
              Bush=2.1

              The last item, by the way, was either a demonstration of dishonesty, or stupidity, or some combination of the two. You may notice that none of these are determinants of who gets elected. Oh… And most of the state that bush won. Those are net tax consuming states.

              CavTrooper used lots of truth to tell a lie. Something that almost everyone on this site does.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Perhaps you are unaware of a case in which a creationist was fired from a scientific institution, not because of poor performance in any regard, but merely because of his ideology. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, to be specific. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fi red_for_beliefs_suit_says/?page=full Ironically, his statement of belief was that evolution “was not a fact,”i.e. he was skeptical of it, which is why he was fired, and yet we are supposed to believe that skepticism underlies all of science. I don’t know if you’re familiar with phase transitions, or positive feedback loops (vicious cycles) and so forth, but if for any reason one ideological camp were to gain a majority in the academic professions generally, they would be the same people who not only teach, but hire new professors, give awards, confer tenure, and otherwise see that the noble goals that they seek, are implemented by their very own hands. Accordingly, the overwhelming majority of leftists in the halls of academia is not nearly the proof that you take it to be, of the intellectually superior position of leftism; Of course lefties will only choose more lefties to fill vacancies. The only real question is why there are any conservatives (or, even, non-leftists) in academia at all. Do they want a few token conservatives, just to brush off accusations of ideological bias? But, do they take their own advice about celebrating diversity seriously, or is that just more hypocrisy? *You* all have to tolerate and embrace *our* ways, but we’ll be damned if we have any of *your* kind in these hallowed halls! (Needless to say, “take over the schools” was plank #17 of the 45 goals of communism to destroy America, in The Naked Communist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist; reading the list makes it seem like they’re just about done.) They have the media too, and the unions, etc.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              “Perhaps you are unaware of a case in which a creationist was fired from a scientific institution, not because of poor performance in any regard, but merely because of his ideology.”

              Much like a doctor of medicine teaching phrenology. This is exactly poor performance. Hiding behind religion doesn’t make it ok.

              The higher one goes up the rung of intelligence the fewer conservatives are found.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Everyone, except you, agrees that he did perfectly acceptable work. He was fired for nothing more, and nothing less, than purely ideological reasons. In particular, he wasn’t a teacher, he was a lab worker as part of a research team. It was simple bigotry that led to his firing, in the same sort of way that some schools, and some employers, fire people because it is learned that the person in question owns (or, has been photographed with) guns. Not because of poor performance, and certainly not because of wrongdoing, let alone criminal wrongdoing, on the part of the person in question, but simply because of pure ideological bigotry: “We don’t want *those kind of people* associated with us in any way.” You yourself possess the same sort of bigotry, assuming or imputing all sorts of adverse information, or even criminal intent, in people who merely support firearms liberties which you do not, Mark The Troll.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “In a 2004 letter to Abraham, his boss, Woods Hole senior scien tist Mark E. Hahn, wrote that Abraham said he did not want to work on “evolutionary aspects” of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing.”

                  Sure looks like poor performance to me. Poor poor persecuted creationists.

                  Nice try but thanks for playing.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    “My supervisor and I had a follow up meeting during which my supervisor informed me that if I do not believe in evolution, then he was paying me for only 7 to 10 percent of the work I was doing under the grant.”

                    Abraham said he told Hahn he would do extra work to compensate and “was willing to discuss evolution as a theory.”

                    Got that, Mark The Troll? It wasn’t because the work he was doing, it was because of what he believed. I.e. bigotry. Thoughtcrime. “The wrong beliefs.”

                    Even if I were to grant that the belief in creationism is stupid, it is nevertheless a circular argument to claim that leftists are superior intellectually because they dominate the halls of academia, and they dominate the halls of academia because they are superior intellectually. Which appears to be Doug’s position. Of course, circular arguments are just fine and dandy with you, when they result in your desired outcome. It would appear that they’re ok with him too in the same way. Fallacies are only bad when adversaries use them, apparently.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “My supervisor and I had a follow up meeting during which my supervisor informed me that if I do not believe in evolution, then he was paying me for only 7 to 10 percent of the work I was doing under the grant.”

                      Abraham said he told Hahn he would do extra work to compensate and “was willing to discuss evolution as a theory.””

                      Yea, employers get all pushy and stuff when they hire you to do a job and you say you’ll do something else. Only in the conservative idiot sphere would such an argument fly. Religion, fear, and conversatism go hand in hand.

                      This dude is suing for half a million. Greedy bastard. Not sure which is worse, being stupid or defending stupid. Conservatives have both of them sown up nicely.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First, the employer didn’t allege that he did anything wrong, merely that he had the wrong beliefs. Second, it sure was nice of you to address the circular argument aspect that I was posting in response to Doug’s post. Oh wait, you didn’t respond to that at all, Mark The Troll. And why should you? Logical fallacies are only wrong when other people use them, right?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “First, the employer didn’t allege that he did anything wrong”…

                      Other than refusing to do the job he was hired to do. You must have missed that point.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Besides that Massachusetts is a “right to work” state so congratulations union busters! Reap what you sow!

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I see you have the communist goals at your fingertips! (Implement and take over unions.) I also see that you continue to evade the point. So let me put it to you this way, speaking of raising debatable points. You are an employer, and you have two recent employees. Both are able to do some of the things you asked of them, but can’t (for whatever reason) do *everything* you hired them for. (What fraction of employees does 100% of what they were hired for?) But both are willing to give it their best shot, and work extra in exchange for the things they can’t do, and up until now, you have believed that both are equally competent and contributing. One is ideologically aligned perfectly to you, the other is not. Due to exigent circumstances, you have to let one of them go. Which one do you let go, and why? Are you prepared to argue that ideology makes absolutely no difference to you in this decision? Worse, are you prepared to argue that ideology makes absolutely no difference to *anyone* else who is put in this position?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Bruce, why are you trying to create hypothetical scenarios? The case isn’t hard to understand, stick to the facts, not your made up scenarios.

                      Re-read this: “In a 2004 letter to Abraham, his boss, Woods Hole senior scientist Mark E. Hahn, wrote that Abraham said he did not want to work on “evolutionary aspects” of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing.”

                      He was specifically hired using a grant to work on a project dealing heavily with evolution. He can have his beliefs and still work on evolutionary aspects. Many people do just that. You can’t just not perform your job because you disagree with parts of it. That’s absolutely ridiculous. Especially because the person was hired knowing what work was expected of him.

                    • boogaboogaNo Gravatar says:

                      Ideology has nothing to do with it. If I hire someone to dig a ditch and when they arrive they say they “can only dig 3 feet instead of the full length because…it’s against my religion, …it’s Thursday, my cat just died, … my back hurts… but I’ll trim your trees instead” I promptly tell them to leave. I don’t give a flying fuck about your beliefs, I want a job done and if you can’t do it then buh-bye…

                      BTW, Abraham lost his case. Fucker.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Bruce, why are you trying to create hypothetical scenarios?” Because Mark claimed in an earlier post that ‘we’ never bring up new, debatable material. Oddly, though, when we don’t, we are criticized for it, and when we do, it is dismissed as hypothetical. (Which is the sort of thing that can get someone accurately described as a troll, btw.) It is hypothetical that expanding background checks can actually serve to reduce firearms violence. The proposition has little evidence in support of it, and in any case at least as much against it, and yet you both persist. So you are not against hypotheticals in principle. You are just against hypotheticals when they lead away from your desired outcome.

                      Needless to say, you don’t address my hypothetical either, even though I have addressed the hypothetical about universal background checks, namely (1) it amounts to universal registration, eventually, which has historically always led to confiscation (and that with a strong track record) and (2) it is an infringement against the right to keep and bear arms, which “shall not be infringed.” (3) it is a mechanism to delay rights, (and, “a right delayed is a right denied”) “Oh, sorry, the computers are down, nothing we can do about it; so sorry, too bad, come back next week.” and (4) it doesn’t work in any case against those criminals who obtain their guns on the black market, the existence proof of which is that drugs are absolutely prohibited, and yet nearly universally available – even inside of maximum security prisons – so the idea that bad people can be kept away from guns is just insane, and (5) it amounts to a presumption of guilt. “Prove you are a good person, otherwise, we can’t sell it to you” which is the opposite of how things are supposed to be. Not that principles matter to you. And (6), because of compliance and opportunity cost aren’t worth it. Because of reason (4), which is basically that it doesn’t work anyway to keep criminals disarmed, it means that police officers are doing paperwork, keeping and checking people’s files, instead of catching criminals, and gun sellers have extra duties to record the information, for nothing, it keeps real criminals from being apprehended. Actually, (6) is worse than that, because when actual felon actually do try to buy guns and get denied, one has this precious opportunity of (a) a criminal is in a known location (the gun store) (b) having unequivocally identified himself (DL for the 4473) (c) and been caught in the act of committing a crime (the attempted gun purchase) (d) and there is a COP ON THE PHONE AT THE TIME (at the other end of the background check phone call), which would normally make it really, really, easy to take bad guys off the streets (!) nevertheless the opportunities are not taken, and the prosecution rate for this crime is practically zero. So clearly, something else other than law enforcement is going on here, because it just doesn’t get any easier than this to catch criminals and remove them from society, but it isn’t done. Why not? Until that is answered (and, I think I know the answer) I can’t support them because they are not being advanced in good faith, never mind reasons 1-5, any one of which is in itself a serious objection.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Your argument is: “He was fired for nothing more, and nothing less, than purely ideological reasons.”

                      And in the following posts you tried to defend it. That’s why you invoked that hypothetical scenario. A hypothetical scenario that you try to falsely equate to the real event.

                      Not sure what you’re rambling about in the rest of your post. I guess you’d rather change topics? I can understand and will entertain your points.

                      1. No it doesn’t. Background checks would be processed by licensed dealers, just like they are now. So what would be different? Explain how background checks amount to registration. You don’t actually do that, you just make the jump.

                      2. No it isn’t. Background checks aren’t an infringement on the 2a, so why would universal background checks be any different?

                      3. You think you have rights that you don’t.

                      We have laws that say criminals can’t buy or own guns. Background checks are required to enforce such laws. Stop playing a victim and crying that you’re persecuted. Do you want criminals to be able to buy guns on the legal market? If you don’t, the only way is to have a mechanism to check. If you do, then say so loud and proud. I, Bruce, want criminals to be able go in any store and buy firearms. I, Bruce, want them to have access to all the firearm and ammo they desire.

                      Then you want to talk about the prosecution rate. But you are against background checks, so how can you argue both sides? If you are against them, then you wouldn’t be arguing to have the criminals prosecuted.

                      Again, you can’t follow your own logic.

                      To answer to the prosecution rate, it is low because it is very hard to get a conviction. With limited resources, prosecutors will pick cases they can win. And secondly, the law was designed to block transactions:

                      Prosecution of Federal Gun Crimes: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal. Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 51 (1994).

                      “Such statistics are not a meaningful measure of the effectiveness of the Brady Law. . . .[T]he statute was not primarily intended as a prosecutive mechanism but rather as a means of keeping handguns out of the hands of convicted felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons. From an enforcement perspective, the Brady Law fully serves its purpose when it succeeds in thwarting the acquisition of a firearm by such individuals. By that standard, the success of the Brady Law is reflected by the fact that, since its enactment, approximately 41,000 applications for the purchase of handguns have been denied.”

                      http://www.gao.gov/products/GGD-96-22

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Don’t expect any semblance of logic from the righty bin.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      (1) With respect to registration, the 4473 has the make, model and serial number of the gun(s) sold, as well as the name, address, and other id of the purchaser, so the necessary information for registration is present. Although these documents are kept at the FFL, they are sent to the BATFE if the FFL goes out of business, or is raided, and furthermore, they must be available to be “inspected” which has been taken to mean, photographed or photocopied one by one. Although use of the 4473s to compile registration lists is explicitly prohibited, they have already been used for the purpose. For just one example, here: http://www.examiner.com/article/alaska-gun-stores-say-atf-engagin g-new-illegal-activity More examples: http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/goa-background-checks-atfs- illegal-copying-of-4473-forms/

                      (2) The fact that you can’t comprehend the phrase “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean that federal judges also can’t comprehend it. While I agree that it *has* been infringed under the law, that doesn’t make the infringement proper. (The argument that infringement is legal, because it’s been done, is circular: It’s legal to infringe because laws have been enacted, and laws have been enacted because such infringement is legal.) In any case, the Framer’s intention of the Second Amendment was to deter tyranny in government. Putting the government in charge of who may obtain guns is a conflict of interest. Furthermore, certainly the National Guard can’t possibly perform the intended purpose of such deterrence, because said body is at the control of government, so they would be used to perpetrate such tyranny, sooner than deter it.

                      (3) “A right delayed is a right denied” is a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. It is surprising that you would distance yourself from such a quote, but then again, I suppose your actual position is that principles are only to be embraced when they lead to desired outcomes; when they do not, they are to be abandoned as convenient or necessary. Dropped like hot potatoes. Alas.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      (3) “A right delayed is a right denied” is a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.

                      What part of the constitution is that in? I don’t recall any right to a speedy gun purchase. Too bad you’d be willing to let just any jackass have a gun.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      1. “so the necessary information for registration is present.” So what if it’s present? There is no central registry and all you have is “well it’s possible for it to happen”. What are you arguing exactly? We’ve had background checks like this since the mid 90s. Twenty years later, still no registry.

                      2. Ah, yes. The “shall not infringed” means whatever the poster wants it to mean. What shall not be infringed? The right to keep and bear arms. Background checks do not infringe on the 2a, and if you can show me one legal ruling that has showed the opposite, please feel free to share.

                      3. Speaking of irony. You are taking an argument for equal rights, spoken by a man who was shot and killed, and trying to use it for pro gun arguments. The irony is strong. Again, you think you have rights that you don’t actually have.

                      I’m curious, do you think all gun laws infringe on the second amendment?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Where’s the right? Next to that of having abortions. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Ninth Amendment.

                      The BATFE has *already* been found to be collecting 4473 information, and it is already the law that when FFLs go out of business, they must surrender *all* 4473s to the BATFE. Because keeping a registry is against the law, one could reasonably expect the database to be secret, so “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In any case, reports of the BATFE copying 4473s in bulk is affirmative evidence that such a database is being constructed. Eventually, this will lead to a complete list, if background checks are expanded to cover all firearms transfers, and the transfers then apply even to inheritance. After a few generations, all guns in possession by everybody will have been put through a 4473 (except, of course, for those owned by criminals, who don’t obey the law … exactly the ones you really care about (!)) and then, every 4473 will have had an opportunity for the BATFE to copy it. Presto, complete gun registration. Or, perhaps you have some other idea why the BATFE has been found to be copying 4473s in bulk? Let’s hear it. (And you can prove it’s not to compile registration lists.)

                      The fact that MLK was murdered does not change any gun rights argument. In fact, after his house was bombed, he applied for a CCW, but, despite passing the legal qualifications to have one, he was denied – probably simply because he was black. (Such is the ‘discretion’ that the local constables exercised.) http://www.redstate.com/candicelanier/2013/01/17/mlks-arsenal-the -racist-roots-of-gun-control-in-the-u-s/ Furthermore, most gun control laws are rooted in exactly such racism, something you’d probably have enthusiastically supported back in the day. (Which I don’t.)

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs: you say prosecution of background check violators is difficult. For a crime that has the perp in custody (at the gun store) and the evidence in hand (the 4473, signed by the perp) and a cop is on the phone (at the other end of the background check call) … and yet you say it’s too difficult? What are you expecting the police to do? Wait for felons to turn themselves in? It blows my mind that you think these crimes are too difficult to prosecute. Plus, I don’t care what the stated intentions of the law are. In fact, they make me angry. Saying “our intention is to keep guns out of their hands” but with the subtext of, “but we never intended to actually prosecute them” is tantamount to saying: “we don’t want those criminals to buy guns, but we DO want them to be out on the streets, even as they commit further crimes (attempted firearms purchase by prohibited person = felony) and we can’t be bothered to take them off the streets.” So we are at a stalemate here. I will no sooner admit that I *want* criminals to buy guns, when really I want them in jail, than you will admit that you *want* criminals free on the streets, just so long as they can’t buy guns. But the fact that *legislators* and *law enforcement officers* WANT criminals on the streets, just so long as they can’t buy guns, troubles me greatly about what the intentions of those legislators and law enforcement officers really are. They either write the law, or enforce it, but they don’t intend it to be enforced, or refuse to enforce it … so what are they really trying to accomplish? They *want* criminals on the streets … why? Since you agree with those people, maybe you could explain to me why we have law enforcement at all, and why there are jails. And why there are laws. I’m afraid to say that I think the real purpose is to jail otherwise non-criminal citizens who own 11-capacity magazines, while letting the violent felons suffer denied purchases, and turn them away. It sure seems to be how things are going, which I consider evil.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I find it ironic that one would cite abortion as a right equal to easy gun access. In state after state we see women’s right to an abortion thwarted, delayed, and denied through various tactics. I’m thinking you don’t have a leg to stand on. So go ahead and compare gun access to abortion access. I’ll give you plenty of rope.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh, ok thanks for the rope. Well, let’s see if I can figure out how to hang myself here.

                      If gun rights were as strong as abortion rights: the technologies employed could not be restricted, anyone could have as many as they wanted without permits or background checks, including felons, drug users or the mentally incompetent. Schools would offer counseling programs to minors seeking access to guns, and some states would pass laws that forbid parents of being informed if their minor children bought guns, some states would even sell guns to out-of-state minors (in whose home states they couldn’t buy guns) and it would be a crime to inform either of law enforcement or even the parents of the circumstances of the situation. Privacy laws would prohibit disclosure of who owned guns, and newspapers wouldn’t publish the names of those in the county who had them. As an added bonus, even antigun people would be forced to pay to subsidize the gun purchases of those who couldn’t otherwise afford them, and, for the icing, the Affordable Security Act would mandate that, as part of a comprehensive security package (which everyone would be mandated to buy or face a fine) that guns would have to be provided as part of acceptable coverage, even if the views of the employers offering the coverage didn’t allow guns, e.g. as part of their religious views. (Although this last provision would be pending a review in the Supreme Court … stay tuned.)

                      I’m terribly sorry, Mark The Troll, I don’t think I managed to hang myself at all.

                      Shall I try the opposite, and see what “reasonable, modest, commonsense” abortion-control laws would look like? Explicit law enforcement permission for each and every one, except for the “back-alley loophole” which persons such as yourself are trying to close? Need to produce driver’s license and signature for every one, the dealer to keep the records for 20 years, and to give the paperwork to the feds upon surrendering the Federal Abortion License? (Plus, it’s a crime to lie on the form, and, the Abortion provider can face criminal charges for allowing even clerical errors on the forms?) Allowable technologies limited by federal law, unless the procedure uses technology dating from about the 1890s? Other technologies allowed only to adults 21-and-over, although some additional ones are legal for those 18-20? (But, administered by parents only younger than 18, if legal?) Domestic violence misdemeanants, and all felons, drug users, dishonorable dischargees, and a few others can NEVER obtain them? Federal felony to cross state lines to get one? Permits, licenses, fees, fingerprints, needed in some locales? Inspection, by law enforcement personnel, to verify that the abortions actually obtained in the past are compliant with all applicable regulations? Until recently, one could only have them in one’s home, but medications must be stored separately from the implements, under separate lock and key? Procedures which are especially quiet, painless, or noninvasive require a $200 tax, with 10 fingerprints and written permission from the local sheriff, not including a long delay, to get the application approved? Other implements which make giving many abortions especially easy required to be destroyed, moved out of state, or surrendered to law enforcement? “Reasonable, modest, common-sense.” Sure.

                      So, you still want to switch sets of laws? Let guns be controlled by today’s abortion laws, and let abortions be controlled by today’s gun laws?

                      Oh, and by the way … guns ‘might possibly’ be used to kill innocent children, which fact is used to emotionally tug at people’s heartstrings in an attempt to get them to be more heavily restricted. But, in the case of abortions … there’s nothing ‘might possibly’ about them, in the killing children department. That’s their sole purpose. Oops.

                      It’s pitiable to see how badly your attempt at getting me to hang myself went. Well, pitiable and hilarious, both.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      been busy. Catching up. On the dumbest most easily statements to trash first:
                      ” it is nevertheless a circular argument to claim that leftists are superior intellectually because they dominate the halls of academia, and they dominate the halls of academia because they are superior intellectually. Which appears to be Doug’s position.”

                      Yes. It appears that way to someone who can not understand moderately complex arguments. I will try and make it as simple as I can. People in universities teach a lot of stuff. Universities are hierarchies. In a hierarchy you advance by pleasing the people above you, and in most subjects there are no actual standards other than what the people there like. English Lit, philosophy, History are just a few examples. But there is one area where there are actual objective standards. In the hard sciences, and to an extend even in biology and geology and related fields, you must test your ideas and opinions against the actual physical world. That would be gods world if you will. You do this by making predictions about what will be found, where it will be found, what you can measure, what those measurements will be, etc. In those areas, you will ALWAYS, (there may be exceptions, like at bob jones university, but I know of none) find a lot more liberals than conservatives. This is because conservatives are very reluctant to learn from the actual world, and much prefer to learn from their “superiors”. It has been this way for at least 200 years. This is NOT circular. It starts with Physical Scientists are liberal, and ends with the real world validates the mental processes of physical scientists.

                      What part of this do you not understand? Maybe I can make it even simpler.

                      Perhaps a picture will help. I think I already posted this. http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-polit ics-and-religion/
                      to to the image on Partisianship and ideology http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-52.gif
                      or here: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-54.gif

                      People who deal with the actual physical world and get feedback from it, where gods world is the final judge are, by far and away, liberal.

                      Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).

                      I found this one: I love it cause I am a Jew.
                      http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-56.gif

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Babs: you say prosecution of background check violators is difficult. For a crime that has the perp in custody (at the gun store) and the evidence in hand (the 4473, signed by the perp) and a cop is on the phone (at the other end of the background check call)”

                      You are confusing prosecution and arrest. Many people are arrested on the spot, not as many prosecuted. Most that are arrested are charged with more violent offenses or stronger felonies than paper work violations.

                      Further, you seem confused. You think that just because someone lied on a form, you can prosecute them easily? You don’t seem to have any understanding of the legal system if you think it’s just that easy. And further, you don’t seem to understand the limitations of budget, time, and man power. Prosecutors, from what I’ve read, try and make the most of their resources. Do you understand the concept of limited resources? The concept of guilty people being let free if not all the evidence lines up correctly?

                      “Saying “our intention is to keep guns out of their hands” but with the subtext of, “but we never intended to actually prosecute them” is tantamount to saying: “we don’t want those criminals to buy guns”

                      Again, limited resources. You know what’s really ironic about that though? Pro gun organizations have fought long and hard to make sure agencies like the ATF are underfunded, understaffed, and have as few rights to prosecute and follow cases of gun violations as possible. Then the same pro gunners yell “hey, why aren’t we doing more”? Pretty damn stupid isn’t it?

                      “I will no sooner admit that I *want* criminals to buy guns, when really I want them in jail, ”

                      Then you say: ” maybe you could explain to me why we have law enforcement at all, and why there are jails.”

                      Do you expect criminals to walk into prison voluntarily? You seem so anarchistic, or unable to follow your thoughts, that you shoot holes in your own arguments.

                • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                  “Everyone, except you, agrees that he did perfectly acceptable work. ” Clearly the work was not acceptable to the person who fired him. Bruce, you repeatedly demonstrate that you have a very limited understanding of the nature of science. Don’t feel bad, the vast majority of people do.

                  But this man was also of limited intelligence (Now works at a christian university where I am sure he fits well: Everyone, except you, agrees that he did perfectly acceptable work. ) But he could not follow a simple instruction in a timely manner. Sheesh.
                  http://ncse.com/news/2008/05/creationists-lawsuit-against-woods-h ole-dismissed-001667
                  Included was a notification to Abraham that in order to file a lawsuit, “Your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost” (emphasis in original). The defendants moved for a dismissal accordingly, but were also ready to argue that accepting well-established scientific principles relevant to the grant under which Abraham was hired, including evolution, was implicitly a requirement of employment.
                  ==================
                  Also, you are not going to wait until a person doing very complex and subtle work screws up because the basic premises under which he is working (the bible is TRUE, and all else is just “THEORY” — you know, like that silly idea of quantum mechanics which says that things can be in two places at once and who ever heard of a cat being both alive and dead) will probably lead to serious errors. Well, you are not unless you are a few cards short of a full deck.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    You missed the part of my argument where I said those in higher positions will select those who align with them. The fact things are the way they are does not refute the proposition that self-fulfilling prophesies, or vicious cycles exist. In particular, you can’t quote the statistics of a certain field to rebut the claim that another selection mechanism is at play in that field, because (obviously) the other selection mechanism may well be responsible for the way things actually are. (Speaking of following moderately complex arguments … post hoc ergo propter hoc.)

                    Liberals are quite bigoted when it comes to some things. For example, people with CCW permits. “We don’t want your kind here.” (“Use that other water fountain across the street.”) For all you know, most conservatives (whether religious or not) don’t want to live like that, and simply leave the field because liberals have taken over. Citing the fact that universities are overwhelmingly populated by democrats doesn’t begin to address the proposition of self-selection bias.

                    Another example that has made the news is that of two students with legal-under-the-law-but-not-university policy CCW. When a six-time convicted felon “asked him for money” the gun was pulled, the criminal ran away but was captured, and the students now face expulsion. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/09/us/gonzaga-guns/

                    It is simple enough to understand that the university is within its rights to expel the students, as they violated the (liberal/democrat) policy. Whether it is ethical or not to deny the student’s right to self defense, and then to fail to protect them, is another issue. As is why a six-time convicted felon is free to roam college campuses, “asking” for money. But do you suppose that people with CCWs will flock to said universities if the expulsion is carried through? Would you then turn around and post to me “But look, CCW permit holders are obviously mentally inferior, because they are overwhelmingly NOT in higher levels of physical sciences, where the only(!) thing that matters is how well they can grasp God’s (natural) laws! Why, just look at the statistics of how many CCW holders are in the general population, vs. how many have tenured professor positions at universities, or government labs. [Where guns are also universally banned.]”

                    If you still can’t see the selection bias, I can’t necessarily help you, but your blindness does not mean it isn’t there.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      An almost good argument: “You missed the part … other selection mechanism may well be responsible for the way things actually are. ”
                      In most cases that would be true. But in the physical sciences one needs to do original work that passes two tests. 1.) Must create falsifiable theories, and 2.) some of them must pass a few tests in the real world. Or are you going to allege that you can do crap work, create nothing that generates patents and still get hired. As Feynman said, Nature can not be fooled.

                      I grant you that I can not show evidence that incompetent scientists are hired over competent ones based on their political beliefs. That is because it is hard to prove, or offer much evidence of a negative. You, for example, can not offer any evidence that you are not abusing your children. But if you are going to make a claim that some other mechanism is in play you should put forth some evidence. And, of course, it would be nice if in the business world, — You know where money talks, and there is a slightly conservative tendency — that the numbers were not almost exactly the same as they are in academia.

                      As to guns. I am not sure what that has to do with science. Yes, liberals are less likely to own a gun, cause, despite their brains, they still worship the state (Hey, most people have to worhsip something — what that authoritarian streak that evolution gave us, Conservatives worship the invisible man in the sky, liberals worship the state). But that is a red herring when the argument was about science and the implied related brain power. Attitudes towards guns and god have not been shown to have any causal relationship, positive or negative, with ability to do complex science, though there is a weak but non trivial negative correlation. I have no idea what that means

                      “Citing the fact that universities are overwhelmingly populated by democrats doesn’t begin to address the proposition of self-selection bias.” Maybe not, but citing the fact that in industry, with regard to high end physical science where the final judge of things is god herself, the scientists there also have 5X more democrats then Republicans kind of removes the self selection bias. A business keeps scientists only if they produce, not if they vote the way that the CEO wants.

                      As to the university incident. 1. I assume that you believe in private property, and if a landlord has a stated policy against unmarried people having sex, or smoking dope, or having pets, or having guns, than his tenants must abide by that policy even if it is stupid. You do believe in private property rights right?
                      2. The students were NOT expelled, they were put on probation, and I am sure that this policy will come under a fair amount of scrutiny. But as a conservative, you should be aware of how important obedience to authority is. To the best of my knowledge every single study has shown that the tendency to obey authority is much stronger in conservatives than liberals. Maybe you can show me a counter example.

                      As to this statement ” Would you then turn around and post to me “But look, CCW permit holders…” No, I would not do that. But you seem to refuse to acknowledge that science is not a matter of opinion, or of what people like. Again, that is where conservatives fall down intellectually. They really think that science, like carrying guns or not, is a matter of likes or dislikes, or opinion. I agree that we should all have the right to defend ourselves, and that no one should take it away. But this is not something like the theory of gravity, that is testable in the physical world. Even if there are many areas where more guns = less crime, all that means is that many people may prefer illusion. That is different from science.

                      Take global warming. I know that a large number of conservatives are more ignorant of global warming than plants. See plants are actually moving to where it is cooler. A little research will quickly show you that plants are moving up at about 10 feet per year, and are moving towards the poles at about 100 meters per year.

                      Now I can not prove that there is no selection bias. Just as you can not prove that you do not abuse your children. But I since I have no evidence that you do abuse your children, I will not ask you to defend the claim that you do. Do you have any actual evidence that there is a selection bias in hiring science. Do you think that there is one in industry? If so, then how much money do you think that businesses are willing to sacrifice in order to select liberal scientists over more competent conservative scientists?

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    I forgot to mention: “Where a six-time convicted felon was “asking” for money _in_a_place_where_people_were_prohibited_from_having_guns_ … ” It’s off the topic of self-selection bias at universities, but I thought I’d add that for Mark The Troll and Bab’s benefit. Why oh why would a six-time convicted felon go to a place where guns were banned, to, um, “ask” for money? Why oh why oh why oh why?

                    It’s almost pointless to argue highly complex points when some real whoppers of the blindingly obvious, elude them. But, I keep trying. Yes, I know: that lowers your opinion of my intelligence, doesn’t it? Sigh.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    It’s OK. Bruce is just pissed that he can’t carry his concealed plastic gun and point it at people that make him afraid.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      As long as the standard is that it’s ok to attribute other’s thoughts, Mark The Troll is just pissed because those horrible students broke the university’s rules, and actually met a six-time convicted felon with a gun (and provided information that got him (re-)arrested), instead of getting robbed and possibly worse. It just ticks him off that a couple of people were able to defend themselves instead of redistributing their wealth towards an almost certain democrat voter.

                      Say, Mark The Troll, do you still want to swap gun laws and abortion laws? Did you give me enough rope to hang myself on the subject? Like having minor children crossing state lines to buy guns without their parent’s knowledge or consent? Sound fair? “Reasonable?” “Modest?”

                      Cat get your tongue?

  4. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark says:
    August 4, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    “There is a difference between freedom and an unnecessary risk. A point lost on the Mall Ninjas of the world.”

    Drugs and guns find their way into prisons. If they can’t be kept out of maximum security prisons, how do you expect to keep them out of the hands of felons and wanna be felons outside of prison?

  5. ViosNo Gravatar says:

    It could be a wonderful and also handy piece of facts. We’re fulfilled which you embraced this useful information and facts about. You should be people well informed this way. Thanks for revealing.

  6. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    “what if Treyvon Martin had been white?”

    He’d still have been shot.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      He wouldn’t have been stalked and confronted. And he’d be very much alive.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        martin did the “confronting”, and the initial and protracted assault, in case your memory needs refreshing. Had Zimmerman been stalking martin, wouldn’t he have had his weapon in his hand?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “martin did the “confronting”, and the initial and protracted assault, in case your memory needs refreshing. Had Zimmerman been stalking martin, wouldn’t he have had his weapon in his hand?”

          We only have one side of that story. Also, it’s good to know that one must have a gun in hand in order to be stalking. I always thought that was assault with a deadly weapon.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            ***We only have one side of that story.***
            Forensic and medical evidence does support Zimmerman’s version of the incident.

            ***I always thought that was assault with a deadly weapon.***
            Thinking is not your strong suit.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Hmmm, you’re the one with the assertion that it’s stalking if you do it with a gun. Maybe a self-check is in order.

      • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

        Granted that few items on the internet are 100% in conformity with the physical world and/or above questioning. Still, Wikipedia is not exactly known for its political bias and is seldom called out for being outright false. Given the most of the people here allege that they have triple digit I

        • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

          It would be nice, if someone who has control of this site changed its mechanics so that you need to actully hit submit comment for a comment to be submitted. CRAP!!! But to continue IQ’s… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin: The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, “yeah”, the dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman responded, “Okay.”[68] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[17] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[17] #1. I know of no definition where the actions of Zimmerman would be considered stalking. Two, unless shown contrary evidence, it would seem that Zimmerman was walking back to his car when he was attacked. Number 3. Can anybody tell me that if their head was being pounded into concrete and that the man on top of them was as white as Casper the ghost and dressed like a priest, that they would not shoot the assailant? 4.) Does any person here have evidence contrary to what is in the Wiki Article? This was not a stand your ground situation. This was self defence, kill or be killed.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Zimmerman, in his own account of the incident, admitted following Martin. During the last moments Zimmerman, emboldened by his possession of a gun, got out of his car and began looking for Martin on foot. By this time Martin was well aware he was being followed. Call it what you will but if Zimmerman had not followed Martin, he would still be alive. And if Zimmerman had not had a gun he may have never considered his personal pursuit on foot and remained in the safety of his car. We don’t know that but it seems to be a reasonable assumption.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              ***We don’t know that but it seems to be a reasonable assumption.***

              You have given evidence that “reason” is not one of the mental faculties you routinely employ.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            1. What definition of stalking do you use? He followed him in his car. Martin came up to the car at one point and asked what he wanted and Zimmerman did not answer and rolled his window up. He continued to follow in his car. Then he got out of his car and followed on foot, then he ran as he continued his pursuit. He never identified himself, as far as Martin was concerned, he was a civilian who was aggressively following him. Again, what definition of stalking do you use?

            2. That is what the defense contended. The only people who know the truth are Martin and Zimmerman. Unfortunately we don’t have two sides to the story, nor do we have any eye witness testimony to confirm your statement. It is purely the defense claiming this.

            3. But see, stand your ground law states that if you feel like your life is in danger, you are allowed to act with force. So how come it’s not ok for Martin to do that? He was being chased, on car and on foot, by a man with a gun. Even without the gun, how would you feel as a 17 year old being chased by an adult male while you’re trying to make your way home?

            4. Read the jury instructions, they clearly show the stand your ground language. What you mean to say is that stand your ground wasn’t invoked as a legal strategy for the defense, in which case the case would not have gone to a trial by jury, but instead a judge would rule immune to charges or not. Link to the jury instructions, page 12: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury _Instructions.pdf

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “It would be nice, if someone who has control of this site changed its mechanics so that you need to actully hit submit comment for a comment to be submitted. CRAP!!! “…

            Seems as though you are accessing the site with some other method. The view I have shows a oval “Submit Comment” button at the bottom of the dialogue. I can hit Enter over and over and the text remains unsent. Why would your experience be different?

  7. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    cavtrooper says:
    August 6, 2013 at 12:54 am

    “I’ve noticed that the keystone kops have gotten MUCH better behaved since CCW passed.”

    Not all of them, not everywhere, and not enough.

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      “Not all of them, not everywhere, and not enough.”

      ours have.Of course,in my general area,an overzealous state trooper,who had only a nodding aquaintance at best with the constitution,was found dead in a motel room,years back-maybe they figured the mere peasants and taxpayers are’nt fucking around anymore.

  8. My partner and I stumbled over here by a different web address and thought I might check things out.
    I like what I see so now i am following you.
    Look forward to looking into your web page repeatedly.

    Also visit my web page … dental problems

  9. GPNo Gravatar says:

    With the government disarming us more every year, and making ammo increasingly more difficult to purchase, and with crime rates getting higher, my question is this;
    When will the people of this country stand up for themselves?
    The more we stand by and let Uncle Sam take from us, the harder the trek back to balance and peace is going to be.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Why are you allowing yourself to be disarmed? If you’re not a felon, the majority of states have a sane firearms policy. Even most of Illinois, but stay clear of D.C., Massachusetts, and New Jersey if you’re carrying.
      Ammunition is not all that difficult to acquire. .22LR is showing up in the retail stores and most rifle and pistol rounds can be had with a little search effort.
      Remington 870 12 gauge
      Ithaca Model 37 12 gauge
      Marlin Model 60 .22LR
      Remington 760 30.06
      IAI “Backup” .380 Semi-Auto
      RIA 1911 9mm Semi-Auto
      Black Powder .44 Navy Colt Revolver
      And I bought all but one of these over the last couple of years.
      I reload so I have 600 shotgun shells, 300 30.06, 250 9mm, 200 .380, and 1250 .22LR

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Most weapons and ammo are way too expensive for working class people to rationally afford. Middle class and up folks mostly support the system and concentrate on using it to steal an easy living at the exprense of truly productive folks.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          ***Most weapons and ammo are way too expensive for working class people to rationally afford.***
          Aside from your statement being ridiculous in the extreme, I must ask whether the “unaffordability of weapons” in your opinion is due to the deliberately wrecked economy (cloward-piven strategy) or the greed of the manufacturers who price their products out of reach of all but the most well to do?
          I have bought all of my guns second hand. The most expensive cost me $250 and the cheapest $75. My Remington 870 12 gauge cost $130. Keep an eye out and deals can be found, and even retailers have been known to negotiate the price of a used shotgun, especially when a quality “home defense”12 gauge costs less than $200 at Walmart. Yeah it’s made in China. It still shoots, and a box of shells costs less than $10
          ***Middle class and up folks mostly support the system and concentrate on using it to steal an easy living at the expense of truly productive folks.***
          So you advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat? We’ve ample evidence of the results that those “worker’s paradise” utopias produce. Ya want more and better, get busy looking for something to do for cash. When I was broke I’d haunt truckstops, looking for furniture movers who always needed help loading and unloading. Deliver newspapers. Get creative. That’s what capitalism is all about.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Poor people don’t have extra $75 for guns or even $10 for a box of ammo which would hardly be enough to practice for 30 minutes!
            I would say that it is a combination of natural human greed and government interference in the free market which has driven up the prices so high for weapons.
            Your attitude of go flnd more money is what pisses off we poor folks so much. What the fuck do you think we do all the time?!! With government screwing up the free market it is rare one can find any side work that does not require liscenses or bonding or insurance. And if you do find something and make a couple bucks, if the government finds out they will steal your profits in taxes or if you are stuck taking welfare and foodstamps to survive they will cut them by the same amount or more that you made, so where is the incentlive to go out and hustle?!

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Exactly the kind of mindset that has the residents of New Orleans and the later ‘victims’ of Tropical Storm Sandy still sitting in the mud and whining. If you want something bad enough and there’s no ‘work’ to be had, go where’s there’s work. Unemployment in North Dakota is like 2%, and those who can’t find a job are actively avoiding employment. We’re feeling the labor drain here in NW Minnesota. There’s bunches of help wanted signs.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                There are at least six people applying for work for every available job in the US right now. Moving to ND or MN is prohibitively expensive for most poor folks. I have heard your type of BS before. Yes, some individuals will be able to beat the odds, but society wide poor folks are fucked by the way the ruling elite have the system set up. It is basically the same as it has been throughout history. The masses of people are slaves one way or another to the ruling class. Marx had that much right. Unfortunately socialism turns out to be self destructive Free enterprise works because it is in synch with human nature. We humans are greedy indivlduals not altruistic socialists.. Unfortunately the poor approximation of free enterprise that used to exist in the USA has fallen into corporate capitalism where working class folks are virtually slaves while the ruling class uses the corporate model and government to protect their power and perqs.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  So, are you just bitchin’ or do you have anything substantive to offer?

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Bitching itself is the start of substantive change. I think that the USA may fall of its own topheaviness leaving a possibility that freedom oriented survivors could reinstitute a basic free enterprise system without corporate tyrrany or government control but only if such people have put themselves in position to survive. So I advocate freedom lovers “dropping out” as much as they can and practicing a rational survivalist philosophy. Notplaying army in the woods with militia types, but trying to become self sufficient to the extent possible. Keep the idea of freedom alive so when the circumstances make it obvious that government is not the answer people will have the option of freedom open and understandable. One thing that does not work is trying to change the system towards freedom from the inside. The ruling elite have all the cards that way.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Don’t worry about Huap. He bitches about government and people sitting on their asses while he collects his gov paycheck courtesy of the US military. His biggest life accomplishment is being a soldier, aka the ultimate government pawn, yet he doesn’t see the hypocrisy in his politics. Oh well, what can ya do.

                      You seem like a nice guy though. At least you realize that it’s the rich screwing the common man and the way they fix the rules, not the gov and welfare for the poor and elderly. It’s the great unchecked free market economy. Whoever has the most money has the most influence and can keep working to widen that influence. The numbers back it up. There is no denying this reality, yet so many try.

                      Heck, you actually live by your philosphy. Good for you. You are off the grid, you back up and live what you stand for. Huap? Hell no. He just likes to talk.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You write: “At least you realize that it’s the rich screwing the common man and the way they fix the rules, not the gov and welfare for the poor and elderly. It’s the great unchecked free market economy. Whoever has the most money has the most influence and can keep working to widen that influence. The numbers back it up. There is no denying this reality, yet so many try.”

                      As might be expected, you have it exactly backwards. When one talks about “fixing the rules” then one is most certainly not talking about an “unchecked free market economy,” no matter what you call it. America has nothing like a free-market economy, and the reason is because the rules are fixed, in a corporatist collusion between government and elite corporations. Having money brings no influence whatsoever in a truly free market, it merely confers purchasing power and capital with which one can build stuff. But it gives no “influence” at all, so long as the coercive power of government, or its regulations, have nothing to do with the situation. Of course, you adore regulations so it might be imagined that, like a fish who is last to see the water, you are last to see what corrosive effect such regulations have on the fate of the non-elites.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      No country has ever had a true free market economy, including us. Who are the rules fixed by? You think bureacrats just fix the rules to benefit a company without a company being involved? Heck, look at the chamber of commerce, or ALEC. Private companies write the rules, legislation, etc and hand it to the gov to sign. Someone makes the rules no matter what. Replace gov with whatever entity you want. Money = power = influence = you write the rules. Without checks, monopolies would dominate the market. Without checks, companies like microsoft/apple would cheat, steal, and lie their way to the top. You think companies are in it to preserve the fabric of society? Damn you’re naive.

                      Having money brings no influence? No power? How can you say something so stupid? By default more money = the power to expand, get bigger, take over other markets, etc.= capital and capital = power. But yea, keep talking about regulations and how evil they are while the companies rob you blind.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      How can ANYONE think that a society completely ruled by a concept of maximizing profit in all corners would ever be concerned about their citizens? Their bottom line is MONEY. As long as you can give that to them, they don’t care one bit about any of the rest. It’s obvious. It’s called the bottom line. Yet you don’t get it. How come?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs writes: “No country has ever had a true free market economy, including us.”

                      I agree. (I.e. you are presenting a straw man if you think I disagree.) So don’t go blaming anything on “the free market” because there isn’t one.

                      “Who are the rules fixed by? You think bureacrats just fix the rules to benefit a company without a company being involved? Heck, look at the chamber of commerce, or ALEC. Private companies write the rules, legislation, etc and hand it to the gov to sign.”

                      That is the essence of corporatism, which I view as a scourge. But, it wouldn’t be possible if government was able to live within its restraints, which, however, seems impossible for it to do.

                      “Someone makes the rules no matter what. Replace gov with whatever entity you want. Money = power = influence = you write the rules.”

                      On the contrary, in a free market, the only rule is that you buy stuff you want more than the money in your pocket, and don’t buy anything else. All the multibillion dollar tobacco companies in the world, for example, have zero power over you if you don’t buy their stuff.

                      “Without checks, monopolies would dominate the market.”

                      Wrong. Monopolies are unstable, unless supported by coercive measures that suppress competition. There are all sorts of things that enterprising individuals can do to break up monopolies without resorting to force. For example, by opening up businesses that compete, and then accepting the buyout offers – only to set up other businesses and selling those out too. It happened to Standard Oil.

                      “Without checks, companies like microsoft/apple would cheat, steal, and lie their way to the top.”

                      Lying, cheating, and stealing are all crimes.

                      “You think companies are in it to preserve the fabric of society? Damn you’re naive.”

                      I think nothing of the sort. Damn, you’re full of straw men.

                      “Having money brings no influence? No power? How can you say something so stupid?”

                      So, do you buy tobacco? If you don’t, what power does RJ Reynolds have over you? Whether you do or not, I don’t, and they have zero power over me. I simply don’t buy tobacco. So, what power do you speak of, except for the power to alter regulations or otherwise cause government to interfere in markets? To the extent they have that power, that’s corporatist power, not free-market-capitalist power. I don’t disagree that corporatism is evil, but you’ll have to do better to show how free markets exert harmful power over mere individuals.

                      “By default more money = the power to expand, get bigger, take over other markets, etc.= capital and capital = power. But yea, keep talking about regulations and how evil they are while the companies rob you blind.”

                      … in a corporatist world? Thanks for making my point for me!

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Bruce:
                      You’re goring the sacred cows of the left, and providing cogent answers to their scripted diatribe will only infuriate them. They are liberal idealists, programmed to self destruct before they have the age and experience to realize how badly they’ve been duped.
                      Pearls before swine and all that.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Well, well, well. Not a day goes by after my other post, and this hits the news:

                      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/24/soros-donates-big-buck s-joins-ready-for-hillary-national-finance-council/

                      Seems Soros is joining a SuperPAC to get Hillary! elected president. Although Soros is extremely wealthy, he doesn’t want to exert influence by spending money, he wants to exert influence by government coercion, putting people favorable to his causes in positions of power. That isn’t free-market capitalism at all. He wants certain policies enacted – which, if you don’t comply with them, you go to jail. He wants to force you to bend to his will, indirectly through supporting chosen political candidates who will then compel you to do their bidding through force of law.

                      So my example was uncanny and prescient.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Tell me Bruce, in your vision of a free market economy, who makes the rules? And why do you think.

                      “”Without checks, companies like microsoft/apple would cheat, steal, and lie their way to the top.”

                      Lying, cheating, and stealing are all crimes.”

                      Which is why you need someone to police/regulate these forces.

                      I don’t know why you pretend to know what a free market economy would be like when we both acknowledge there has never been one. You can theorize all you want, but your model makes no sense, has lots of holes, and our country was not founded on it. So in the end, what are these free market people really selling with all their talk? Nothing.

                      So in your model, if everything is based on value, who pays for the roads? bus stops? street lights? police? What incentive would there be for a company to not pollute, dump its waste in the water supply like we already see today? what incentive would there be for them not to cut corners in developing a drug, like they already do today? (this is where regulators come in) what incentive would there be for oil companies not to worry about quality control and let their pipelines leak everywhere? Who should pay for that damage in the above scenarios? No one? Just let companies do whatever they want as long as they are making money?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Wow, that’s a lot of spaghetti you have thrown against the wall, to hope that some of it will stick. I’ll restrict myself to just the first part. Lying, cheating and stealing are all crimes against the property of another, or are fraud. These have nothing to do with markets. Having 27,000 words regulating the sale of cabbage (or whatever it is, these days) does nothing whatsoever to protect the lives or property of others, from actions arising from force or fraud. In a free market, people should have the right to freely enter into contracts with other consenting adults, and there should be some mechanism to enforce both the validity of the contracts and the duty of the parties to those contracts to hold to their agreements. Other than ancillary crimes such as theft, murder, extortion, fraud, and other such things that we probably both agree should be criminal acts, and which aren’t in any way restricted in application to markets, please tell me what other measures “should” be taken so as to ensure that markets are “fair” or whatever else it is that you wish to call it?

                    • GSTANZ67No Gravatar says:

                      “Bitching itself is the start of substantive change”
                      No it is not….its just bitching….and repetitive and unproductive at that.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Babooshka thank you for your kind words. We seem to be in general agreement about there being no real free enterprise anywhere. I will say that some places are comparatively free markets and even that has allowed a lot more materiel wealth for most folks. But government is about coercion and so is ultimately anti any kind of freedom and especially freedom for the common man which real free enterprise promotes. I think Haup, like most folks, has bought into society’s teaching that our brand of capitalism equals free enterprise.I think were he to look at how the World
                    Bank steals from the poor all over the world by enslaving them with the promise of big money up front to build things that benefit the ruling elite not the poor, he may see that there is llittle relationship between corporate “free enterprise” and the real thing.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Would you too just go get a room somewhere? You two kissing each other’s ass in public is rather revolting.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Ray, you know they get off on offending everyone else. I wouldn’t doubt they’re arranging to attend the next freak and sodomite convention in SF.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    If Babs is correct and you are retired military it may explain why we see the world differently. I see militarism as anti individualism and pro government tyrrany. I majored in draft evasion in college while getting a BS in physics. I detest the fact that military retirees get big bucks for having participated in the murder of foreigners in the name of US hegemony. I am all for individuals having weapons to defend themselves. I hate governments having hired thugs to do their dirtywork!

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Isn’t it amazing that these right wingers throw the term tyranny around right and left, talk about how they need guns to protect themselves from such tyranny, yet like you said, are often very pro military? I also think it’s disgusting that tax payers fund these pawns for years after they come back from (often failed and pointless) wars. All while they spend their days ranting against the government and entitlements. The irony/hypocrisy is just inescapable.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Eight years, eight months, and twenty one days does not earn a pension. Detest all you want, but the American soldier has been the only thing between you and stalin, mao, and those who would utilize the same sort of population control as phol pot, castro, idi amin, and any number of others.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I beg your pardon, Babs, was that the irony that lead of the evil empire himself, Vladimir Putin, had to intervene to get your guy, you know, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, from bombing Syria? Yeah, I guess you’re right, that is ironic.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Just saw this moronic statement, couldn’t let it go. Russia and Syria are allies. Diplomacy 101: when your ally is threatened, you try and help. So please, spare your dramatics, and use your brain. Then you would realize that the Obama administration got what it wanted without having to commit anything. Try and think.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “We’re feeling the labor drain here in NW Minnesota. There’s bunches of help wanted signs.”

                same thing here,as we get an influx of companies fleeing the People’s Soviet of Illinois

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  They go where the opportunity is.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Haup, I disagree that soldiers stood between me and communism, etc. I think we would have much the same results if we had not ever started keeping a standing military and had depended upon the armed citizen militia as defense. We certainly would not be embroiled in conflicts all over the world. Given the modern situation the USA praobably does require some standing military, particularly for our nukes, but it should be numbered in the thousands not millions. Our own military is a larger threat to US citizen’s liberty than is forelign militarys.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Your statement “I think” is a falsehood. Your muted sneer is not an attempt to discuss or share views. You have the same style as mark, but you aren’t quite as shrill. Given that I have not seen mark post for a while, I can only suspect a change of identity.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      It is unlikely they will ever stand up. Most people will be OK with the status quo so long as they have their beer and boob tubes.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        “Find out just what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. … The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
        Frederick Douglass

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Haup, that was an uncalled for insult. I obviously can and do think quite well. We disagree so you insult me rather than attempt to deal with my statements? Very intelligent of you! The concept that our military is way too big and is used to promote US hegemony is hardly a new concept. Mark Twain wrote about it in his day. I fail to see that our military defending our corporate interests abroad is ultimately good for the common man here. Rather it promotes general hatred for the USA and all it stands for. I think limited isolationism is a much better idea especially if combined with the ideas of self sufficiency both in governmental and individual levels.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            Seemed like an entirely appropriate comment to me. If you consider it an insult, perhaps you are too thin skinned to be posting on forums such as this.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Haup, you seem unable to comment on the gist of what I say so you continue to insult. Perhaps you are too incompetent to deal with what is being said so you resort to insults since your agruments are so weak? If not then why not discuss the issues rather than throwing out asinine ad hominem attacks?

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                You come in to this discussion months after it began, utilizing a slightly less antagonistic angle of attack than the trolls we have had to contend with since day one, and you expect anything less than derisive comments? Your “arguments” are far afield from the article, and blaming government and conservatives will win you no kudos except from the trolls.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  So I guess the “trolls” must be correct then if you think only they will give my arguments serious consideration and you will only give derision. Boy is that smart of you and so likely to influence the few thinking people about! Come on Haup, I believe very strongly in individuial liberty. I think you do also. I just think you have bewen brainwashed by the military and refuse to consider the reality of the situation for it upsets your worldview too much. Militarism is tyrranical. An armed populace defends said populace without the evils of a standing military. One could argue that modern tech has made it necessary to have a professional defense (especially with nukes) but having that defense as a military with chain of command negates all soldier’s decision making ability and thus makes them slaves. I do not want such in a position to decide about the use of nukes, etc.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    I’ll go you one better.

                    I don’t want to see you in any position of any authority to decide anything that would have any impact on me.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      The absolute worst person to place in any position of authority is that person who would do anything to attain such a position. “o”boy is the best example in modern times.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      I do not wsh to be in a position of power except over myself. As the eldest child I learned that even when you love tose you have power over and are pretty bright it is easy to be a petty dictator.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    When you echo their spiel, how could they help but cheer you on? Since you “believe” so strongly in “individual liberty”, why are you unarmed? ***An armed populace defends said populace without the evils of a standing military.***
                    The answer being you rely on those in uniform to defend your life, family, and property. A disorganized (even though armed) population can play hell with an invader, but what does that avail in the face of hostage taking and mass executions? History is rife with examples of invaders doing those things. Besides, I as a private citizen can’t afford some of the weapons available to the military.
                    Your “slavery” meme rings hollow. Troops are not automatons. They have responsibility to their chain of command, their fellow warriors, and to the people they defend.
                    Brainwashed by the military? Hardly. I left the Army in 1977, with nine years active duty service. I’ve lived 18 years prior to and 36 years since. That nine years is one seventh of my lifetime, and not my most formative years.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Of course you were brainwashed. Why do you think they drafted 18 year olds if they were not at a great age to indoctrinate?! Militarism is a form of slavery for you do not get to make your own decisions independant of coercion. They will shoot you for some offenses or toss you in Leavenworth. When VietNam was going on soldiers were indoctrinated to think of the enemy as “gooks” not real humans to make it easier for our soldiers to kill. Yes, militaries are better at murder than militias would be. The question in my mind is at what cost a standilng army? Is using slave labor a proper way to protect a free country? Also don’t forget all the tax dollars stolen from people to support the military whether or not one wishes it. I think our own military is a far greater danger to individual liberty here than foreign armies over “there”. As the UN gets more and more power you will see US troops being used to put down individuial liberty abroad and eventually here as well.

  10. dental problemsNo Gravatar says:

    I think you are confusing government with supply and demand. The US has more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      With demand, there is always supply. Look at the drug trade for the most obvious example.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      I think Switzerland has the title of most guns per capita. Military service is compulsory and everybody takes their service weapons home to keep. Shooting is the national pastime in that country.

      Nobody invades Switzerland.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Perhaps, but most aguns are not owned by the working class. They are way too exopensive and ammo is so high that one can’t afford to shoot a gun if you own it!

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Which “working class” are you referring to? Those who habituate street corners, smoking $10/pack cigarettes and drinking malt liquor 40s when the welfare checks come in?
        Where are you looking to buy ammunition? Even when they were “impossible” to find, a brick (525 rounds) of .22LR cost $40. Shotgun shells cost $7 and up for a box of 25, 30.06 rifle rounds go for $16 and up, and 9mm pistol rounds can cost $20/50 rounds of Full Metal Jacket or $20/20 hollow point Dead Right There.
        Try this site: http://ammoseek.com/

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          I was actually referring to the real working class, those who do the work of the society. Not those who either steal a big living by playing the system (lawyers, most MDs, most teachers especially in public schools) or the ruling elite who have been running things through financial manipulation for hundreds of years. The welfare cheats that you and so many Republican types bemoan is more of an urban myth than a large drain on society. I got welfare a couple times. It is nearly impossible to live on. Few sane people would rather be on welfare than have decent employment, but there is almost no decent employment for the lower class because the system is gamed from the get go. In a true free enterprise welfare would be handled by private charities and praobably churches. Most people would be able to do OK, but you would not have ultra rich for nobody is that much more productive than other folks. The society described in Smith’s The Probability Broach would likely be close to reality in a real free enterprise.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            Really. The “Real Working Class”. Everybody I know works one way or another. Even lawyers (spit) spend a bunch of time and money getting the education to pass the bar exam.

            When tax money is no longer utilized to support welfare, I’ll stop complaining about fraud. The great majority of those people on the system for two and three generations spend much more than their welfare checks. How can this miracle of economic absurdity happen? Gold teeth ornaments, booze and smokes aren’t cheap. In a true free enterprise system, there would be damned few people incapable of supporting themselves, and their families would most likely take up the burden, but government has acted to destroy the family unit through welfare regulations since the program’s inception. Why could that be?

            You’ve read L. Neil Smith? Good. Why aren’t you working to get suffocating government out of our lives?

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Very few people who make lots of money or have power do much work if you consider work to be tied to productivity. Lawyers, bankers, flinanciers, etc. are outright thieves. Most professional people make a lot of money because the system is rigged to protect them from real competition. Health care is a prime example. A government protected monopoly with athe high prices and low servlice that economic theory predicts. But teachers are nearly as bad. So long as government protection means a lot more athan competitive ability, there is no free market.
              I do not think you actually know much about welfare recipients. Most are stuck not wanting to be on welfare. Yes, many are addicted to cigarretes, booze, or even harder crap. Lots of “free” time combined with lots of frustration is more than most low class mentalities can deal with so they revert to drugs. I hate that, but I see it more as a symptom of the government’s abuse of us all by its destruction of free enterprise than the fault of those unfortunate enough to be stuck in the bottom class. The cure is to get rid of government interference in our lives. Ultimately that means an anarchistic society, but virttually everyone has been brainwashed into seeing anarchism and chaos as synonomous. I wish I knew how to break that brainwashing, but I do not.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Actually I do “work to get suffocating government out of our lives”. I have dropped out to the extent I can. I live off the grid in the backwoods. I built my own home with my own two hands using mostly materiel available for the work of picking it up (stone). My house originally cost $1,000 for about 600 sq. ft. I heat with barrel woodstoves which are very cheap to build and pretty efficient. Since my roof is metal and walls stone, the house is nearly fireproof and very insect resistant. The point is that if a clutz like me can build his own home by getting away from government regulation and bankers BS, anyone can do it. Since shelter is usually the major cost for most people, building your own home is a big step towards personal liberty. That is why government tries so hard to keep folks from doing their own thing. I think self sufficiency is the key to individual liberty. Free trade is great, but it is better when you trade because you wish to not because you have to. I flight to keep the philosophy of freedom alive. I fear that I have lost the battle.
              I do not disagree with your desire to see welfare ended. I just think it is a very minor cause of today’s problems comapred to the enslavement of most of us by the ruling elite. Getting rid of welfare without first getting rid of the legal advantages of the ruling elite simple starves the poor without addrssing the real problem.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              “You’ve read L. Neil Smith? Good. Why aren’t you working to get suffocating government out of our lives?”

              I’ve read lots of his stuff.

  11. google incNo Gravatar says:

    You can to boost your website popularity and make impressive social impact.
    Experiment carefully and see what effect various densities have.
    s minds was You – Tube, which is the target of many DMCA requests.

  12. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    Bruce, I have never seen a true free market economy in action so I can’t swear about any aspect of it, but I strongly suspect that Babooshka is accurate that having lots of money will always get one influence, even in a free market. But you are correct that the advantages confered upon corporations by government are a big reason why corps are successful in competition with single ownerships or partnerships. I think that removing those legal advantages would go a long way towards achieving real free enterprise, but not far enough. The majority of property in the USA is owned now by people who never earned it. Until that theft is addressed it is hard to see a level enough playing field that free enterprise could actually occur.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Having lots of capital brings opportunities, including for producing something more efficiently than others, but having productive people (because they are wealthy) is not evil. Sure, some will spend their money on making the lives of others miserable, but most of that which goes on today seems to be at the behest of Other People’s Money, i.e. bank bailouts which then go to banker’s bonuses, which I consider unethical. Sure, George Soros made his billions fair and square (cough!) but he does not spend his wealth to make a better world (in his opinion) directly, but rather, he spends it to influence elections and ballot initiatives and the UN … and other such coercive bodies. He is a picture-perfect example of how money buys influence – when governments have decided to legislate or regulate things they have no right to do. If those said governments merely restricted themselves to protecting life, liberty, and property, then Soros wouldn’t gain anything by lobbying, and he’d spend his money elsewhere. Who knows, maybe he’d even do some good in the world in that case.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        As a poor man I see daily how the inequity of the system screws us all. I am not oppossed to wealthy people who have earned their wealth, but most do not. They steal it one way or another. Legalized theft for the most part, but not linked to productivity and so not earned. In a truly free enterprise oriented society there would be few “wealthy” people for abilities just do not vary so much that one man is worth millions of times what others are worth. Government and corporations work hand in glove to protect the perqs and power of the ruling elite. So long as that elite is allowed to keep their largely stolen wealth any attempt at free enterprise will be a joke for the rich will buy protection from governments and private sources while we poor keep producing the golden eggs the rich steal.

  13. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Huapakechi says:
    October 24, 2013 at 7:53 pm

    “Ray, you know they get off on offending everyone else. I wouldn’t doubt they’re arranging to attend the next freak and sodomite convention in SF.”

    I know, but I get off on calling them on it. LOL They can have SF and their freak show.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Ray, I notice you ignored the message and insulted the messagers. That usually indicates that a person has no real argument and so falls into adhominem attacks. As Heinlein noted, politeness is the grease that allows people to associate. Perhaps you might remember that next time you are “getting off” insulting folks.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        I have no desire whatsoever to associate with assholes like you or babs or Mark.

        You might want to keep that in mind before you waste any energy trying to enlighten us here.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Wrong. Re-read your post. You get off on the back and forth. You said so yourself: “I know, but I get off on calling them on it”

          Not only do you enjoy our association, it actually gives you physical pleasure. Bizarre to say the least, but not surprising that you can’t follow what you said from one post to the next.

  14. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    I can’t tell if you guys are just locked in the mentality of 6th graders calling each other gay and thinking that’s funny or, much more likely, that you’re jealous that this guy actually lives his life according to his beliefs while you guys rant against the government and society we live in without lifting your finger to change a damn thing.

    You guys just like to bitch and moan, and probably are just downright lonely so this is all you have. He on the other hand is doing everything to reduce the government influence in his life. He is a real right winger while you guys just sit there talking big and doing nothing to change your life to reflect your beliefs. Other than probably owning a ton of guns, congratulations. Hahaha, you two clowns are truly pathetic hypocrites.

    I challenge you both: what have you done to reduce the government influence in your lives? Let’s see who’s really anti-government and let’s see who bitches about the gov while comfortably enjoying all the perks it provides. Should be interesting!

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Babs, I actually am not a right winger. I see the right and left as equally idiotic but with certain areas of accuracy. I liked what the comedian Pat Paulson said when “running” for president: “Iam neither left or right wing. I am center of the bird.. If one is too much left or right wing one tends to fly in concentric circles”.

  15. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    I am sure that you’d love to know what I’ve done to reduce government intrusion into my life, but that will have to remain one of the great mysteries in your life because it is none of your fucking business.

    And what makes you assume that I consider anything the government does to be a ‘perk’ or at least a sufficient one to offset their intrusions?

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      You can’t talk about how you live up to the politics you preach ? I’m not asking how small your genitals are, so spare me the privacy BS. You don’t seem to have trouble answering anything else. You think I can’t see through you? Hahahaha.

      C’mon Ray. Wouldn’t you be proud of the way your life matches your values? Why are you hiding in shame? What’s the big secret? That you’re a giant hypocrite? We already know that. So fear not. Show us how you reject government intrusions.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Incredible. You hide behind a screen name and you tell me that I lack the courage of my convictions.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Right out of alinsky’s “rules for radicals”

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Do you not remember my post where I documented tea party groups and rallies distributing alinsky reading material and tactics? Would you like me to repost it? I’ll gladly do it and you can retire this tired old line that you think takes a jab at the left.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            Here ya go:

            Speaking of Alinsky, what is your fascination with him? I notice it’s a typical right wing attack, but I find it quite ironic, since the Tea Party uses it to train their members.

            FreedomWorks, one of the huge forces in the Tea Party movement, uses his book to train its members.

            “Adam Brandon, spokesman for FreedomWorks, which has been organizing tea-party activists and includes Mr. Armey as chairman, says the group gives Mr. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called “Rules for Patriots” is distributed to its entire network.
            Mr. Brandon called the effort to associate Mr. Obama with Mr. Alinsky “a double-edged sword.” While Mr. Alinsky was an avowed liberal Democrat, “his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective,” Mr. Brandon said.
            He cited the group’s sending of tea-party activists to town-hall meetings. “When the first five people step up to the microphone to challenge a congressman,” he said, “it completely changes the dynamic of the town hall—he spends all of his time defending himself.”

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702046242045771772729 26154002.html

            “Using the “Rules for Radicals” book by Saul Alinsky as a start, a campaign manager from the Washington, D.C., office of FreedomWorks speaks in Albany”

            http://www.freedomworks.org/news/albanys-freedomworks-manager-tra ins-group

            “Two dozen Albany Tea Party members participated in a training session through the national organization FreedomWorks. Attendees learned how to grow their organization and how to have more impactful and educational campaign strategies.

            Nan Swift traveled from Washington D.C. to conduct the training and says there is one goal to the half day session. “We’re really hoping that at the end of the day everyone leaves with the tools to be able to examine bills and communicate free market issues to their neighbors and teach them how to get involved” says Swift.

            The book utilized during the training is “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky.”

            http://potomacteapartyreport.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/freedomwork s-doing-alinsky-strategy-training/

            Ah, right wing hypocrisy. It is a never ending fountain of bullshit.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              The right uses Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals because it has to, and there is nothing hypocritical about using the left’s own tactics against it. The right wouldn’t need to fight dirty if the left didn’t, but since it does, the right does too. What is surprising is how long it took the right to discover this. In any case, clothing yourself in the false air of calling hypocrisy in others is as transparent as it is pathetic. In other words, it is entirely fitting of you.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                You are like a child saying “but he did it first!”. It is 100% hypocritical of anyone on the right to try and insult the left/Obama by invoking Alinsky when the right uses it openly and proudly.

                ” In any case, clothing yourself in the false air of calling hypocrisy in others is as transparent as it is pathetic. In other words, it is entirely fitting of you.”

                That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Maybe try again?

                ““Adam Brandon, spokesman for FreedomWorks, which has been organizing tea-party activists and includes Mr. Armey as chairman, says the group gives Mr. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called “Rules for Patriots” is distributed to its entire network.
                Mr. Brandon called the effort to associate Mr. Obama with Mr. Alinsky “a double-edged sword.” ”

                A double edged sword. Do you understand what that means? It means that by trying to denigrate Obama by associating him with Alinsky, you are being HYPOCRITICAL. You can try and blame the left all you want. They made us use Alinsky! We didn’t want to! Ahhhh poor us! We are victims here! Hahahaha you pathetic little man. Have some damn self respect.

                How stupid can you be?

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              From Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Know your enemy as well as you know yourself and you will win every battle.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            Actually, most of your posts are eminently forgettable. As to TEA party groups distributing those materials, it does help to know one’s enemies. alinsky was a devout communist, after all. He differed from main line socialism in that he advocated continuing revolution as the goal rather than the means to achieve the ‘goal’ of socialism.

  16. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Hey babs, This post was such a high hanging curve I’ve got to take a swing at it. Hypoberle is not always effective.

    “Which is why you need someone to police/regulate these forces.”
    Recall a company by the name of “Standard Oil”? Since you are ignorant of history, you probably don’t. That was a classic monopoly. Their competitors weakened ’em before the “regulators” would step in, (bought algore’s daddy, for all the good that did)
    “who pays for the roads? bus stops? street lights? police?”
    Those who utilize such services, who else? When ya let “government” make these decisions and mandates ya wind up with mass transit that nobody uses, bullet trains to nowhere like kaleeforneeya is building, and bureaucratic stupidities like obamacare.
    “What incentive would there be for a company to not pollute, dump its waste in the water supply like we already see today?”
    Profit? Paying lawyers is more expensive than bribing bureaucrats. Efficiency is it’s own reward.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Except in a free market economy no one is FORCED to pay for these things. The people who use roads/bus stops/police could not pay for it and still use it.

      Companies are, today, spilling oil, cheating consumers, etc. They will fight any responsibility to the end. So wouldn’t that disprove everything you said? Denying responsibility is the most efficient method when it comes to profits. Companies today operate with the same bottom line that they would in a pure free market economy. So why are you trying to pretend that in such an economy, they would all of a sudden admit fault and ask to pay damages? That makes absolutely no sense. You have no idea what you’re talking about, like usual. Danny, stick to collecting your government check and talking about old times. That’s all you’re qualified for.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        You write: “Companies today operate with the same bottom line that they would in a pure free market economy.”

        Complete and utter BS!! Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank, and most of the other banks would have imploded in 2008, if not sooner, except for bailouts they received by Congressional approval, which were not supported by taxpayers and which would not have happened in a free market. Instead, they used the bailouts to fund massive bonuses and continue to do so today.

        Oh, by the way, would you like to take a guess which political affiliation most of the big bankers are, and to which party they contribute most of their campaign cash, Babs? I’ll give you one guess. And it isn’t Republicans.

        • boogaboogaNo Gravatar says:

          Citigroup:

          Top Candidate Recipients, 2011-2012
          Mitt Romney (R) $488,249
          Barack Obama (D) $208,702
          Jim Himes (D-CT) $63,450
          Tim Johnson (D-SD) $63,000
          Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $58,500

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Bruce, what are you talking about? Do you know what the bottom line means? It has nothing to do with being bailed out. It means that the #1 motivation for a company is net profit. That is the bottom line. At least put in some effort when you respond.

          “and which would not have happened in a free market.:”

          How would you know? Theory is not reality. If all of a sudden, all the big banks and lenders would collapse, what do you think would happen? Start your own society and experiment then let us know.

          The US has never had a free market economy. We’ve always had taxes, we’ve always redistributed wealth. Our country was founded that way, so why are people like you so fixated on changing it into something that no country has ever experienced?

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            The short answer is that the free market is compatible with personal liberty. No not the BS that passes today for the free market, though even approximations of the free market do supply materiel wealth for all a lot better than socialism. It is my contention that homo sapiens are not fully human without individual liberty. Thus to maximize one’s potential one needs freedom both socially and financially.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        ***Except in a free market economy no one is FORCED to pay for these things. The people who use roads/bus stops/police could not pay for it and still use it.***
        So you advocate forcing people to pay for unneeded and unnecessary expenditures by government at all levels so that these entities can justify taking the property and resources of others? I’m paying for a damned light rail system in Minneapolis that I’ll never ride, even if I live long enough to see the damned thing completed. And it’s likely that that boondoggle will never come close to full ridership or breaking even, even when it’s not shut down by union strikes.
        ***Companies today operate with the same bottom line that they would in a pure free market economy.***
        So all the various regulations, tarriffs, and laws capriciously and arbitrarily enforced have no effect on a company’s “bottom line”? Tell that to Gibson Guitar Co, among others.
        ***Danny, stick to collecting your government check and talking about old times. That’s all you’re qualified for.***
        I’m irritating you, which makes my day. I’ve read rules for radicals. your sneers slide right off. What makes you think I get a government check?

  17. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNa_lpLAb9U

    just to piss off the hoplophobes

  18. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Babooshka says:
    October 30, 2013 at 6:28 pm

    “Isn’t it amazing that these right wingers throw the term tyranny around right and left, talk about how they need guns to protect themselves from such tyranny, yet like you said, are often very pro military? I also think it’s disgusting that tax payers fund these pawns for years after they come back from (often failed and pointless) wars. All while they spend their days ranting against the government and entitlements. The irony/hypocrisy is just inescapable.”

    What is inescapable is your stupidity.

    One signs up to serve the country but doesn’t get to pick and choose their assignments. The proper use of the military is to serve on foreign lands when our national interests are at risk. The military is often misused but that doesn’t — or shouldn’t — reflect on those who served. Government over reach enforced by armed forces — whether civilian or military — is what we rail against and protest. There is no hypocrisy in that. The only glaring thing is your own ignorance.

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      “There is no hypocrisy in that. The only glaring thing is your own ignorance.”

      as wel as the fact that of us veterans,and those still serving,swore an oath to the constitution

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      “The proper use of the military is to serve on foreign lands when our national interests are at risk”

      Really? What national interests have been at risk since WW2? I’m curious.

      And why do you pretend like a soldier is braindead and has no idea what he’s doing. Durrrrr I’m just here to serve durrrr I can’t think durrrr we’ve been at war for 10+ years in the middle east, I wonder what could happen if I sign up.

      And what’s most interesting about you military fools is that you think that the best/only way to serve your country is by joining some kind of armed forces. But I guess that goes back to the durrrrr thing. We need good sheep to do our dirty, tyrannical work.

      If our government often misuses the military, like you say, wouldn’t you think to yourself, hrm, maybe I should try and serve in another way? It’s pathetic of you to take all responsibility away from the soldier. You don’t think many of those who sign up WANT to do exactly those things? Like going overseas? Being in combat? Fighting the endless wars in the middle east? You like speaking for all soldiers? Heck, people like Danny here openly talk about how they enjoy killing communists and wouldn’t mind starting up again. They just need a legal channel to kill and oppress others, and the armed forces certainly provide that.

      But hey, keep on promoting our military prowess while complaining about tyranny at home. You don’t look stupid at all. Really.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        I started out by saying ‘proper use’ of the military and then you rambled on about improper uses.

        Now really, who is the fool here?

        With your every post you show the world just how much of an ass hole that you are.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Now Ray, you know he’s not an asshole. Assholes provide a useful function. He’s a hemorrhoid.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          I think you are the fool here Ray if you honestly believe in militarism which is anti-individualism as a tool to protect individual liberty. Consider for a moment athe fact that a soldier can be executed for failure to obey orders in combat even when said orders would get him killed! That is about as anti-individual libaerty as one can get!

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Where did you get that interpretation of what I said?

            You are a fool who puts words into the mouths of others.

            I hate when people suggest that the military defends our freedom. They don’t and that isn’t their job. Their job is to remove threats to our safety. It is our job to defend our liberty at the ballot box and to insure that the military isn’t misused. We have failed miserably at that job.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              OK, he’s a sophist hemorrhoid.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              So I am a fool, eh. All I am trying to do is point out that militarism and individualism are at odds. Individualism is compatible with freedom. Militarism is not, especially not for the soldier. Thus I think that the original concept of the founding fathers of not having a standing military but and armed clitizen militia instead was and is the only way to have defense without a military which will normally be loyal to the government not the people. I do agree that the military is not there to defend your freedoms, but in practice is often there to take them away. The power of a standing army is too great a temptation for whatever government happens to abe in the saddle at the moment, so it matters little what we common men try to do with government . So long as the military exists whoever is in power will try to use ait to further their own agendas.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                It’s good that you can admit it. That’s a start.

                Go back to what I originally said — proper use. The proper use of the military is defensive and against foreign enemies.

                It is the current occupant of the White House who is trying to use his power against the military while at the same time indoctrinating the military against the American people.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  You’re right, let’s go back to what you said:

                  So you said: ““The proper use of the military is to serve on foreign lands when our national interests are at risk””

                  Then now you say: “The proper use of the military is defensive and against foreign enemies.”

                  Do you know what you’re talking about? You seem confused and unable to follow what you yourself posted. So what is the “proper use” for the military again? Defensive? Offensive? And what national interests are you talking about on foreign lands?

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    Are you really as stupid as you sound?

                    Offensive and defensive uses of the military are both proper, depending on the circumstances.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Hahaha. Oh Ray.

                      Only you can contradict yourself completely and then say it’s both. And then to further distance yourself from reality, you only talk about what you think the military is “supposed” to do. Well the rest of us live in the real world where the military does its thing, some good but mostly bad.

                      Like the other poster said, if you believe in individual freedom, you cannot believe in militarism. We pick sides in a war and we finance/train/support one side while helping kill the other. Picking one side directly means you are infringing on the freedoms of the other. One group wins over the other and because we influenced it. So you should really think again about the other poster’s point that militarism, especially at US levels, is an enemy to individual freedom for many people in many countries.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Ray, Babs and I probably disagree about a lot of things, but she is spot on about the military screwing over foreilgn folks freedoms. But even worse is that they are fucking over our freedoms as they push US hegemony around the world. One of the “pillars of the state” that Filthy Pierre of the Connections wrote about many years ago is “patriotic appeals”. The government needs outside enemies to justify the military and huge taxation and loss of individual liberty here at home. Notice after 9-11 the kneejerk patriotism displayed by so many and a turning off of their logical minds. The physical evidence today strongly suggests that Bush and Co. orchestrated 9-11 to get The Patriot Act and the war in Afganistan. Also notice that when Congress was in virtual gridlock they had no problem renewing the Patriot Act which is a horrible affront to individuial liberty. Wise up. The military is a big tool of governmental oppression both here and abroad. Free men don’t subject their judgement to idiots by being in the military.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Seems like you are arguing with two components of a schizophrenic personality, one being the “reasonable” disagreement and the other is total lib indoctrinated “o”bot. I wonder when the third and fourth personalities will come out?

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Proper or improper, the power of the military is way too much temptation for government to avoid misusing. Obama is simply the latest in a long line of misusers. Hell, Bush’s misuses would put him on trial before the world court except that he has way too much power. Both leftists and rightists use government to promote their agendas. That includes using the military.
                  I do find it amazing that the rightwing are so supportive of militarism in general when they claim to be for smaller government!

      • boogaboogaNo Gravatar says:

        Soldiers are overly glorified tools of war – tools to be used and cast aside when broken. There is no honor in being a soldier – it’s a job – and one of the duties you must do is to kill better than the other guy so you can survive and be able to kill again another day.

        War is theft – it is robbery, extortion, torture and murder. It is the last choice of honest men and the first choice of a scoundrel. And soldiers – god help them – are the tools used for the crimes.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          You are one sick, twisted, cynical SOB.

          If you are living in America, don’t you hate yourself for being here?

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          ***Soldiers are overly glorified tools of war – tools to be used and cast aside when broken. There is no honor in being a soldier – it’s a job – and one of the duties you must do is to kill better than the other guy so you can survive and be able to kill again another day.

          War is theft – it is robbery, extortion, torture and murder. It is the last choice of honest men and the first choice of a scoundrel. And soldiers – god help them – are the tools used for the crimes.***
          Speaks the sheep.

          Even Nevil Chamberlain admitted that appeasement and negotiation were useless when faced with rapacious greed, racial hatred, and socialist ideology. Without the Soldier, the civilian is at the mercy of whatever warlord or criminal boss that decides he can take from his neighbor country with impunity.

          Too many times in history we have had the lesson taught to us and then forgot, then had to hold off the enemy at a tremendous cost in lives and treasure while we rebuilt the forces that finally defeated our enemies.

          “If you want peace, Prepare for war.” Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus.

          “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.” Ronald Reagan

          Your wives and families sleep peaceful because of the sacrifices of the soldiers you so casually denigrate and malign. Do you think there would have been no “Boston Marathon bombing” if our troops were not bringing the fight to the terrorist’s homelands? May I remind you that American blood and treasure were lost DEFENDING the families and lands of the vermin who perpetrated that act?

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            So you give up your freedom to a military machine in the name of protecting liberty?! The armed acitizenry can defend itself without need of most of the standing millitary. The politicians use the military to create the very situations that make us hated throughout the world. Then they claim to need more military to defend us! Asinine!!!

          • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

            “Too many times in history we have had the lesson taught to us and then forgot, then had to hold off the enemy at a tremendous cost in lives and treasure while we rebuilt the forces that finally defeated our enemies.”

            Oh,the “hollow army” I entered in 1981,after the Jimmy Carter debacle,or the stripping down of everything during the Clinton drawdown,when I fired a SINGLE mortar round during annual training in ’97?

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              How about the military of the late 1930s when a “tank” was a truck with tank painted on it, and troops practiced rifle drill with broomsticks. carter is the primary reason I left the Army. I could see what was coming.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Extremely well said!!

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Well put. Notice that Ray did not respond to your comment really but fell into adhominem attack mode.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          I’ve been on these pages for a year and a half and I do tire of trying to explain things to idiots who are not interested in a discussion, let alone learning. Thus, a well placed insult provides me with the release that I seek.

          • boogaboogaNo Gravatar says:

            Wah wah wah.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Ray, I do understand your frustration. I am a dominant male who emotionally thinks he is always correct even though intellectually I realize that “it ain’t necessarily so”. But in these pages I normally try to hold down my aggression as being counterproductive.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Am I in the presence of a saint? Nope, just an holier than thou liberal.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Ray this shows your asininity for I am nowhere close to being a liberal. Of course Babs called me a right winger which is equally inaccurate. I recognize that both right and left have their strengths and weaknesses. Probably the closest description for me would be an individualsist anarchist. I must admit to a bit of confusion as to your “holier than thou” description. But I have noticed that most people do not care to try for accuracy when then do not like someone but throw out insults which to intelligent folks display your lack of intelligence. People used to try to insult my dad by calling him a communist when his philosophy was actually 180 degrees opposite as a rugged individualist. Come on Ray. I know you are pretty bright. Show it!

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  So you’re a milquetoast moderate?

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Moaderate when it is intelligent to be moderate. Extreme when that is called for. I do prefer a peaceful existence, but I recognize that violence is sometimes called for. Thus my position that the right to have guns is the right to be free even though I hate guns personally and have never owned one. Militarism is a form of slavery. Free men do not advocate slavery.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Yep. Milquetoast.
                      Just when do you consider extremism to be called for? In case you have not noticed, the “moderate” path is a gradual surrender to those who would incrementally enslave.
                      Since you have obviously never served in this nation’s defense, Military service is not slavery. It is service in defense of one’s nation. Service entails swearing allegiance and following a code of conduct, concepts which are obviously foreign to you. In recent times service in the armed forces is totally voluntary.

                    • boogaboogaNo Gravatar says:

                      Wars that should have never been fought. Mostly cold war bullshit and U.S. power grabs with the Pseudo-Glorified Military as pawns. “Support Our Troops”…otherwise it becomes too painfully obvious their lives and talents are wasted.

                      1950-1953 Korean War
                      1961 Cuba The Bay of Pigs
                      1961-1973 Vietnam War
                      1965 Dominican Republic
                      1982 Lebanon
                      1983 Grenada
                      1989 Panama
                      1991 Gulf War
                      1993 Somalia
                      1994 Haiti
                      1994-1995 Bosnia
                      1999 Kosovo
                      2001— Afghanistan
                      2003— Iraq

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Ray, you are just wrong! I have known since I was a kid 50 plus years ago that the US government used the military to promote its own ends, not to defend we the people. When the draft was still going a soldier could say he had little choice though many chose to go ato Canada or prison rather than help the military. But with a volunteer military there is no excuse for any thinking man to join. By the way, a country should serve its people not people serve the country as you stated was the reason soldiers joined.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Fritzie,

        My post started with the words ‘proper use of the military’.

        Did you miss that?

        The misuse of it by politicians do not negate the necessity to have armed forces for those proper purposes. Rather than disband the military, I’d rather do away with the politicians.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          I guess I have a hard time seeing militaries being used “properly”, whatever that would be. In any case I do not see how one can keep a standilng military that is not a constant temptation for misuse of the worst kind. If somehow one could assure that the military was only used to defend the people, there would still be the problem of defining what aconstitutes proper defense. Should the military be used to protect US corporate interests abroad for example? No, an armed populace is the abest defense. And it is the only defense compatible with indilvidual liberty for soldiers in the military give up their freedom.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            ***I guess I have a hard time seeing militaries being used “properly”, whatever that would be.***
            Perhaps this is because you would yeild to the temptation to misuse such power?

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              If I were the type looking for power in the first place ilt would be logical to use the military. The best way to avoid this is to not have a standing army to be used.

  19. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA39bE6m7o8

    and these are the idjits who the left feel should be the only ones carrying guns

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Don’t it piss ’em off when the jury knows the Constitution? Are they going to indict those who attempted to prosecute the Sheriff?

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        that’s why I’d love to sit on a jury involving a case hinging on an unconstitutional law.At worst,I’d hang the jury and cause a mis-trial,at best,an aquittal

  20. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://patriotoutdoornews.com/7993/racist-gun

    when all else fails,whip out the trusty race card

  21. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    And a yearly mental competency exam.

  22. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Fritz,

    Far worse than being a liberal (until you denied it) you are a 911 Truther.

    Sorry but there is no sense in wasting my time with you or babs.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      Great, then stop responding. But you can’t. Why? Because you can’t go one day without contradicting yourself.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        I will post when and if I choose to. I can’t help that you are not smart enough to figure out my posts.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Ah, yes, predictable as can be. Assert yourself like the alpha male you are and tell how us no one can tell you what to do. Yes. Keep wasting your time with these posts. More. More.

          So when you say “there is no sense in wasting my time with you or babs”, what exactly do you mean? Your time must not have as much value as you try to make us believe.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          It’s all that “situational interpretation” thingie that has ’em confused. Remember, this is the generation brought up on “new math” and all the other socialist claptrap.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Besides, it’s so much fun to poke ’em and listen to the impotent rage.

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      “Far worse than being a liberal (until you denied it) you are a 911 Truther.”

      I know a guy who pulled bodies out of the pentagon-he does’nt have much use for thruthers.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        I bet that Ted Olsen doesn’t either. His wife (Barbara) was on that plane and they spoke just moments before it crashed into the Pentagon.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      I am not familiar with the term “911 Truther” so I can’t say if I actually am one or not. Guessing at your meaning, if you mean the idea that the 9-11 “attacks” were orchestrated by our own government, I was convinced by the laws of physics which was my college major. The documentary Loose Change posits many questions concerning 9-11 and has convinced me of the likelihood of it being an inside job. This should not come as much of a surprise to any freedom lover. Governments everywhere are corrupt. It would be amazing that the US government were the only exception.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Have you ever heard the term ‘inbreeding’?

        You been all alone in your own little world for so long that you may be the product of inbreeding.

        How is it possible that anyone who claims to be informed to not have ever heard of ‘911 Truther”?

  23. boogaboogaNo Gravatar says:

    The good news in all of this mess is that the NRA and gun nuts are their own worst enemy and the tide will turn against them. They WILL die off!

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Great. Can I count on you to support all the crazy laws they seek to enact, and repeal all the laws they seek to repeal, so as to hasten this process which you view as inevitable?

      Thanks!

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Wrong again. My three boys have guns. Their wives have guns. Their children (5 so far) will have guns, and I’ll make sure any great grandchildren are responsible gun owners.

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      “The good news in all of this mess is that the NRA and gun nuts are their own worst enemy and the tide will turn against them. They WILL die off”

      I guess that explains arms and ammo sales breaking all records

  24. ChristopherNo Gravatar says:

    While the percentages of gun owners has in fact dropped, the NRA, and other organizations like it, continue to generally see increasing membership, with occasional declines. In addition, the raw number of gun owners increases yearly. The Decrease in % owners is simple to explain. Immigration, combined with a larger population growth rate in impoverished inner cities, give the impression that there are fewer gun owners, when in fact year over year, there are more new licenses, and owners.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      And that ignores the number of people who do not seek CC licenses, those who are buying “home defense” shotguns, and those who buy secondhand guns.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      In your post you say percentage of gun owners has dropped. You explain why you think that drop happened. Then you say that “in fact, year over year, there are more licenses and owners”. So which is it? More? Less? You gotta pick one.

      And where are you getting your numbers on NRA membership? They don’t publish them.

      • boogaboogaNo Gravatar says:

        Your expectation of anything reasonable is misplaced. Pulling facts from one’s ass requires no research, accountability, or basis in reality.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Indeed. I just find it baffling that certain people can’t put together a paragraph with an argument that doesn’t contradict itself. How can one not be able to express oneself in the most basic sense? Do you think these people speak in the same way? Contradicting themselves in the same breath? It’s truly amazing, and not in a good way. It’s really baffling and speaks to the level of education and how informed their vote will be. If you can’t present a very simple argument, how well informed is your vote going to be? I mean come on, even in high school you are taught to develop an argument and support it. So what gives?

          • boogaboogaNo Gravatar says:

            Conservatism has been linked to mental illnesses and lower IQ.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Talking about pulling ‘facts’ from one’s ass. The exact opposite has been documented and well known for years.

              Liberalism is a mental disorder and in recent news, even a liberal researcher was astonished to find that conservatives were better educated and more scientific than liberals. At least he was honest enough to publish his findings.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                I am surprised to hear that either conservatives or liberals have an advantage in IQ. Conservatives do tend to dominate in socio-financial status, but liberals dominate in academia. Since IQ is largely genetically inherrited perhaps the fact that conservatives tend to have a larger percentage of whites may explain the IQ difference, if you have your facts straight.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  You really do live in your own world and have built it into a real fantasy land.

                  Liberals are often overly ‘educated’ in college but that is indoctrination in what to think, not necessarily in how to think. Degrees do not equal intelligence.

                  I have no idea of where you formed your notions of who holds the wealth in this country but I’ve never seen anything to back up your cliam.

                  I’ve leave your racist remark stand for itself as more of your ignorance.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    I do agree that degrees do not necessarily equate to intelligence, but there is a strong correlation between high IQ (and the general intelligence called g) and college degrees especially upper level degrees in the “hard” sciences. As to my “racist” comment, I do not consider scientifically accurate statements to be racist. Whites statistically are much more intelligent on the whole than blacks. Read Professor Richard Lynn’s works on IQ and race around the world for more info.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  IQ as you ascribe it is less “inherited” than it is nurtured. It is challenge that brings forth the maximum potential of each and every individual. Watch the movie “The Blind Side” if you are too lazy to read the book. If intelligence were solely a matter of inheritance, how do you explain Herman Cain, Lieutenant Colonel Alan West, Dr. Benjamin Carson, George Washington Carver, or Fredrick McKinley Jones? Are you a racist?
                  Up until the 1950s academia was the bastion of conservatism. Today’s liberals are the result of a gradual infestation of academia by socialists. Within the confines of these institutions they are insulated from the consequences and realities of the real world and they pillory and savage any conservative who might invade their domain. That is why they “dominate” in academia.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Actually IQ is largely inherited. Anecdotal counterexamples do not refute this; read the (highly politically-incorrect!!) book, The Bell Curve. To be sure, there is a lot of statistical fluctuations from individual to individual (which is why the children of two IQ-100 parents could have IQs of 70, 100, 130, or even beyond – but with a normal distribution), but the mean IQ of a certain identified subgroup is highly resistant to change, from generation to generation, without either strong selection pressure or interbreeding with another population with a different mean. The authors of that book took a lot of PC heat for writing it, but the data is what it is.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      I did not state that there was NO genetic component, I stated that challenge was the major factor.
                      As has been proven with “global warming”, those who seek a result can find it. Those authors of “The Bell Curve” have necessarily limited their study simply because the multitude of factors involved are overwhelming. It is nearly impossible to divorce a human from his learned culture and test him, especially when the testing is devised by a different culture.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You stated that IQ was mostly not inherited, and I’m saying it mostly is inherited. There exist culture-free tests, which incidentally build upon very simple pattern-recognition elements (one spot, two spots, three spots, four spots … (what goes here? five spots, a square, or a different colored spot?) and then they get more and more complex. You don’t need to be able to read to see a pattern of counting in this element, nor to answer the question.) In any case, when people move to different countries and have children, the children largely become integrated into the new culture, but of course retain the genes of their parents. If IQ were predominantly cultural, the kids’s IQs would more resemble those their other-ethnicity classmates, and most certainly so if the kids were adopted at an early age; but, if it were predominantly inherited, the kids’s IQ’s would more resemble those of their parents, especially irrespective of adoption. In fact the latter is the case. Read The Bell Curve, is all I can suggest.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      … oh, and by “resemble” I mean statistically, having the same mean and standard deviation, and not family by family. Smart parents can have smart or dumb kids and dumb parents can have smart or dumb kids, but the overall children populations will have very similar means and standard deviations, compared to their parents but not to their peers.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Gads! Another book to read. At least it will be a subject I’m interested in. Perhaps this Winter if the cold sets in before we get snow. If there’s snow I’ll be riding my sled.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Look up Professor Richard Lynn. His work on race and intelligence around the world is very telling and not PC. For example, sukb-Saharan blacks have average IQs in the 60s. Colords (half white half black) have IQs approximately halfway between black and white averages. The race/IQ correlation exists all over the world from culture to culture. It is hard to see it as being due to racism.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    I basically agree with your assesment of how liberals came to dominate in academia. I think it was somewhat intentional. The socialists realized they could not win at the ballot box so they started putting themselves into positions of influencing kids like academia. Now most of the socialist planks from the 1920’s presidential elections are law.
                    I do not consider myself a racist, but I do believe in being truthful about politically correct BS. I think government should be totally colorblind but that free people have the right to associate with whom they please. I personally dislike most of black culture. On the other hand I have been the only white guy on basketball teams because I think blacks p;ay the game the way it should be p;ayed (run and gun).
                    It seems by identical twin studies amongst other things that intelligence is far more inherant than nurtured. Both are important, but you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              “Conservatism has been linked to mental illnesses and lower IQ.”

              It is’nt conservatives asking naval officers if Guam may capsize if an additional batallion of marines is deployed,or claiming that 2012 is the first time in the history of the republic that the opposition party has mounted a candidate against an incumbent,or that 500 million peoplw lose their jobs per week,or that we have to pass a bill to see what’s in it,or that inaminate objects have a will of their own.

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              “Conservatism has been linked to mental illnesses and lower IQ.”

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkiHU9x-3ZM

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              “Conservatism has been linked to mental illnesses and lower IQ.”

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC_ult6-Tb4

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu67KPNg_iM

          • boogaboogaNo Gravatar says:

            It is a difficult concept for them to grasp but the truth is undeniable. Those drawn to novelty score higher on IQ tests, those drawn toward the familiar show a lower IQ.

            http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist  /201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              I can see where higher intelligence could be drawn to novelty and the basic definition of conservatism is keeping the status quo so perhaps the research is accurate. However leftists are just as guilty of protecting their status quo as the right wing (with the possible exception of the arena of religion). Usually I hear right and left wings spouting their group’s party line with little thought. Years ago the libertarians crunched the numbers (I think I read it in Reason Magazine) and found that the left desired a 12% increase in government annually while the right wanted a 7% increase. Frankly I do not see it as a siginificant difference. We should be trying to eliminate government as much as possible for one can’t be fully human if not free and government and freedom are antithetical.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Do not confuse the Republican Party with being ‘right wing’ or conservative. No conservative wants government to grow but the GOP would love to expand government and to be in charge of it. There are Progressives in both parties who want bigger government. Just wearing an ‘R’ after their name does not make them ‘right wing’.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  Fritz actually agrees with you, saying “We should eliminate government as much as possible” so I must say it pains me to see you treating him with contempt. There are much larger threats to freedom and individual sovereignty than 9-11 truthers, such as people who want to ‘regulate’ gun ‘safety,’ notwithstanding the Second Amendment’s prohibitions on infringements, and the fact that the very property that makes guns dangerous, is precisely what makes them useful. (So, what could a ‘safe gun’ possibly be? The liberal answer, of course, is the one you don’t own, that the police do. Probably more particularly, to the liberal, the ‘safe guns’ are the ones the police are pointing at ‘gun nuts’ as they like to call us.)

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Since I am still not sure what a 9-11 truther is I’d appreciate a definition. If it is the belief that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by our own government, the DVD Loose Change certainly gives a lot of physial evidence indicating that probability. I have alot more faith in the laws of physics than in our controlled media.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      The official narrative of 9-11 is that a bunch of radical Islamic terrorists, under the orders of Osama Bin Laden, hijacked four airplanes and, in a suicide mission, crashed them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in PA. Since that is the official narrative, the “truthers” claim that some or all of the above is a lie, and that the _truth_ is something else. AFAIK that “truth” ranges from, at the extreme end, Dick Cheney was remotely piloting the planes himself, to other aspects such as: WTC was rigged with explosives and demolished (where a bunch of valuable and/or incriminating documents were held, and the demolition went perfectly, which rules out accidental collapse), the gold in a vault below the Twin Towers was stolen and this was a coverup, the terrorists were hired by and/or under the control of the CIA and/or the Mossad, and that the Pentagon was actually bombed, “because there is no wreckage of an airplane that hit it.”

                      What I believe has been admitted to be true is: Most of the hijackers were being watched by intelligence agencies (but were nevertheless allowed to board airplanes on 9-11), but there was an intelligence sharing wall, erected by Jamie Gorelick during the Clinton admin, that prevented the CIA and NSA from communicating with FBI, one of the hijackers was living with an FBI informant, a flight school teacher informed the FBI that he had ‘suspicious’ Middle-Eastern students (who later turned out to include the hijackers) who wanted to learn how to fly jets, but weren’t interested in learning how to take off or land, some Saudis were allowed to fly out of the country at a time when all other passenger flights were grounded, and the WTC was the subject of a previous terrorist attack, a truck bombing, by Islamic radicals in 1993. Oh – and Jamie Gorelick, who one might think should have faced questioning by the 9-11 commission for her culpability in erecting the intelligence wall that prevented apprehension of the terrorists, instead, instead, sat upon the commission herself(!!) in a truly stunning and epic conflict of interest.

                      Another aspect of the official narrative is that anyone who is a 9-11 truther is necessarily a knuckle-dragging moron, so idiotic that their opinions about everything else, and indeed their ability to reason, are instantly discreditable. Some people here apparently think so, although I don’t. I think there is easily enough evidence to indict various government agents for criminal negligence resulting in death. Of course that will never happen. Instead we have seen the government gain power and authority from their failure, which is possibly the exact opposite of the correct thing to do.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Thanks. I think given the government’s proclivities it is likely that 9-11 was an inside job. In particular the lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon and the smaller third tower that fell hours later with no plane crashing into it are very suspicious. It is doubtful that jet fuel could burn hot enough to melt steel girders but saying that enough fuel did not burn up and fell down onto the smaller tower to cause it to melt and collapse is stretching credualty to the limit!

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Hogwash.

                      http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

                      The truth manages to come out eventually. The number of bullshit theories that have to be sewn together to make the truthers come out right are too many in number. On the one hand you have a government that is inept at small things like building a bridge where there is no need and on the other hand brilliantly making three attacks on US soil look like hijackings. Those don’t mesh too well.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Airplanes have to be light to fly, so they are very thin and lightweight, at least compared to scaled-up car. Furthermore, you’ve probably seen what the remains of a car crash look like at 90 mph; how much would you expect to find at 500? Buildings aren’t built with enough steel to be 100x the strength needed to support their weight; I don’t know if instead it’s 1.3 or 2 or 5, but it’s probably not a lot more than that. Therefore, you don’t need to melt the steel to a liquid, to have the building collapse; it would be enough for the steel to lose half its strength, if the safety margin was 2x. (Ask a blacksmith whether you need to melt it in order for it to lose its strength – and then consider whether jet fuel could possibly burn as hot as wood or coal, which is what blacksmiths used to use.) Finally, while WTC collapsed in a picture-perfect way, on the other hand it was just across the street from something like small nuclear weapon’s worth of gravitational potential energy that was released upon the collapse of the towers. (E = m g h, if that means anything to you, where m = mass of the entire two towers, and h = the distance the center of gravity fell in the respective collapses)

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      If there was any doubt that you are a knee jerk drooling idiot “truther”, you have eliminated that.
                      There were tons of aluminum wreckage, dead bodies, and luggage at the pentagon.
                      The girders of the WTC towers were not melted, they were SOFTENED by the heat of burning jet fuel.
                      WTC#7 was evacuated and struck by debris and flame from WTC #1. It was allowed to burn because the fire and rescue survivors were concentrating on WTC #1 and WTC #2. (Triage, dontchaknow) It suffered a similar structural failure when the lower floor supports steel softened and it collapsed under the weight of 40 stories of building.
                      http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Point taken. I could buy the idea of the twin towers pancaking if that were the only question. The speed of fall does look suspicious in that they came down at nearly free fall speed with tiny puffs of smoke a few stories ahead of the fall very reminiscent of videos of intentional demolitions. Haups assertions about the fall of the smaller tower do test credulity though. Most of the jet fuel went up in the first few secs. How in the hell enough fell down inside another building to cause it to fall hours later is beyond my understanding of the physics involoved. I am no expert but I do have a degree in physics. As to the Pentagon, the engines are many tons of titanium steel. Physically they could not have just disappeared in a 500 mile per hour collision. The original hole in the wall was only 16 feet. Where were the two holes for the engines? The engines should have left much better holes than the aluminum nose, but the opposite is what they would have us believe. Jet plane crashes happen all over the world. These are the only ones where all the bodies were conveniently burned up and the planes totally disintegrated. It is also interesting that the FBI within mins. was confiscating all videos from areas showing the crash. They refused to release the videos. Then there are all kinds of questions about the PA crash site and the phone calls previously from the plane which scientists say could not have been made. I think an application of Occam’s Razor would indicate a real good possibility that the government set this up to get the kneejerk patriotic response which allowed the Afgan and Iraq wars, the Patriot Act, and Homeland Security. As for the theory that Haup stated that government couldn’t hide its involvement, the CIA has been doing this kind of crap for decades. Deceit is one thing government is quite good at.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    OOPS! It was Mark not Haup that stated that the government couldn’t hide something like this. My bad.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Good point, but consevatives do want some level of government. As an anarchist I wish to find a way to have zero government.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Conservatives want big government sticking its nose in women’s vaginas, the gender of married couples, which god gets top billing, how much military we have to pay for, whose votes count the most, how much we subsidize the wealthy, and which countries we “bring democracy” to. All of which makes Baby Jesus very happy it seems.

                    Read the book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Bull.

                      You take what a few people — who call themselves conservatives (or worse, what the media claims are conservatives) — and try to paint everyone as believing the same thing.

                      The concern isn’t for the woman’s vagina, but for the life that she is carrying within her. You know, that right to life thing.

                      Mostly, we want smaller, less costly, less powerful government that leaves us alone.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      I basically agree with your assesment of what conservatives in general desire. But the democrats are just as bad wanting to regulate free enaterprise out of existence, keeping most people from having guns, and pushing the socialist genada that the individual is subservient to the community. I think the libertarians have the theory about right, but they do not have balls enough to promote anarchy instead of minarchy.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Move to Somalia. That’s about as close as you’ll get to no government.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Ray on a personal level I too hate abortion, but freedom is largely about understanding that my way is not the only way. If abortion is murder as most Christian conservatives seem to think, why do you think that God needs your help to punish the murderers? I think religious fanatics use religion as an excuse to grab power. If God exists He certainly does not need you enforcing His laws for Him! As the old saying put it, “You can’t legislate morality”.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    Freedom is not doing anything that you want. With liberty comes responsibility and not violating the rights of another. There is another old say, ‘Your right to swing your arm stops where my nose begins.’

                    It is the obligation of Christians to follow God’s word and to spread the word of God. Thou shalt not murder is one of God’s laws and we have laws against murder and generally, those laws are enforced. The exception is if you are a helpless baby in the womb and a growing trend to euthanize old people who are inconvenient or costly.

                    Since we ‘can’t legislate morality’, should laws against murder be repealed? How about rape laws?

                    I will agree that laws do not stop anyone who is intent on harming another individual but the law’s real purpose is not so much to stop a behavior but to proscribe a punishment for the act.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Instant Karma ‘s gonna get cha… Gonna knock you in the head…

            http://aattp.org/update-zimmerman-charged-pointing-shotgun-girlfr iends-face/

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        “So which is it? More? Less? You gotta pick one.” No, you don’t. If a population doubles from 100 to 200 members, but the fraction of gun owners drops from 50% to 40%, still, the number of gun owners increases from 50 to 80. The number can rise even as the percentage drops.

        The fact you don’t grasp this carries grave implications about your ability to understand subtler points. Nevermind that you have seized upon the example to disparage the original poster, and all you think are similar, for his and their limited mental abilities, of course, as a result of catching them in this ‘contradiction’ which actually just exposes (1) your own ignorance and (2) your hypocrisy.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Needless to say, Boogabooga joins right in with Babs’s criticism, indicating that he too fails to grasp the difference between a number and a percentage. Sure Boogabooga, let’s hear you talk about IQ, now that you’ve established your credentials in the area.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Bruce, stop trying to act smart. Really, every time you do, you make no sense. Here’s one example:

          “Great. Can I count on you to support all the crazy laws they seek to enact, and repeal all the laws they seek to repeal, so as to hasten this process which you view as inevitable?”

          Why would he support those laws if he’s against the NRA? Don’t think too good do ya?

          then we have this gem:

          “The right uses Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals because it has to, and there is nothing hypocritical about using the left’s own tactics against it. The right wouldn’t need to fight dirty if the left didn’t, but since it does, the right does too. What is surprising is how long it took the right to discover this. In any case, clothing yourself in the false air of calling hypocrisy in others is as transparent as it is pathetic. In other words, it is entirely fitting of you.”

          When we do it, it’s okay! If you do it, it’s bad! Then something about clothing yourself in some false air which makes no sense. In other words….you can’t follow an argument.

          And here we are. With this post.

          My point is the poster isn’t saying anything. One, he hasn’t shown anything to back his statements. Second, his comparisons are meaningless. The only statistic that is important is the percentage of gun owners. The raw number without a comparison means nothing. He is trying to match the percentage to the raw number as statistics with equal value when they are not such. The raw number means nothing without a comparison to total population size. That’s great if ownership went up from 50-80, but if population size went up 500%, then it’s not only insignificant, it’s in decline compared to the total population size. But the poster is trying to stress an “increase”, when there is only a decrease.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            “Bruce, stop trying to act smart. Really, every time you do, you make no sense.”

            Of course I don’t make sense to you! My posts are harder to grasp than even percentages are! Which already elude you!

            “Here’s one example:

            “[Bruce:] Great. Can I count on you to support all the crazy laws they seek to enact, and repeal all the laws they seek to repeal, so as to hasten this process which you view as inevitable?”

            [Babs:] Why would he support those laws if he’s against the NRA? Don’t think too good do ya?”

            He had just said that NRA members were their own worst enemy, so letting them have what they ask for would *accelerate* the process of them unraveling themselves. Much like giving them the rope to hang themselves, as it were. Presumably, if the NRA were their own worst enemy, there’s nothing better that can possibly be done, except letting them have their way. (To spell this out for you a little more slowly, if he tries to obstruct the NRA himself, then he’s trying to be an enemy of the NRA, which, however, he can’t possibly do better than they can, if, in fact, ‘they are their own worst enemy.’)

            On the one hand, it isn’t rocket science, but, on the other hand, this is you we’re talking about. How many IQ points should I shave off my posts, so that you are able to grasp the points I am trying to make? Since, after all, when I “try to act smart,” you can’t understand the points I am trying to make? (Did the slow-down, just for you, help you out up above there?)

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              All that and you didn’t respond to anything in my post. Bizarre, isn’t it?

              This is to answer yours: “Much like giving them the rope to hang themselves, as it were.” That is the key part of the post. Saying someone is the worst enemy is an expression. Obviously it doesn’t mean that you should give that person the rope, or in this case, does it mean you would betray your beliefs and support the NRA positions this poster is obviously against.

              You don’t need to type so much when you have so little to say.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Still resorting to sophistry I see.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                I was quite parsimonious in my first reply, “Can I count on you to support the NRA…?” which, however, flew over your head, although, in your misunderstanding, nevertheless, you took the opportunity to insult me. So, I spelled it out for you, and then you turn around and attack me for the length of my post, explaining that I have nothing to say. Only snakes criticize brevity and then criticize verbosity. No post is “just right” by you and by these acts you demonstrate that you are actually a troll and not here for any sort of honest discussion.

                Well, you can go to hell, troll.

                (N.B. this post has a length between the one that was too short, and the one that was too long. So, is it just perfect?)

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Babs, I forgot: Have you figured out what a percentage is, yet?

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  Bruce, your reply length is unsatisfactory.

                  To answer your question, either you missed my post, or read it and did not understand. So I will let you read it again.

                  “My point is the poster isn’t saying anything. One, he hasn’t shown anything to back his statements. Second, his comparisons are meaningless. The only statistic that is important is the percentage of gun owners (note: which has been and is in decline for a while now). The raw number without a comparison means nothing. He is trying to match the percentage to the raw number as statistics with equal value when they are not such. The raw number means nothing without a comparison to total population size. That’s great if ownership went up from 50-80, but if population size went up 500%, then it’s not only insignificant, gun ownership is in decline compared to the total population size. But the poster is trying to stress an “increase”, when there is only a decrease.”

                  In summary, when people talk about gun ownership being up or down, they are talking about RATES or if you prefer PERCENTAGES based on population. Talking about raw numbers being up while percentages are down is either someone trying to mislead you, someone not telling you anything of value, or someone who is too ignorant to understand the statistics they are discussing.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    Ya want to remind this idiot that “only a small percentage” of the billion or so muslims are fanatic radicals bent on imposing their religion on the entire world (and on their own sects they consider deviating from their definition of islam) by means of violence. If it’s ten percent, that’s only a hundred million dedicated fanatic murderers…

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “If it’s ten percent, that’s only a hundred million dedicated fanatic murderers”

                      Like an A-10 pilot said in ’91,target rich envoirnment

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Lots of buzzard bait.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Haup, though I tend to agree with you about a substantial percentage of Muslims (actually a lot higher than 10%) are radical by our western standards, I would submit to you that Christianity at various points in its history has been equally radical from other cultures’ standpoints. I think the best “solution” is what Heinlein advised, lots of elbow room!
                      I read a biography of Muhomad about a year ago. It showed him to be at least to non-Muslims a liar, murderer, thief, and by western standards a child molester. Since Islam teaches that he was the perfect human that all should try to emulate, it stands to reason that Islam and western type life are incompatible at best. Those Muslims who do live western lifestyles are not “good” Muslims. Unfortunately the same could be said for the Christians who live modern lifestyles but for different reasons. All religion is irrational in its basis. In the US there is a basic balance of power between the different religious sects which allows most of we atheists to get by with little interference, but if one were to gain preeminence we would be just as screwed as the Muslim counties I fear.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      The difference is that Christianity has had a reformation, such that Christians (by and large … 99.9999% of them at least) no longer stone adulterers to death, etc. However, Muslims have not had such a reformation and continue to stone adulterers (or, charge them with rape) today. There is nothing either Christians nor Muslims can do about the past, but opportunities exist to do things in the present. Which Muslims, by and large, do not appear eager to take, as far as I am able to determine. For example, there are no-go regions in several countries, including France, where non-Muslims are beyond “not welcome” – they are in imminent danger, including police and fire fighters. Something one might not expect in a “civilized” Western country. (We have some pretty dangerous neighborhoods in this country too, but fire fighters can go to them, at least.)

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Well Fritz, not being a Christian, I have a vantage that even you (as an avowed atheist) can appreciate.
                      Christianity has never been a religion of conquest. Even the Crusades were a response to muslim territorial aggression.
                      Christianity has matured, islam is still mired in the sixth century.
                      Christianity is overall a religion of tolerance. islam, not so much.
                      In the United States, we have a culture of religious tolerance. Your atheists and muslims seek to end this. Reap the whirlwind.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      The atheists I know are quite tolerant of other folk’s religious beliefs. I do see them as irrational, but irrationality is pretty normal for most people. I agree that Islam seems to be mired in the past, but I am not sure what you mean that Christianity has matured. All religion is pretty infantile. Thinking that their all knowing and all powerful God can be swayed by their begging (praying) for favors or their adulation (worship) seems damned childish to me.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  I think that the fact that Christians no longer stone adulterers has more to do with the balance of power between religions in the West than “reformation”. I remember a preacher telling me that it was perfectly OK for the Israelis to machine gun down Arabs for the Jews were God’s chosen people. My Baptist preacher neighbor hates Catholics and hardly considers them Christian but just a cult. The point is that given the circumstance of a totally dominant religion in a country as in the Muslim world, I can see Christians coercing the hell out of anyone openly defying their beliefs. Human nature does not change just because one is raised in a different culture.
                  I was not aware of the no go regions in France, detc. due to Muslim threats. Thanks for the info. It does not surprise me much. Most Muslims who have immigrated to Europe are low grade intellects who are easily led into religious extremism.

  25. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    GSTANZ67 says that bitching is not the beginning of substantive change. I think you are wrong. People get upset, bitch about it, and sometimes do something that causes substantive change. If they did not care enough to bitch, most people would never care enough to do anything about it either.

  26. Rose WilesNo Gravatar says:

    My daughter has been wanting one for a long time so I figured that it would be a GREAT Christmas present. We had a cat before but he died 2 years ago. If anyone has one, or knows anyone who has one, please let me know. We would like to have a baby so that she can see it grow up.

  27. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “Christianity has never been a religion of conquest.”

    What planet are you from?

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      You make a good point though I doubt Christianity was ever so violent as Islam. Still the Spanish Conquistadors were certainly using Christilanity as an excuse for conquest to name only one group.

  28. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    babs,

    It is evident that you have no understanding of ‘rights’ whatsoever.

    A right is not granted. It is inherent in the person by virtue of their birth or as stated so eloquently by our Founders, “… endowed by our Creater…”.

    Pennsylvania was found to be keeping a registry of gun owners in direct violation of both Pa and federal law. When sued over it, the Pa Supreme Court (in their infinitely contorted wisdom) ruled that because not every gun owner was on the list and no every gun owned by the ones on that list, that it really wasn’t a list and thus it was perfectly legal. I can only suppose that they are as informed as you and totally ignorant of the word ‘compiling’ or ‘building’ when it comes to making a list.

  29. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark says:

    “I find it ironic that one would cite abortion as a right equal to easy gun access.”

    Where did he (or anyone) state that?

    No one has a right to harm or kill another being but you baby killers cloak it in the right of privacy in order to justify it.

    Do you really believe your bullshit or do you just say it to get your way?

  30. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Ray, I am talking about legal rights. You are talking about rights that you claim are given to you by….a supernatural being.

    I understand your point but I have a few questions:

    Can you explain which rights come from which gods?

    And can you explain, if you can, what rights your god has given you in regards to firearms? And how do you know this is such?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Must not be this one. Jesus doesn’t seem too keen on those stand-your-ground thingies.

      Matthew 26:52-54 ESV

      Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      babs, somehow you have been educated (or pretend to have been educated) to the point that you can not understand even the most basic concepts.

      We have the right to life — as endowed by our Creator. With that is the right to defend it, be it with a rock or a knife or a stick or a stick that goes boom.

      Governments do not grant rights. Their job is to protect our God given rights. Governments can only grant privileges and subsequently revoke them.

      Once you grasp those basics, perhaps we can continue with a real education for you.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Why am I not surprised you couldn’t answer any of my questions and just repeat the same thing over and over?

        Where in the Bible does it say you have firearm rights?

        You are truly crazy. Think about it. You are talking about a supernatural being that you claim gives you rights to firearms. You are talking about imaginary spirits granting you the right to any weapon technology you desire.

        And when you say our creator, I’m guessing you mean the Christian god? Which means you are basically eliminating religious freedom and telling people that the Christian god gave them the rights they have. Very interesting.

        God given rights = man made rights. Sorry to break it to ya!

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          For someone who claims to be so smart, you are pretty darned stupid.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Such a cogent rebuttal.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              This ground has been covered ad nauseum. I am not going to keep repeating myself because you have no interest in changing your viewpoint or even being open minded.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Ray, you know he’s so “open minded” that the wind whistles through his head.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Then shut the fuck up.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Does it really piss you off when you run into opposition? Does it bother you when someone disagrees with you?

                  I sure hope so.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    When did we cover which gods gave humans which rights? You aren’t repeating yourself with that. You are however with the “our creator gave us our rights”. Speaking of which, when you say “our creator”, are you speaking for Christians? And if that’s the case, do gods from other religions give the same rights?

                    Where in the Bible does it talk about due process? Where does it talk about the right to plead the fifth? Or the right to a speedy trial? Rights against search and seizure? Or are those not rights given by God? Are all the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights bestowed by your creator? Or are certain ones bestowed by man?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh, how could I forget, freedom of religion. Is that a right given by our creator? Something tells me no. Weird how the first commandment in Christianity and the first amendment of the BoR seem so contradictory. Maybe you can explain?

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      There are none so blind as those who will not see.

                      You are willfully blind and equally ignorant.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Thank you. I’m trying to learn, please forgive me. But please, if it makes you feel better about yourself and your world views, insult me and call me ignorant.

                      Here, I’ll make it easier and reduce it to one sentence. Which rights in the BoR are given by your creator and which are given by men?

                      Do you want to claim that the first amendment is a right given by your creator?

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Babs, as an atheist I would agree that “God given rights” equals man made rights. I do not think that “rights” exist in any meaningful sense except a convenient fiction to help grease the interactions in societies and are thus situational. However, since the vast majority of humans value their life above most anything else, the “right” to life will be almost universally accepted. That logically leads to a “right” to defend yourself which leads to a “right” to have weapons to defend one’s self. I see it as quite pragmatic. The real question in my mind and where I differ from most libertarians is do we as humans have a “right” to defend our freedoms with deadly force. I say I don’t care about “rights” but only the practical consequences of doing so.

          • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

            The first three drives / emotions / things ways of processing information that categorize any living entity are
            Will it eat me — fear
            can I eat it — aggression
            make more of me — sex.

            these almost define what it is to be alive. In fact the book, the adolescence of P1 describes how an artificial intelligence may come to be just by giving a computer program two basic drives: Do not get detected, and get more resources.

            And they are in that order.

            So, yea, there is no way that you can have life without the desire to remain alive.

            You may want to read my article orwells boot. Just do a search on those terms and click on the first link

  31. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    This edition of the Gun Report is dedicated to 97-year-old Russell Dawes, winner of the NRA Distinguished Senior Marksman Award for shooting and killing his great-granddaughter and caretaker, 30-year-old Sonja James.

    Since distinguished marksman Adam Lanza opened fire at Sandy Hook, 11,348 people have been shot to death in America.

    http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/weekend-gun-report-dec -6-8-2013/?_r=0

    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

      Mark: What, exactly, is your point? Gravity makes it hard to move things. The main focus of a large percentage of arabs is killing other people.

      Here is one: http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm
      – these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause).

      Which is over ten times the number of deaths caused by guns. So unless you have a magic wand that can invoke the gun vaporization fairy why do you even raise the issue? Do you have a single bit of evidence that you have any idea of a solution that would actually work. If so, then present it.

  32. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    babs babbles:

    “Thank you. I’m trying to learn, please forgive me. But please, if it makes you feel better about yourself and your world views, insult me and call me ignorant.

    Here, I’ll make it easier and reduce it to one sentence. Which rights in the BoR are given by your creator and which are given by men?

    Do you want to claim that the first amendment is a right given by your creator?”

    This from the ignorant ass hole that tells people to STFU. You are a fool.

    The BoR grants . . . NOTHING!

    The Constitution grants . . .NOTHING!

    The government grants . . .NOTHING!

    Are you seeing a pattern?

    Try to figure it out from there for yourself.

  33. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    God grants nothing as God prohibits nothing. Look closely who decides whether you have forfeited a right. It’s man, not God. Whoever can prohibit a right is thus grantor. God has nothing to do with it.

    You may think you have a “God given right” to shit on your own land but the laws of man may come along and deny that “right”. Continue to be delusional as to where rights come from.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Well lookie here. You may have just stumbled upon the truth but you don’t even know it.

      Man is born with rights and responsibility attends each right. We are also born with free will and we can choose how to behave or not and to believe or not.

      Government are supposed to protect our rights but more often than not, they inhibit them.

      • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

        I am saving time by limiting my responses to two small sets of comments. Those that evidence a triple digit IQ, and those that are amazingly stupid.

        So — Man is born with free will. Thus infants have free will??? An infant can decide to cry or not, or to sleep or wake, or poop or pee. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Please share with us.

        Wait that is not what you meant. Infants do not have free will. Only “adults” OK… Then when does free will come into existence? Is it gradual, or does someone just wake up one day and realize that they have it? Is that what happened to you? Can you tell us unfortunate ones what it was like, cause I do not recall it happening to me?

        And since if there is this transition, then there must be some way of measuring a before and after. Will you be so kind as to inform us ignorami of this test. Also, if one acquires free will gradually, then how is it measured? In what units does one measure freewillies? Who knows, you may even qualify for a MacArthur Award, which I believe is now worth about 1/2 million

        Your answer, which will consist almost entirely of name calling, and will not answer any of the above questions (Everyone knows what ‘free will’ is does not actually answer the question) is eagerly awaited.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Like the great majority of sophists, you begin your argument by positing a completely fabricated basis, then extrapolate to prove your point.
          Babies are born with instinctive reactions. They learn “free will” as they grow. Observe any newborn and compare to a two or three year old exploring the limitations of family and society.
          It has been my experience that majority of those who profess to be intellectuals are merely adult sized children who are given to tantrums when they are contradicted or frustrated in their agenda. The main difference between that sort and vicious little simians is that those who wear clothing don’t literally fling feces, too often.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “Like the great majority of sophists” translation: those that disagree with gun lovers.

            “They learn “free will” as they grow.” Do you have evidence of free will or proof it exists? Great thinkers have wrestled with that concept for as long as man has existed.

            http://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/existentialist-vi ew-of-free-will-and-responsibility/

            Your armchair philosophy does not impress.

            “It has been my experience that majority of those who profess to be intellectuals are merely adult sized children who are given to tantrums when they are contradicted or frustrated in their agenda.” translation: I always put myself in the anti-intellectual group to feel superior.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              ***translation: those that disagree with gun lovers.***
              Like most “liberals” you see others only through your limited perceptive filters. I also disagree with those who would impose their will through government fiat.

              ***Do you have evidence of free will or proof it exists?***
              Do you have proof that it does not? Is a sociopath an example of “free will”? Life in any society involves choices. The choices one makes depend on the formative experiences of the person involved.

              ***translation: I always put myself in the anti-intellectual group to feel superior.***
              I have at various times been accused of being an intellectual, a womanizer, a martinet, a cynic, a sociopath, a drunk, and a curmudgeon. Labels do not confine me. I have found that those who apply labels to others are often seeking to target all who have differing viewpoints as inferior.

          • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

            “Like the great majority of sophists,” Ya got me. I now confess. I have a limited IQ, and more than anything I have almost no idea what most abstractions mean or are. ZERO. All those things that normal just “KNOW” like love, and truth and honor. I have no idea what they are. The exception is if the abstraction is firmly linked to actual physical things or well defined mathematical or abstract concepts. So I know truth in formal logic. But if someone were to post “it is true that you beat your wife”, — well how is that statement different from “You beat your wife”? See here, for me, the phrase ‘it is true’ has no value, and adds no value.

            The same with love. He loved her, that is why he b0ught her a nice house, and why he killed her because she was flirting. See, I have no idea what love means. So when you say that I began my argument by positing a completely fabricated basis. What did I fabricate? What was my basis?

            Then you say ‘They learn “free will” as they grow’. OK. I can accept that a baby learns to talk as she grows. We see her beginning to talk. Similarly with walking or doing math. When people have a cardiovascular accident, we may have to teach them to walk or talk again. It is an actual skill set. It can be measured. We can measure the degree to which some possess any of these. None of the above statement apply to your claim to free will. We can measure things like “self control” or the ability to follow directions. To an extent we can even teach that. But free will. You have not shown how that is measured, and in my world, if you can not measure it, then it is just a figment of your imagination.

            I will agree with your statement about people who profess to be intellectuals. I professed no such thing, As I said, I do not do abstractions well. I believe that you will agree that “innallektuls” love to demonstrate their felicity with using abstractions. In fact the fewer the specifics that refer to things in the physical world they more they seem to enjoy writing or speaking. I am simply unable to do that.

            So again. what is this free will. I am the father (fairly certain of that based on observed evidence — though he did have a phase of liking “white” chocolate for a while) of a 22 year old, and was the primary parent in charge during his infancy. I noticed that he imprinted on me, and emulated me, and learned behaviours. I have noticed that he makes choices. In important situations, he usually makes the choices that I would make. But “Watson” makes choices. Does watson have free will? Does the fact that you can not predict the choices that watson will make mean that watson has free will?

            Again, if this free will thing is so obvious, why will you not tell me how you measure it?
            Can an operation restore free will if it is lost? Did the texas tower shooter have free will?

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Most of your reply is an avalanche of balderdash, not meant to solicit a cogent answer.

              ***Did the texas tower shooter have free will?***
              Charles Whitman suffered from a brain tumor. He sought help prior to his shooting spree.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          There is an old saying:

          If you can’t dazzle ’em with your brilliance, try baffling them with your bullshit.

          You definitely fall into the latter.

          And you fail on both counts.

          • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

            Name calling: The rhetorical technique used by someone who has neither information nor logic to support their arguments. I made some very specific statements, and asked some very specific questions. You ignored all of that. You supported your argument with nothing. All you can offer is name calling — or a close relative, making the claim that I offer nothing but bullshit. And then you say that I do not do that well.

            Seriously, do you have any actual physical evidence to support any of your positions?
            I think you posted a link to demographics in Chicago. Apparently that is as sophisticated as your abilities allow you to be. You may have a few other bits of evidence. But even when we agree on positions (we are both in favor of a very literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment — Remember that in those days private individuals could own battleships — hence letters of marque) your arguments consist mostly of name calling and manipulations of language that Orwell could use as examples. And word mangling that would make Humpty Dumpty proud.

            Let me guess: You are currently not in a relationship with a woman. If you have kids, they are either somewhat or very distant from you. At most you have a college degree, and have had maybe a single science course in which you got a C. Your math is limited to accounting and arithmetic. You are a Christian and have THE TRUTH. If you could, you would see biblical (Christian Sharia?) law enforced. Not only would gays not be allowed to marry, they would be stoned to death because that is what god wants. You have not changed your mind on anything ing 20 years, and can not point to any position that you have that was not handed to you by someone in authority.

            So… How close was I?

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Not at all close.

              Nor did I post anything about demographics anytime in the recent past.

              So Mark or babs or Doug (or whoever you really are), you are just wrong again.

              You seem to rely heavily on stereotypes. Isn’t that what the left accuses the right of?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Notice how they think, anyone who disagrees gets lumped in add the same person. They’re convinced that we are just picking on them. The common fallback when you corner them is God. Chicago, and rights bestowed on them by slave owners who thought all men were equal as long as you were white and privileged.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  You still don’t get it because you don’t want to get it.

                  The Founders ‘bestowed’ nothing except a government that was to be constrained from infringing on our GOD given rights. This is true whether you acknowledge His existence or not.

                  Our rights are not limited to those listed in the BoR. See the 9th and 10th Amendments if you need more help in understanding that.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    No, I do. I am just arguing you into a corner. Trust me, it’s not hard to understand you. You don’t really say much of anything, and certainly nothing with any complexity or deep thought.

                    God gave us our rights. God gave us our rights. God gave us our rights. God gave us our rights. God gave us our rights. God gave us our rights.

                    Yes, thank you. You can sit down now.

                    How can I take you seriously if you are attempting to tell us that God gave us the right to worship other gods? I mean, it would take a really, truly, stupid person to try and convince anyone of that. Wouldn’t you agree?

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      You have yourself convinced that you are pretty smart but you really are not.

                      I am not in any corner. I am confronting a fool with little understanding of a Power greater than himself or his beloved government.

                      If one is not free to choose whether to believe in God, then your acceptance is meaningless. Not that I expect you to comprehend that.

                      But go ahead and boast about yourself anyway.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “If one is not free to choose whether to believe in God, then your acceptance is meaningless. Not that I expect you to comprehend that.”

                      You don’t understand. It isn’t the right to believe or not believe in God. It is the right to worship other gods. Something specifically prohibited in the first commandment.

              • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                Nor did I post anything about demographics anytime in the recent past.

                and I did not use the term recent. You, on the other hand were to lazy to check that you had posted on that topic. Just for grins, I will assume that your memory and knowledge of your personal life is as flawed as is your knowledge of what you have posted here 🙂

                And I can not evaluate your sentence
                “You seem to rely heavily on stereotypes. Isn’t that what the left accuses the right of?”
                Since it is comprised almost exclusively of verbs, adjectives and abstractions which I stated I just do not get. Specificially — Heavily ? how defined and measured. stereotype. What exactly is that, and why is it not appropriate? I will concede that most people tend to accuse other of various things. But that was just my throway. I noticed that you refused to address a single specific instance of information or logic in the rest of my statement.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          From a scientific stance it is hard to stipulate that “free will” exists though some quantum theorists stipulate that the statistical nature of quanta make for the possibility of free will. Be that as it may, on a macroscopic level everything seems to be deterministic including brain responses to stimuli.
          Some time ago in these pages I caught a lot of hell for suggesting that the best way for a free society to deal with the problem of “childrens rights” was to deny that kids have any rights until adulthood and consider them as their parent’s property until then. Adulthood would not be linked to a particular age but to maturity and ability to care for one’s self. Of course many libs have a kneejerk reaction saying that all humans are born with rights. As you pointed out, that is absurd. I see having kids as parental property protects them very well in the vast majority of cases and allows them to learn to be a responsible adult while allowing parents the leeway to use discipline to teach their kids without having every social busybody in your face telling you how to raise your kids. The alternative is what we have today where the state is the defacto owner of kids with parents as unpaid caretakers.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            I find it curious and paradoxical that those who are most ideologically opposed to evolution, stereotypically fundamentalist, conservative Christians, nevertheless tend to engage in behaviors that seem to encourage its action, such as: smoking themselves, or at least allowing it, eating fatty or sweet foods, riding without seat belts or motorcycle helmets, wanting to shoot criminals, or execute them when lawfully convicted after the fact, and they also tend to oppose safety nets such as welfare and other entitlement programs. On the other hand, those most stridently seeking to mandate the teaching of evolution to everyone, even those who ideologically oppose it, who I’ll call stereotypically the progressive/liberal ideologues, nevertheless do nearly everything they can from allowing evolution from having a chance to take effect. So they support all sorts of nanny-state laws, banning fatty or sugary foods, prohibiting smoking, even outdoors or in people’s own domiciles, they require seat belts and helmets, but they also seek to prevent criminals from getting shot or executed, by supporting disarmament laws and also harsh criminal penalties, especially the death penalty. And, they support poor life choices from bringing harm, through strong entitlement programs for food, housing, fuel, transportation (e.g. busses, rail) and all sorts of other things. The only exception is abortion, which tends to select those who oppose it. But why should both groups act against their beliefs in evolution?

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              I can only speak for myself but I would say that it is rooted in being able to make to make our own choices and also not dictating our choices to others.

              I think smoking is stupid and self destructive, but I don’t want the crazy prohibitions that the left wants.

              As long as you are not harming another, then you should be free to pursue your interests and habits as you choose. It doesn’t get more libertarian than that.

              For the left, they are all about control. They will use altruistic sounding motives but it is only about the control.

  34. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Thank you for quoting me, I wouldn’t have known what you were responding to.

    Ok. So God, the Christian one that is, grants the right to freedom of religion. Hey, you said it. The god that says you shouldn’t worship other gods has given you the right to worship other gods.

    Alright, now we’re on the same page. Thanks for explaining and please don’t be upset.

    Take a bubble bath and relax, you’ll feel better. Maybe throw some lavender in.

    So which rights does God give you again? You still haven’t explained. Self defense and right to life. That’s all I’ve gotten so far. Any others?

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Religious people believe by the leap of faith which is inherantly irrational. One can’t rationally expect those who can accept such superstitious nonsense to be rational when discussing their religion with you. That is one reason that democrats may be slightly more amenable to rational arguement than republicans since so many republicans are religious right wingers with the attitude that the bible said it and that is the last word.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        If that wasn’t so damn stupid, it would be funny.

        Rational Democrat is an oxymoron if there ever was one, especially when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          “The BoR grants . . . NOTHING!”

          Really? Hrm. Then who grants the rights protected in the amendments? C’mon Ray, don’t be afraid to say it.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Really, are you just forgetful or are you truly that stupid?

            I’ve said it many times and will never be afraid to say it but since you pretend to be the gatekeeper of who said what, and when they said it, I didn’t think it was necessary for me to say it again.

            OUR RIGHTS COME FROM GOD.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              Which god?

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                That’s for you to decide. Choose wisely.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  Haha. What kind of ridiculous answer is that? You made a claim so which god were you referring to? Why should I decide what you meant?

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    Well, you have confirmed one thing. You really are stupid.

                    You are free to believe in any god that you choose. Was it really that hard to figure out that that is what I meant. I know which God created me and granted me my rights. You have to choose wisely.

                    Now do you understand?

                    No, I didn’t think so.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      I’m not asking about which god I can believe in. That was never the topic of this conversation, in case you needed a gentle reminder.

                      You said that our rights come from God. Not your rights. Our rights. I asked which one and then you got all cryptic and avoided answering. I don’t blame you for there is no answer you could have given.

                      How do you know which god created you? Are you branded or something?

        • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

          I joined the libertarian party in 1978. I have written a 6000 word article, orwells boot, that is #1 on all search engines. I was a ron paul delegate to both nevada state republican conventions in 2008, which lead to the above article. I agree with you on the 2nd amendment. I would appreciate it if you would just go away because you are an archetypical embarrassment to the cause of rational thought, liberty, smaller government and all who art trying to make a more free society.

          I believe in free speech, but all you do is the verbal equivalent of screech insults.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Whoop-de-do.

            Did you get help counting all those words?

            How many Libertarians have been elected to the White House? Or to Congress?

            Given those results and for all of your blather, it seems that I am not the only one that you cannot persuade.

            Since your party’s results have been so pathetic and you have been there so long, maybe you shouldn’t be bragging so much about your affiliation. You just might scare more people away from voting for your candidates.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Libertarians don’t stand any chance to be elected so long as either, or both, of controlling other people’s lives, or taking their stuff, remains popular to such a large fraction of voters. However, note that this isn’t a criticism of libertarians, and in fact it doesn’t even reflect poorly on them. Instead, it illustrates that in a land where legalized plunder (“redistribution”) prevails, and where few are actually willing to mind their own business and live and let live, that those who advocate individual liberty, responsibility and sovereignty have any chance at political power. Both sides of the aisle are guilty, here. It’s kind of a shame to go after those who would seem to support gun rights because they are “wrong” about other things. I’m personally for very strong gun rights, and I feel a kindred spirit in all those who agree with that, even if we disagree about some other things. They can’t be entirely wrong about everything, if they have somehow managed to arrive at the correct answer to the question of gun laws / gun rights.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                I tend to agree. I am described by my LP friends as the most libertarian conservative they know and by my GOP friends as the most conservative libertarian they know. But the message is only part of the solution. Being able to deliver that message in a way that doesn’t scare off the very people that you want to attract to your cause is also essential. The LP does not know how to market their ideas to who should be their natural constituency.

                The LP wants their ideal world tomorrow and that is as much of an obstacle as people wanting their government handouts. From the place we now find ourselves, we need to take gradual steps to get there. Win elective office, show that their ideas have merit (you and I know that many of them do) and grow from there. They want the whole enchilada in one bite and that is not going to happen.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Though I agree that it is unlikely that a free society will materialize at one time, trying to get to it using elective office is a joke. The system is riggted for the rulling elilte. The only meaningful change will come from without not ilnside.

                  • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                    I am thinking the borg. Who, by the way, will be us. Consider the implications of more and more pervasive networking. The question is — is that bad. Suppose society becomes a large networked tribe with no rulers. And given the power of networking, why would that not happen?

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Bruce, well stated. Though you and I disagree at times you do so normally in a polite and basically rational manner which is what a venue like this needs. Thank you for the civility.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Are you denying that religion requires the leap of faith or are you trying to say like the creationists that religion is scientific? That would be humorous.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Are you addressing that question to me?

            Of course believing in God requires faith.

            I am not so sure that it requires any more faith than what is required to believe in so of the nonsense spouted by so called scientists who violate the basic rules for proof in science — observation and replication. Only they don’t call it faith.

            • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

              I figured out that Ray is not a troll. He may actually have a triple digit IQ. One of his problems is that he has a demonstrably limited attention span. If someone, like me, writes a detailed several hundred words post, Ray can only respond to the last paragraph, or maybe a single idea that penetrated to his core which is usually something that is emotion based. That last thing is called anchoring

              On top of not being able to retain much information, or understand complex stuff, he has no desire or ability to learn. Consider this statement or example: “scientists who violate the basic rules for proof in science — observation and replication. ” If Ray were not, by definition, st00pid (unable or UNWILLING to learn new things), and did not have an opinion of himself that is wrong by an order of magnitude, then he would have have done some basic research on the nature of science before posting a statement that most realize is wrong.

              1. Anybody at all familiar with anything more than pop (ignorant maasses ideas) science realizes that in science the only things that come close to proof are showing things are false. Hence the famous statement (and Ray makes many of these) “Thats not even wrong”. If he were actually familiar with science (and not having a belief in his infallibility) he would know that Stephen Hawking stated there is not truth (hence no provability) in science. The foundations of scientific thought were laid by Karl Popper. There is no proof of something in science. There is evidence. There is no truth is science. There are useful theories. As to reproducibility — it is nice, but it is not necessary and is, in fact, a subset of predictable. According to Ray, cosmology is not a science. Heck, most of astronomy is not a science. (What exactly is “replicable” in astronomy? Maybe Ray has an experiment where he will (in his god like presence) re-create a solar system 🙂 ) Of course, if ray is a creationist, which he probably is, then that last statement is true. Astronomy is part of religion, and we had light and dark before we had the sun. IT says so in the bible.

              And of course that is what makes science “not faith”. Their statements and predictions can be falsified. The theories of science must be falsifiable. Statements of faith can not be falsified. That is one of the things makes them faith.

              Either Ray will not respond to this, or his response will consist of mostly name calling.

              As an aside. Ray has “friends”??

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                The reason that I only respond to one point is that I don’t have enough time to waste reading your lengthy drivel. You have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.

                • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                  “reading your lengthy drivel…” semantic equivalent to producer of driver ~= stupid. Name calling it was 🙂

                  Notice his failure to acknowledge his wrongitudeness about science. Notice that he probably also thinks that Karl Popper and Stephen Hawking produce drivel since they also disagree with him on the nature of science.

                  On one side we have the great Ray, and on the other side we have Myself, Hawking and Popper. Not that I am on their intellectual level, but on this issue we are on the same side. All those in favor of Rays position send a 1.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    mark:
                    Your latest ‘personality’ is pedantic, prone to bombast, and ultimately boring. It has contributed nothing to the central theme which is “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics” in case you cannot recall.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Precisely.

                      He could possibly make a fortune selling his posts as sleep aids.

                      Hey, Maybe I will make a fortune selling his posts as sleep aids. LOL

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      The person you are addressing is not me but feel free to continue yet another delusion of yours.

                      I’ll remind you that the frequent conversations with CaveTrooper about inane features of military life add nothing to the discussion either. Of course in radical right world up us down, science is speculation, good is bad, and state militias are the same as people.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      Ray. I have noticed that when I read intellectually demanding material, for example Godel Escher Bach, or maybe what I read today, a paper on the mathematical theory of power laws and how and why they work. IT taxes my brain, and tends to make me sleepy.

                      Now I know why never?? — address the issues that I bring up. To demanding for your neural network. But really, how demanding is “Science does not involve ‘proof’ except for a statement being falsifiable.” Or there are no true theories. That is why they are theories.

                      By the way. Such issues are at the core of this and other debates where evidence and or logic are necessary to arrive at the best resolution of a situation. Of course when the main arguments of a person consist of name calling, I can understand why they would think that writing of the nature of evidence, proof, logic, science, etc would be though not relevant.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***He could possibly make a fortune selling his posts as sleep aids.
                      Hey, Maybe I will make a fortune selling his posts as sleep aids. LOL***

                      There are too many others already publishing such sleep aids, disguised as “intellectual discourse”.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      ***The person you are addressing is not me but feel free to continue yet another delusion of yours.***

                      That personality does not share your skull space? Good heavens! You’ve been cloned!

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              I too have observed “scientists” who seem to ignore the scientific method. Nevertheless religion depends on faith while good science depends on observable facts. Your personal beliefs are your own business. I just think you make a fool of yourself in these pages trying to rely on faith based argumentation. The libertarians do the same thing by pushing their “moral” agenda where virtually no one else buys into their concept of morality.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Like I give a damn about what you think.

                There seems to be less and less good science these days. It is worse than ‘faith based’. It is politically driven.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “Faith-based science”. Not sure that is even a thing. Maybe you missed the creation of the Large Hadron Collider.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    I did not say ‘faith based science’.

                    Reread what I did say and maybe have an adult explain it to you.

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  I agree that much of “science” today is politically driven and thus not too trustworthy. That does not change the fact that faith and rationality are 180 degrees out of synch. Since we are both interacting in these pages we obviously do care to some extent what each other thinks. That is why I encourage you to use rational arguments here and leave your faith at home.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    I will repeat this ad type it slowly so that you can understand.

                    I do not care what you think. I do not care what you feel. I do not care what you want.

                    That you cannot understand faith is your problem. I understand both science and faith and I can tell bad science when I see it. I’ve seen faith in action and I’ve seen miracles that men of science (MDs) could not explain.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      Ray, if you did not actually care at some level you would not waste time responding. My whole point here is that since faith is not based upon logic it is not productive to use articles of faith as a basis of rational discourse. There are so many different faiths which mostly stipulate “my way or the highway”. How could one ever rationally decide on one over the others? The attitude you exhibit here is one reason why so many otherwise rational folks end up in the democratic camp. The anti-rational attitude of the ultra right is too much to take so they choose the other side thinking that rationality might hold some sway where it surely does not with religious zealots.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Ray, I agree more with Fritz here. While you and he disagree strongly on religion, he is a friendly when it comes to guns and gun rights, and so it pains me to see you treat him with contempt for reasons unrelated to the forum’s topic. Ditto Doug, who also appears to be a friendly, even though he and I clashed antlers at the beginning. I mostly save my posting time for countering Mark The Troll’s influence, because he is a demonstrated enemy to gun rights, plus, using deceit and intentional misrepresentation to advance his agenda. (Such as repeatedly representing that the NRA seeks to sustain high firearms crime rates, ‘so it can sell more guns in the resulting fearful reaction’ [paraphrased], or by including criminal firearms homicides which occurred where citizens are prohibited from defending themselves, as part of an overall attack against gun rights elsewhere.)

                      Incidentally, I have attempted to conceal my feelings about both religion and abortion partly to avoid tangents like these. Although I am able to form arguments for and against each if necessary. I happen to think that comparisons of laws surrounding abortions and guns is very illuminating, irrespective of whether I think abortion should be allowed or prohibited. The fact is, the Supreme Court has asserted both of them to be rights in one way or another, and one is even explicitly enumerated, so intercomparisons are entirely justified in a forum in which gun laws are discussed. (Such as laws which prohibit people from carrying guns in public places.)

  35. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Huapakechi says:
    December 12, 2013 at 11:35 pm

    “I’m pretty sure they all reside inside mark’s head.”

    Just as well. He doesn’t use it for anything else.

  36. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    babs says:

    “You don’t understand. It isn’t the right to believe or not believe in God. It is the right to worship other gods. Something specifically prohibited in the first commandment.”

    Now I am beginning to see why you understand so little and that despite your protestations to the contrary, you are not very logical at all.

    Inherent in the right to not believe is also the right to worship any other god that you want.

    Just as the right to keep and bear arms is inherent in the right to life.

    Not that that means anything to you.

  37. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    “Inherent in the right to not believe is also the right to worship any other god that you want.”

    Really? God gave us the right to worship other gods? Even though he says not to? And you want to talk about logic? You seem lost, Ray.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Two words. Two times.

      Free will. You’re stupid.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        You’re stupid is 3 words. Just thought you should know so the next time you try and act smart, you don’t look so unbelievably stupid.

        Where in the very direct command of “thou shalt not worship other gods” do you read “you have the free will to worship other gods”?

        I mean, really, think about it. I know, you can’t, maybe ask a friend to help with this part. Go ahead, call em up. I’ll wait. Are they there yet? Ok. Let’s start then.

        Why would a god of one religion give you the right to worship gods of another, since in essence, each religion claims it is the absolute truth and divine power. It makes no logical sense. Why would a christian god say, hey, I am God all knowing, ruler and creator of everything, but you have a right to worship a God of some other religion. It wouldn’t make any sense because by doing so, the god would be giving equal credence to another religion and divinity. Which I hope you understand, would make no sense whatsoever.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          I was right. You do not understand and your pea brain cannot begin to understand.

          I will leave it to a better (or, if you prefer a smarter) Christian to try to explain it to you. As for me, I don’t really care what you think or believe.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            The questions were easy and straight forward. The language was English. What makes you unable to answer?

            You seemed fine answering up until this point, what gives? Coincidentally decide to stop answering when it got tough?

            C’mon, don’t be such a bitch, I can see right through you.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              I have simply tired of talking to a fool that has no interest other than in pissing in the punch bowl. That is all you have done since you have showed up on these pages.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Finish your thought. You still haven’t and that’s why I prompt you with questions, which you seem to be struggling to answer. Your insults add nothing to this conversation. You are still unable to answer any of my very basic questions. You are obviously not tired enough to keep posting your nonsense dribble. Let me know if you ever want to continue this discussion instead of reverting to your inner child. Or, as you do, when the conversation gets tough, run away.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  I will stay as long as I please and respond when I please.

                  If you find my opinions and my faith offensive, you may exit any time at all.

  38. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    It has been zero days since the last school shooting.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      It has also been zero days since the last successful defensive gun use. Of which there are hundreds or thousands every day. (Unlike school shootings.) But which you don’t give a shit about. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        What is a successful defensive gun use?

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Again, you display for the whole world to see, your ignorance and stupidity.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          I think it’s about 11 DGU to bring a school child back to life.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            (To say nothing of Mark The Troll’s malicious and willful ignorance, with a generous helping of insensitivity. Which is, after all, why he’s Mark The Troll.)

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Seriously, if we are equating dead school children to DGUs we need to quantify how many it takes to equal things out. Here’s one of your DGUs in real life.

              http://aattp.org/gun-nut-self-defense-killing-grandson-altercatio n/

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Yet another malicious lie from Mark The Troll. That’s not a successful defensive gun use, that’s reckless homicide and the shooter deserves criminal charges. It is of course difficult for Mark The Troll to argue against a position that he only represents through sick, despicable and indeed reprehensible straw-men caricatures of. But then again, that’s why he’s Mark The Troll. (In case there was any doubt.)

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  How many DGUs to equate to a dead school child? You raised the comparison. And our hapless shooter is claiming self defense. Gotta take the bad with the good…right Zimmerman?

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    The fact someone claims self-defense doesn’t make it so; that’s for a jury, ultimately, to decide. Which incidentally did so in Zimmerman’s case, if you hadn’t noticed.

                    As for your other question, I have asked you before to NOT INCLUDE those firearms homicides which took place in areas where ordinary citizens are not allowed to carry guns. Such as schools. It is inexcusably evil to hold up school shootings as some sort of defect of the ‘gun culture,’ when said gun culture has no part whatsoever in what happens at schools, because it is absolutely not permitted. They don’t want the gun culture at schools, so please just plain go to hell when a school shooting happens and you want to somehow smear gun owners with that. You and the school officials both don’t want us there at all. Just enjoy our absence, would you? Revel in the fact that we can’t carry guns in schools. Celebrate it, taking the good (that you feel good about us not being allowed there) with the bad (school shootings by people with evil intent). But don’t you dare try to blame us for what happens where we, gun-carrying citizens, are not allowed to be, Mark The Troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      So how many DGUs does it take to even things out in your comparison?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      To even out what things? To even out shootings that happened where armed citizens aren’t allowed? Those things? But, those are things where the blood isn’t on our hands, it’s on yours. I have no moral duty to make any sort of amends for things which your kind has caused or enabled. You and yours do.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Your comparison of gun deaths (bad) versus DGUs (good). How many good marks does it take to justify a wrongful death? Where is the tipping point?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s clear that your assertion some form of equivalency between kids getting shot and people pointing guns at other people for a hopefully positive outcome has no merit. That is understandable. You have no case.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First off, you can just go to hell with your assertions that I have no case, etc. Second, by “kids,” do you mean school children who are in places where no citizens can legally shoot back? Or by “kids” do you mean those 15-19-year-olds who are criminal gang members and who make up the bulk of the “‘kids’ killed by guns” that your side likes to trot out? (Most of which are shot in places which, once again highly restrict the carrying of guns by ordinary citizens, to boot, i.e. overwhelmingly Democrat-voting inner cities.)

                      Even weeding those out, we finally arrive at the comparison that you seek: would *any number* of DGUs be worth so much as one single child fatality, not in a ‘gun-free zone’ and not a criminal or gang member. But an actual, innocent, child. (Not many of which are killed in the US, after excluding the two categories.) So on the flip side, we have two facts: First, that about 2.5 million DGUs happen in a typical year, and second, that when people face violent criminals, the single most effective way of responding to such attacks is to resist with a gun. Now, it isn’t possible to determine how many of those 2.5 million DGUs would have been killed if they hadn’t had guns, except possibly statistically, but then again, 2.5 million is a pretty big number, and the fraction of criminal contacts which result in death of the victims is a wee bit more than one in 2.5 million. Of course, unlike your side we can’t pile sneakers up on the steps of the local Capitol, shoes of all the people saved by guns, because, unlike the people ‘killed by guns’ the survivors are still wearing them. So we definitely lose on the gut-emotionalistic propaganda theater there to you. But nevertheless, I submit that many more lives are saved than one, and probably many more so than the few hundred, max, (1) innocent (2) not in a gun-free zone, children who are killed by guns, accidents + murder combined.

                      So I will turn the question around to you: How many deaths would you be willing to directly cause, in order to save the life of one child? 100? 1000? 10,000? Because that’s the ball park we’re most probably in.

                      Show us your moral compass, Mark The Troll.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        It’s also been zero days since the last incorrect use of a gun…including some of my favorites, assault, robery, threats, various fatal and non fatal body perforations, and kids shooting grandma, a sibling, or themselves. None of which touches that live wire, suicide.

        Thank goodness we have the NRA to keep fear and gun sales high.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          The fact that you consider them “favorites” is what questions, or rather, disproves, your moral compass. It has also been zero days since the last legal DGUs, including ones in which the perpetrator was shot, shot at, and also those in which the gun was never even fired. Together, there are far more DGUs than firearms crimes, although I concede that, given your lack of moral compass, you might well be unable to distinguish them, and are indeed likely to count legal DGUs as firearms crimes. (Starting with possession of the ‘wrong type’ of gun, for one.) Zimmerman, for example, has famously committed a legal DGU which you however believe was criminal, irrespective of whether he has committed other illegal acts with guns. Finally, for your ‘live wire’ of suicides, if someone uses a gun to kill themselves, they aren’t looking for attention, they’re looking to die, and even if you deny them guns, they will still likely manage to attain their goal. (Look at gun-free Japan for some confirmation there – zero legal gun ownership and suicide rates far above our own. Since you like making uncontrolled, cross-cultural comparisons. Note also that Japan serves as an existence proof that zero guns != low suicide rates, but it doesn’t also prove that if America banned guns, the overall crime rate would go down. Noting that nobody but you cares whether guns were used in the criminal violence.) But, if you take away the guns, then some people might kill others too, because the carbon monoxide doesn’t care. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9066777 Is that your desired outcome? You want the nation’s ~15,000 annual death rate from suicides to be four times higher, ~60,000/Y? Why, that would make it about 5 times higher than the average annual firearms homicide rate of ~12,000 / Y, _even_including_those_ in places citizens can’t legally defend themselves. (Obviously the ratio would be far higher if those were excluded.) Once again you demonstrate that you have a broken moral compass.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            It’s not that his moral compass is broken, it just lacks a pointer.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              How moral is it to hand a gun to a convicted felon.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                What if the felon is a convicted pot user? Or a political prisoner? Or one of a hundred other things the government calls a crime but do not hurt anyone? You arrogantly are stipulating that fucking politicians and bureaucrats should be able to decide who can defend themselves or not. That is BS Mark.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  You are arrogantly stipulating that politicians and bureaucrats should be able to decide who gets locked up or not. That is BS Fritz. Nobody is stopping YOU, a law abiding citizen, from getting a gun.

                  Remember, the initial assertion was that insane people were being freed by the ACLU and that was the real problem, the bad guys getting guns should never have been freed in the first place.

                  Should insane people be able to “defend themselves” with a gun, you know, the ones hallucinating that you are a giant killer rabbit?

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    I strongly doubt that most people called “insane” actually are nuts. In any case I would far rather thaey too had access to guns than for the government to have any say at all in who can have weapons.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I see, there is no such thing as insane people. I’m guessing there are no dishonorably discharged service men/women. I’m guessing there are no illegal aliens. I’m guessing there are no convicted felons. I’m guessing there are no spousal abusers who have restraining orders against them.

                      Again, gun nuts want everyone armed so they don’t have to be inconvenienced. Handing a gun to a convicted rapist so he can commit another assault with a deadly weapon is moral because somewhere sometime someone will use their gun to defend themselves…

                      It’s looking more and more like most DGUs are actually more assaults with a deadly weapon.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          So long as guns exist there will be incorrect uses of them. The point has always been that it is a practical impossibility to disarm those who will use them incorrectly. The attempt to do so simply empowers government at the expense of the people. The socialist mentality seems to think this is OK. Free men do not.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Not true. Background checks have kept many guns out of the hands of those who have forfeited the right to have one. Consistent application is not only right and moral, it is a sane approach toward those who are incapable of responsible gun ownership. Saying “anyone can have a gun” is immoral.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              You make this blanket statement and do not provide any verifible numbers. Why are these people who “fail” the background check not prosecuted?

              Q4. You said there were nine different categories of reasons why someone can be prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal gun control laws. But the only one of these we usually hear about is convicted felons. Tell us about those criminal convictions that will land you a Brady denial.

              A4. We usually just do hear about the category that’s often called, innaccurately, ‘felon in possession’. It’s true that the biggest category of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms are those with a criminal conviction; however, the federal definition of what criminal convictions count is very, very confusing, even to attorneys who are practicing in this field. Many felony convictions in fact don’t prohibit a person from possessing a firearm, even if the person served a jail sentence. Most white collar business crimes, for instance, don’t ‘count’, so people who rip off millions in pension funds or commit security fraud can still own their $25,000 shotguns and go grouse hunting. I’m sorry to sound so cynical about that, and I’m sure there are some perfectly nice rich people out there who happen to have white collar crime convictions, but federal gun control law is thick with classist and racist overtones, and this is just one of the most blatant examples of it. Rip off a lawn ornament as a kid being a little overboisterous, and get threatened with federal prison for trying to buy a new deer rifle; commit a white collar crime that devastates hundreds of working joes, hey, no problem, have all the guns you want. But that’s just one of my pet peeves.

              Other felony convictions that don’t count include those where someone has gotten a pardon, if you had a deferral arrangement where the conviction was later set aside, or, if you live in a state where some of your rights were taken away when you were convicted, and then those rights were restored to you, such as the right to vote, then the conviction no longer counts for federal firearms prohibitions. Get convicted for the same thing in Vermont where we decently don’t take away any rights upon conviction, and the conviction counts for the rest of your life. Rather ironic.

              Then, another irony is that many state misdemeanors also count as felonies for purposes of the federal gun control statute. If the state misdemeanor has a potential jail sentence of two years or more, the federal gun control statute counts it to prohibit you from having a gun. This includes a lot of state DUI, assault, and drug convictions.

              So just on that one category alone, there’s a lot of confusion.

              Another large category for denials is misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence. This is really taking many people by surprise, as records of things that were treated as very minor incidents decades ago are suddenly popping up and causing Brady denials. A third category related to this is anyone who has a pending family court stay away order. This causes a lot of surprise Brady denials simply because court records often don’t note when these stay-away orders expire. And a fourth category that’s related to the criminal ones is that of fugitive from justice. If you’ve got a warrant out for you somewhere – even if it’s for an unpaid traffic ticket you got while on vacation in a distant state and forgot to pay – you are a fugitive from justice and will get a Brady denial

              So all four of these categories – felony convictions, misdemeanor domestic assault convictions, and family court stay away orders, have to do with court records, and depending on the state and the court, these records can be very confusing or inaccurate, especially with older records that were handwritten, kept on little index cards that are unreadable.

              Q5. So if only four of the nine categories had to do with court records, I take it the other five have nothing to do with criminal convictions?

              A5. That’s right, and even a lot of gun owners I know are surprised by this. The other categories for denial include a dishonorable discharge from the military, being an illegal alien, or renouncing your U.S. citizenship.

              Then there’s a very troubling one, which is being a ‘known user of illegal drugs’. This particular category doesn’t require any criminal conviction or proof of any kind, it relies on the opinion of your local law enforcement, and I’ve talked to at least two guys who received this denial, with no criminal record, because they had pony tails and Harley Davidsons so their local police chiefs assumed they were pot smokers.

              Another category which is increasingly becoming a problem is that related to mental incompetence. Last year the Veterans Administration uploaded thousands of records of primarily Vietnam era vets into the brady background check databases, and the suspicion is that military discharges on the grounds of mental health issues are going to start being used as grounds for brady denials. These things raise all kinds of issues about the privacy of mental health records, about just how far the government is going to go in disarming people who seek mental health counseling for temporary problems like depression associated with a job loss, and so on.

              So these five categories have nothing to do with criminal convictions at all. Many people without a single criminal conviction have been disarmed by federal gun control.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                ” The point has always been that it is a practical impossibility to disarm those who will use them incorrectly.”

                Where is the defense of THIS blanket statement?

                • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                  Everywhere where governments deny citizens the right to have arms the government thugs misuse weapons constantly as do the criminal element who can always come uip with weapons.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  The point is, those who would use guns to subjugate people are best deterred by guns in the hands of the people.

                  “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

                  “The government was set to protect man from criminals – and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.” ~ Ayn Rand

                  “The government may argue that it is not, in its current incarnation, tyrannical. The national government usually abides by the law, typically protects its citizens’ rights, and always celebrates in its peaceful transfers of power. Whatever fear appellants or anyone else may have of its becoming tyrannical, the government may argue, is no more than disingenuous alarmism. Such an argument would be wrong.” http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/can-feds-bulldoze-state-constitutional -protects/#MiO4KWPOzEPf7GSD.99

                  ”These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.” ~Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          OK mark, how many days, hours, minutes, or seconds has it been since the CORRECT use of a gun has stopped the perpetrators of robbery, kidnapping, rape, or murder merely by the display of the weapon?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “OK how many days, hours, minutes, or seconds has it been since the INCORRECT use of a gun has stopped the perpetrators of robbery, kidnapping, rape, or murder merely by the display of the weapon?”

            Sameo sameo. Do you know?

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Replying to a legitimate question with a spurious question is just another means of lying.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                That question is in no way legitimate, hence my reply that you attempt to answer your own question but from a different perspective. Your question is just being snarky and not meant to be taken seriously.

  39. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    babs babbles:

    “I’m not asking about which god I can believe in. That was never the topic of this conversation, in case you needed a gentle reminder.”

    This discussion topic was shooting rampages. We have gone quite far afield of that hundreds of times.

    “You said that our rights come from God. Not your rights. Our rights. I asked which one and then you got all cryptic and avoided answering. I don’t blame you for there is no answer you could have given.”

    Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean that I was cryptic. “We were endowed by out Creator. . . ” to me and most other Americans that means the God of Abraham and Moses. The God of the Bible. But since you are free to believe or not and free to worship other gods, you can decide for yourself who you think has endowed us so wonderfully. Sadly, you believe that you get your rights from some set of men, meaning that they are not rights but privileges.

    “How do you know which god created you? Are you branded or something?”

    The answer is something that you will never comprehend. Faith.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      “The God of the Bible. But since you are free to believe or not and free to worship other gods, you can decide for yourself who you think has endowed us so wonderfully.”

      Again, you obviously don’t understand. Since we have freedom of religion, we can not say that any god endowed US. There is no plurality there. That’s the whole point, you can’t speak for other people and their beliefs.

      So you say the God of the Bible gave you your rights? But you say God gave us our rights. So which is it? Did the Christian god give everyone their rights, no matter if they believed in him? Or did he give the rights you speak of only to Christians? In which case, how do atheists have the right to bear arms? What rights to muslims have? The same as you? Or did their god not give the same ones?

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        You are too stupid to talk to, let alone explain basic concepts to.

        I know that there is one true God who created us. You are free to believe that or not but that does not negate that fact.

        On second thought, perhaps you are the result of some slime that bubbled out of the primordial ooze.

  40. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Alright, so you believe the Christian god created all of us. Which means you don’t believe in freedom of religion. Yet you claim above that we can choose our religion and who created us. You seem awfully confused. You contradict yourself at every chance you get.

    I know you are bat-shit-crazy. You are free to believe that or not but that does not negate the fact.

    Here’s a basic concept. Why would an all powerful god who created everything give you the right to worship a god of another religion, who also claimed he created everything? Do you not understand such a simple logical impossibility?

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Because He is God.

      I know. That is such a foreign concept to you.

      He is not afraid of other so called gods. He gave us free will.

      I know that you can’t handle that and that prevents you from understanding it.

      Well, that, and the fact that you are an imbecile.

  41. Ӏ’m not ѕure why but this site is loading еxtremely slow for me.
    Is anyone else having this issue or is it a problem on my end?
    I’ll check back later on and see if the prooblеm still exists.

    My blog ibs treatment constipation

  42. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Doug or Mark, or babs,

    I did not say that your arguments were intellectually demanding. You are just boring with all of your blather. I also know that there is nothing that you can say that will serve to enlighten me.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “I also know that there is nothing that you can say that will serve to enlighten me.”

      And yet you continue to engage in ad hominem.

      • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

        Mark: What other means of argument does a person who can not learn do? Eight year old children call each other names because they have not yet learned to weigh information for value and accuracy, and can not use anything except the most simple logic, and often not that. Lacking the ability to process any but the most simple logic, not knowing how to prove a statement for value, all they have is name calling.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Talking to yourself and expecting a reply is never a good sign.

          Seek help.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Doug, once one is convinced they are a self-made man it’s difficult for them to come down from their lofty position. It usually comes across as willful ignorance.

    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

      You made a statement about the nature of science that any person who knows anything about science to be factually wrong. I pointed this out, and supported it with evidence, and gave references to one of the most brilliant scientists alive to day, and to one of the founders of contemporary scientific methodology.

      Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

      Notice the complete absence of the word proof

      Of course actual information from such people can not enlighten you. In this you share much with my dog, the people who ran the shuttle program, and others who are unable or unwilling to learn. The people to whom you blindly owe allegiance can give you talking points, but actual learning from the physical world is not possible for you, except, perhaps, on a very trivial level.

  43. Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

    Wow. Ray, using his — what is a good adjective ??? indescribable??? — intellect to reduce a paragraph from Stephen Hawking to blah blah blah. Now I understand why no one can teach him anything.