National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in Overwhelming Numbers
The Lone Weasel
Overwhelming Numbers
Distribution Source : U.S. Newswire
Date : Tuesday - June 14, 2005
To: State Desk
Contact: Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, 414-510-7594
or 414-232-4509
MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll released
today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in four (Americans)
think private citizens should be allowed to pack concealed weapons. The
poll revealed that Americans in overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's
agenda to permit more hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans say they
would feel less safe if they were in a public place and knew that concealed
firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of gun owners said they would feel
less safe, if concealed firearms were in a place they were at.
The national survey shoots down the gun lobby's claim that putting more
deadly handguns on the streets is supported by the general public. The vast
majority of Americans rejects such an agenda and even feels personally
threatened from someone packing a loaded handgun near them.
"These numbers from the Gallup poll speak for themselves: The gun lobby's
agenda to permit the carrying of hidden, loaded handguns in public is
extremist and out of the mainstream," said Jeri Bonavia, Executive Director
of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort. "Lawmakers should know when they
push for CCW legislation, they're going out on a limb for a radical policy
that is not supported by the voters in their districts."
Ryan Kulik, Program Director at Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort said, "The
new Gallup poll should demonstrate to state lawmakers that they should be
focusing on problems facing Wisconsin, instead of shilling for the pro gun
lobby. What Wisconsinites want is for lawmakers to work on real issues that
face real people, such as employment opportunities and affordable
healthcare."
"We hope that Wisconsin lawmakers get the message that voters don't want
them wasting time debating the concealed weapons legislation any longer,"
added Bonavia. This is an unpopular policy that will weaken public safety
and make the residents of Wisconsin feel less secure."
Source: Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
You Know Who
>National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>Overwhelming Numbers
Then they can vote it right out of there! When are you going to start
the Big Campaign, Jabba??
Dr. Zarkov
> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> Overwhelming Numbers
> MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll released
> today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in four (Americans)
> think private citizens should be allowed to pack concealed weapons. The
> poll revealed that Americans in overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's
> agenda to permit more hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
...
Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see. I ask
again:
Should the results of the following polls be implemented?
79% of Americans think that "creationism" should be taught alongside
evolution in public schools; only 20% thought evolution should be taught
without mentioning creationism.
--"Survey Finds Support Is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories," James
Glanz, The New York Times, Mar. 11, 2000.
According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll--
52% would allow the police to search without court order the homes of
people suspected of selling drugs, even if some homes were searched by
mistake
71% would make it against the law to show the use of illegal drugs in
the movies
67% would allow police to stop cars at random to search for drugs
62% were willing to give up "a few" freedoms in order to curb drug use
--quoted in Szasz T. Our Right to Drugs. New York: Praeger, 1992
According to a Gallup poll of Americans in July 1999--
74% favor allowing public schools to display the Ten Commandments; 24%
oppose
70% favor allowing daily prayer to be spoken in the classroom; 28% oppose
According to a recent national poll, "Half of all Americans believe
everything in the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
About half of Americans would not vote for an atheist presidential
candidate (Gallup Poll, Feb. 1999)
So if you think that popular opinion is so significant, should it also
be followed in these cases?
But of course using popular opinion as an argument is a form of
argumentum ad numerum (appeal to popularity), one of the classic
fallacies in reasoning.
Nor is there any practical reason to value popular opinion unless you're
a demagogue: For centuries, the vast majority of people thought that
slavery was morally acceptable and that the sun went round the earth.
You Know Who
>National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>Overwhelming Numbers
>MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll released
>today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in four (Americans)
>think private citizens should be allowed to pack concealed weapons. The
>poll revealed that Americans in overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's
>agenda to permit more hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
The poll also shows::
o People who are knowledgeable about guns [owners] overwhelmingly
favor the right of private citizens to carry concealed.
o People who are ignorant about guns [non-owners] are overwhelmingly
against the right of private citizens to carry concealed.
The poll continues:
"The data suggest that most Americans favor quite restrictive rights
on carrying concealed firearms, but in most states the laws are not
very restrictive. "
I don't know of a single state that isn't VERY restrictive about
concealed carry. You can buy guns in many states without any checks at
all, but there are only, what- one or two? - states that allow
concealed carry without a government-issued permit- most of which
include a background check of some kind and varying degrees of
training.
SO what does Gallup define as "restrictive?" And how many non-gun
owning Americans have any IDEA what it takes to get a concealed carry
permit? Gallup is playing off the ignorance of the 1.015 people it
selected to take this poll, and that kind of ignorance attracts people
like Lee Harrison like ants to a picnic.
Demon Buddha
Poorly written and poorly reasoned.
By the reasoning found here, the it follows that if the majority
decided that we need to send all the black people, say, back to Africa,
that it's OK to do so.
--
-Andy V.
Arbeit macht frei, cheeseburger, und koke!
-Motto of Burger-König, Adolph's abortive 1920s attempt at fast food
Karl Hungus
news:Xns9678744BEE298...@204.153.244.170...
> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> Overwhelming Numbers
But since none of those surveyed will *ever* be forced to carry a weapon
(unless they're drafted), your point is moot. Come to think of it, you
don't even really have a point.
So, in honor of your pointlessness, I am going to go and apply for my
Florida CCW. It costs about 140 bucks and takes about 90 days. I'll let
you know when it arrives. My only regret is that I won't be able to see the
look on your fat face.
The Lone Weasel
<news:MvydncRRdal...@rcn.net>:
> Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your insane
gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel LESS SAFE in a
room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
[begin polling results]
The Gallup Poll. Oct. 11-14, 2004. N=1,012 adults
nationwide. MoE ą 3.
"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of
firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as
they are now?"
More Strict Less Strict Kept As Now No Opinion
% % % %
10/11-14/04 54 11 34 01
1/9-11/04 60 06 34 -
10/6-8/03 55 09 36 -
10/14-17/02 51 11 36 02
10/11-14/01 53 08 38 01
5/5-7/00 62 05 31 02
4/00 61 07 30 02
12/99 60 10 29 01
8/99 66 06 27 01
6/99 62 06 31 01
5/99 65 05 28 02
4/99 66 07 25 02
2/99 60 09 29 02
4/95 62 12 24 02
12/93 67 07 25 01
3/93 70 04 24 02
1991 68 05 25 02
1990 78 02 17 03
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
[end polling results]
edi...@netpath.net
was no outcry from the masses against it - despite the best efforts of
the antigun lobby to foment that with "predictions" of gunfights over
parking spaces when legislators were considering CCW.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
You Know Who
>On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said in
><news:MvydncRRdal...@rcn.net>:
>
>> Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
>
>So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your insane
>gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel LESS SAFE in a
>room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
Most Americans also feel the police should be able to search for drugs
without warrants.
Should we implement this change before, or after stopping all CCW?
Chris Morton
A swing and HIT!!!
I asked the question and you provided the answer.
That fat, crossburning ninny Harrison is VERY selective regarding his polls....
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Chris Morton
says...
>
>National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>Overwhelming Numbers
I wonder what other Gallup Poll results the Lone Racist Weasel agrees with....
You Know Who
>Get real. The reality is that legislatures passed CCW because there
>was no outcry from the masses against it - despite the best efforts of
>the antigun lobby to foment that with "predictions" of gunfights over
>parking spaces when legislators were considering CCW.
You have to remember how Jabba here thinks.
People don't want CCW. Crazed gun manufacturers want CCW. C.G.M.'s pay
the NRA to pay legislators to draft and pass legislation to encourage
CCW, which will then cause gun sales to skyrocket.
Lee has all the statistics on the payouts and soaring gun sales- he's
just waiting for the right moment to reveal them.
The Lone Weasel
$eC1.2628@trndny04>:
> Poorly written and poorly reasoned.
You'd hate anybody who advocates any degree of gun control, eh Bubba?
What if I carried a concealed foot-long butcher knife everywhere - that's a
concealed weapon so you must approve of that. And a knife is a joke compared
to a gun, you could kill a guy with a knife before he took two steps.
So everybody should be permitted to carry foot-long butcher knives - yes or
no?
Reality check - everybody should be allowed to carry razor sharp machetes
wherever they go - yes or no?
Everybody should be allowed to carry explosives wherever they go - after all,
firearms use explosives to shoot their bullets, why should we be able to
carry live hand grenades wherever we go, so we'll have something to use
against the gunloons?
Basically, you want to live in a combat zone, otherwise you're not happy,
isn't that right? Well why the fuck don't you join the National Guard and go
live in Iraq - it's a real combat zone! You'll get paid for it! All the
fucking guns you can haul around. And you get to kill people.
Or do you just want to live in a combat zone in which you and your rightwing
pals are the ones with the guns?
Tell us all about your plans for unarmed Americans, Blubba. What happens if
suddenly we all start carrying concealed butcher knives - but we don't tell
you...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
___________
MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll released
today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in four (Americans)
think private citizens should be allowed to pack concealed weapons. The
poll revealed that Americans in overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's
agenda to permit more hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans say they
would feel less safe if they were in a public place and knew that concealed
firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of gun owners said they would feel
less safe, if concealed firearms were in a place they were at.
The national survey shoots down the gun lobby's claim that putting more
deadly handguns on the streets is supported by the general public. The vast
majority of Americans rejects such an agenda and even feels personally
threatened from someone packing a loaded handgun near them.
"These numbers from the Gallup poll speak for themselves: The gun lobby's
agenda to permit the carrying of hidden, loaded handguns in public is
extremist and out of the mainstream," said Jeri Bonavia, Executive Director
of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort. "Lawmakers should know when they
push for CCW legislation, they're going out on a limb for a radical policy
that is not supported by the voters in their districts."
--
Reggie Workman
> On 17 Jun 2005, Demon Buddha <tan...@verizon.net> said in <news:YfDse.5574
> $eC1.2628@trndny04>:
>
>
>>Poorly written and poorly reasoned.
>
>
> You'd hate anybody who advocates any degree of gun control, eh Bubba?
>
> What if I carried a concealed foot-long butcher knife everywhere - that's a
> concealed weapon so you must approve of that. And a knife is a joke compared
> to a gun, you could kill a guy with a knife before he took two steps.
Cobra's! What about a basket filled with cobra's?
somd_j...@yahoo.com
> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> Overwhelming Numbers
Poll question:
Should convicted child molesters be allowed to carry concealed weapons
into daycare centers?
1. Yes 2. No.
Jim
Karl Hungus
news:cXDse.34$ik5...@fe12.lga...
>>
>> What if I carried a concealed foot-long butcher knife everywhere - that's
>> a concealed weapon so you must approve of that. And a knife is a joke
>> compared to a gun, you could kill a guy with a knife before he took two
>> steps.
>
> Cobra's! What about a basket filled with cobra's?
Oh, now that's just a great idea. I suppose next you'll be advocating
concealable cobra launchers and squirt guns filled with cobra venom.
But that's what you want, isn't it? A society where everyone feels the need
to arm themselves with deadly snakes and deadly-snake accessories.
somd_j...@yahoo.com
The Lone Weasel wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said in
> <news:MvydncRRdal...@rcn.net>:
>
> > Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
>
> So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your insane
> gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel LESS SAFE in a
> room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
>
> [begin polling results]
>
> The Gallup Poll. Oct. 11-14, 2004. N=1,012 adults
> nationwide. MoE ± 3.
>
> "In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of
> firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as
> they are now?"
>
> More Strict Less Strict Kept As Now No Opinion
> % % % %
> 10/11-14/04 54 11 34 01
Do you know what the laws are?
Yes No I'm a gun grabbing monkey and don't
care
12 72 16
Jim
Reggie Workman
Well, yeah.
Karl Hungus
>>> Cobra's! What about a basket filled with cobra's?
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, now that's just a great idea. I suppose next you'll be advocating
>> concealable cobra launchers and squirt guns filled with cobra venom.
>>
>> But that's what you want, isn't it? A society where everyone feels the
>> need to arm themselves with deadly snakes and deadly-snake accessories.
>
> Well, yeah.
Oh, okay then.
Instead of cobras, though, I recommend the DEADLY GABOON VIPER for all your
CCS needs. It has the longest fangs of any venomous snake, its venom is
both neuro- AND hemotoxic, and it is quite surly. Plus, antivenin is very
hard to come by in the states, which means no taxpayer dollars will go
toward your attacker's trial.
The Lone Weasel
<news:1119030523.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Sorry Sum_Dunce, you'll have to hire a polling organization that uses
statistically valid polling methods before anybody gives a shit about your
uninformed opinion presented in the form of a stupid question...
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
___________
MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll
released today from The Gallup Organization found that only one
in four (Americans) think private citizens should be allowed to
pack concealed weapons. The poll revealed that Americans in
overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's agenda to permit more
hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans
say they would feel less safe if they were in a public place and
knew that concealed firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of
gun owners said they would feel less safe, if concealed firearms
were in a place they were at.
The national survey shoots down the gun lobby's claim that
putting more deadly handguns on the streets is supported by the
general public. The vast majority of Americans rejects such an
agenda and even feels personally threatened from someone packing
a loaded handgun near them.
"These numbers from the Gallup poll speak for themselves: The gun
lobby's agenda to permit the carrying of hidden, loaded handguns
in public is extremist and out of the mainstream," said Jeri
Bonavia, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence
Effort. "Lawmakers should know when they push for CCW
legislation, they're going out on a limb for a radical policy
that is not supported by the voters in their districts."
The Lone Weasel
<news:cXDse.34$ik5...@fe12.lga>:
Back again, eh anonymous troll?
Please return to your killfile in an orderly fashion.
Kent Finnell
news:Xns96788A8D548DC...@204.153.244.170...
> On 17 Jun 2005, Reggie Workman <Ja...@bass.gov> said in
> <news:cXDse.34$ik5...@fe12.lga>:
>
> Back again, eh anonymous troll?
>
> Please return to your killfile in an orderly fashion.
>
> ___________
>
>
I still have a problem with the Gallup Poll that has caused you to wet your
pants in excitement. They don't reveal the questions asked and they give
scant demographics. I could walk down to Gallatin Road (a heavily
trafficked road in Nashville) and ask 1,015 people a series of questions
about concealed carry and my poll would be as valid.
The demographics from Gallatin Road would include all over 18, both sexes,
white, black, Hispanic, Oriental, and American Indian, maybe even a Hindu or
two. There would be gun owners, non-gun owners, and more than a few who
would tell me it's none of my damn business.
Now Tennessee is a RED state, but Nashville-Davidson County is a BLUE
county.
--
The Second Amendment ...
America's Original Homeland Defense
Kent Finnell
From The Music City USA
Dr. Zarkov
> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said
>
>
>
> So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your insane
> gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel LESS SAFE in a
> room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
IOW, you're trying to weasel out of the point as usual because you
realize that you've been caught in a basic fallacy. I ask again:
1. If you really believe popularity is so significant, do you also
believe that the results of the polls I posted should be implemented or
significant in determining policy? Should "creationism" be taught in
public schools because 79% of Americans favor it?
2. Why do you not recognize the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum (appeal
to popularity)? It is one of the basic fallacies in reasoning.
Here again is the part that you snipped, including ALL the polls:
> [begin polling results]
The Lone Weasel
<news:GsSdnVGmH65...@rcn.net>:
> Here again is the part that you snipped, including ALL the polls:
________________
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
The Harris Poll. Sept. 9-13, 2004. N=1,018 adults
nationwide. MoE ą 3 (for all adults).
"In general, would you say you favor stricter gun control,
or less strict gun control?"
Stricter Less Strict Neither Unsure
% % % %
9/04 60 32 04 03
5/00 63 28 06 04
6/99 63 25 10 02
4/98 69 23 07 01
"A ban prohibiting the sales of assault rifles and high
capacity ammunition magazines expires on September 14. Would
you favor or oppose continuing this ban?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
ALL 71 26 04
Republicans 72 25 03
Democrats 72 27 01
Independents 74 22 03
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
___________
MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll
released today from The Gallup Organization found that only one
in four (Americans) think private citizens should be allowed to
pack concealed weapons. The poll revealed that Americans in
overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's agenda to permit more
hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans
say they would feel less safe if they were in a public place and
knew that concealed firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of
gun owners said they would feel less safe, if concealed firearms
were in a place they were at.
The national survey shoots down the gun lobby's claim that
putting more deadly handguns on the streets is supported by the
general public. The vast majority of Americans rejects such an
agenda and even feels personally threatened from someone packing
a loaded handgun near them.
"These numbers from the Gallup poll speak for themselves: The gun
lobby's agenda to permit the carrying of hidden, loaded handguns
in public is extremist and out of the mainstream," said Jeri
Bonavia, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence
Effort. "Lawmakers should know when they push for CCW
legislation, they're going out on a limb for a radical policy
that is not supported by the voters in their districts."
________________________
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey
conducted by Princeton Survey Research Assoc. May 2-6, 2000.
N=1,303 adults nationwide.
"What do you think is more important: to protect the right
of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership?"
5/00 3/00 6/99 5/99 12/93
% % % % %
Protect rights 38 29 33 30 34
Control ownership 57 66 62 65 57
Don't know/Refused 5 5 5 5 9
_____________________
ABC News.com Poll. May 8-12, 2002. N=1,028 adults
nationwide. Field work by TNS Intersearch. MoE ą 3.
"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this
country?"
5/02
Favor Oppose No Opinion
57% 37% 6%
__________________
CBS News Poll. Nov. 10-13, 2003. N=1,177 adults nationwide.
MoE ą 3 (total sample).
"In general, do you think gun control laws should be made
more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"
%More %Less %Same %Dunno
ALL 51 10 35 4
Rep 40 14 44 2
Dem 65 4 27 4
Ind 48 12 36 4
Reggie Workman
> On 17 Jun 2005, Reggie Workman <Ja...@bass.gov> said in
> <news:cXDse.34$ik5...@fe12.lga>:
>
> Back again, eh anonymous troll?
>
> Please return to your killfile in an orderly fashion.
What are you yapping on about now, tubbles?
YOU are the one that said you mentioned cobras brought into the work place.
Don Staples
Give me another 365, fat boy.
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96788A18D8A1E...@204.153.244.170...
Scout
> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> Overwhelming Numbers
Except that we continue to see "shall issue" CCW enacted in more and more
states.
One has to wonder about the validity of polls which don't reflect what it
actually occurring.
edi...@netpath.net
>People don't want CCW. Crazed gun manufacturers want >CCW.
Get out of denial. Algore said he was going to make the 2000
election a "referendum on guns." Algore lost - and Bill Klinton, in
hindsight, says that Algore's stance on gun control cost him five
states, and thus the election.
Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
You Know Who
wrote:
>You Know Who wrote:
>>People don't want CCW. Crazed gun manufacturers want >CCW.
>
> Get out of denial. Algore said he was going to make the 2000
>election a "referendum on guns." Algore lost - and Bill Klinton, in
>hindsight, says that Algore's stance on gun control cost him five
>states, and thus the election.
Impossible- Al Gore *couldn't* have lost! Too many people are against
CCW! It's all a trick! AAAAIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! :>
greg...@yahoo.com
> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> Overwhelming Numbers
> Date : Tuesday - June 14, 2005
> To: State Desk
> Contact: Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, 414-510-7594
> or 414-232-4509
The anti-violence effort? What idiot would conceive of an
"anti-violence" effort? I suppose most people are pro-violence, and
this loving, caring bunch has to spread the word that violence is
naughty.
> MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll released
> today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in four (Americans)
> think private citizens should be allowed to pack concealed weapons. The
Golly! If Gallup said that, then we certainly should abridge the
Constitutional rights of legally unimpeachable citizens. The majority
should do to the minority whatever it wants, Sparkie! If that means
taking their guns away, we should do it, boy howdy.
[...]
Demon Buddha
> On 17 Jun 2005, Demon Buddha <tan...@verizon.net> said in <news:YfDse.5574
> $eC1.2628@trndny04>:
>
>
>>Poorly written and poorly reasoned.
>
>
> You'd hate anybody who advocates any degree of gun control, eh Bubba?
All I said is that it is poorly written and reasoned, and it is.
Demon Buddha
> What if I carried a concealed foot-long butcher knife everywhere - that's a
> concealed weapon so you must approve of that. And a knife is a joke compared
> to a gun, you could kill a guy with a knife before he took two steps.
A joke? It seems you understand neither knives of guns. I've spent
the past 35 years in the martial arts including jujutsu, kenjutsu, and
gunjutsu. I'd face a gun ANY DAY in preference to a knife. The only
advantage a gun holds is action at a distance, and that is a slim
advantage at times.
> Basically, you want to live in a combat zone, otherwise you're not happy,
You don't know the first thing about me.
> isn't that right? Well why the fuck don't you join the National Guard and go
> live in Iraq - it's a real combat zone! You'll get paid for it! All the
> fucking guns you can haul around. And you get to kill people.
You sound like a frightened person.
>
> Or do you just want to live in a combat zone in which you and your rightwing
> pals are the ones with the guns?
I see. So now you also know my politics? You don't know anything.
>
> Tell us all about your plans for unarmed Americans, Blubba. What happens if
> suddenly we all start carrying concealed butcher knives - but we don't tell
> you...
You seem to be a disrespectful little punk. I suspect you'd not speak
like this to my face. Go learn some manners.
Demon Buddha
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
>> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>> Overwhelming Numbers
>
>
>> released today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in
>> four (Americans) think private citizens should be allowed to pack
>> numbers reject the gun lobby's agenda to permit more hidden, loaded
>> handguns to be carried on the streets.
>
>
> Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see. I ask
> again:
Obviously, doc. These brilliant intellects seem to think that the USA
is a democracy. And repeating the basic lessons of how things are
supposed to work here fall on deaf ears.
Demon Buddha
> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said in
>
>
>>Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
>
>
> gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel LESS SAFE in a
> room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
Notice how this weasel character is unable or unwilling to address the
fact that the reasoning employed in the original quoted text is, in
fact, no reasoning at all. Doesn't do much for one's credibility, at
least to to anyone that's properly educated and honest in these issues.
Demon Buddha
> Get real. The reality is that legislatures passed CCW because there
> was no outcry from the masses against it - despite the best efforts of
> the antigun lobby to foment that with "predictions" of gunfights over
> parking spaces when legislators were considering CCW.
yes, I recall this. It was especially so when FL was considering it.
I remember this inane TV movie that predicted blood in the streets up to
everyone's ankles. The final scene, as I recal, shows some yahoo with a
pair of what I think may have been COlt Peacemakers on a traditional
western gunbelt and he squares off with someone in a parking lot to have
a showdown. It was typically idiotic of the ilk that produced it. CCW
passed and crime in the state began to drop.
DUH.
Demon Buddha
> In article <Xns9678744BEE298...@204.153.244.170>, The Lone Weasel
> says...
>
>>National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>>Overwhelming Numbers
>
>
> I wonder what other Gallup Poll results the Lone Racist Weasel agrees with....
>
>
Didn't the national NAZI poll show that 97% of the world wanted to gas
all the Jews? They want it, therefore it must be. Oy.
--
-Andy V.
Arbeit macht frei, cheeseburger, und koke!
-Motto of Burger-König, Adolph's abortive 1920s attempt at fast food
Demon Buddha
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>Overwhelming Numbers
>
>Distribution Source : U.S. Newswire
>
>Date : Tuesday - June 14, 2005
>
>To: State Desk
>
>Contact: Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, 414-510-7594
>or 414-232-4509
>
>MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll released
>today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in four (Americans)
>think private citizens should be allowed to pack concealed weapons. The
>poll revealed that Americans in overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's
>agenda to permit more hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
>
>The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans say they
>would feel less safe if they were in a public place and knew that concealed
>firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of gun owners said they would feel
>less safe, if concealed firearms were in a place they were at.
>
>The national survey shoots down the gun lobby's claim that putting more
>deadly handguns on the streets is supported by the general public. The vast
>majority of Americans rejects such an agenda and even feels personally
>threatened from someone packing a loaded handgun near them.
>
>"These numbers from the Gallup poll speak for themselves: The gun lobby's
>agenda to permit the carrying of hidden, loaded handguns in public is
>extremist and out of the mainstream," said Jeri Bonavia, Executive Director
>of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort. "Lawmakers should know when they
>push for CCW legislation, they're going out on a limb for a radical policy
>that is not supported by the voters in their districts."
>
>Ryan Kulik, Program Director at Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort said, "The
>new Gallup poll should demonstrate to state lawmakers that they should be
>focusing on problems facing Wisconsin, instead of shilling for the pro gun
>lobby. What Wisconsinites want is for lawmakers to work on real issues that
>face real people, such as employment opportunities and affordable
>healthcare."
>
>"We hope that Wisconsin lawmakers get the message that voters don't want
>them wasting time debating the concealed weapons legislation any longer,"
>added Bonavia. This is an unpopular policy that will weaken public safety
>and make the residents of Wisconsin feel less secure."
>
>Source: Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort
>
>http://www.usnewswire.com/
Then all they have to do is elect representatives to pass the
appropriate laws.
Looks like the "real poll" trumps yours.
LOL
jessie
wrote:
>The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said
>>
>>>Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
>>
>>
>> So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your insane
>> gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel LESS SAFE in a
>> room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
>
>
>IOW, you're trying to weasel out of the point as usual because you
>realize that you've been caught in a basic fallacy. I ask again:
>
>1. If you really believe popularity is so significant, do you also
>believe that the results of the polls I posted should be implemented or
>significant in determining policy? Should "creationism" be taught in
>public schools because 79% of Americans favor it?
Control of School content should always be the purview of the local
school district. To try and impose curriculum on a school from the
state or God forbid, the national level is just more insane Marxism,
where a few at the national level try and pull the strings of every
single person in the nation. Control-control-control!
So the real question should never be about creationism or no
creationism or physics or no physics. It should always be about who
can decide what our children are to be taught and that should be
decided at the lowest level of government possible. I would suggest
at the school district level would be the best. It is really no one
else's goddamned business.
If the secularist and atheists would just take care of their own
school districts and stop trying to control the entire nation's school
system, we would all be a lot better off and would have a hell of a
lot less conflict and strife. When you start bringing the idiot
judges into this they will gladly extent their power to every domain
possible and will love to tell everyone when they can wipe their ass
and what color paper to use on Tuesdays before noon. But it is not
their right or their business. It is the business of the local school
board as to how the local schools are run and what goes on in them.
The idea of federal government intervention was wrong when Ike sent
troops into Arkansas and it is still wrong. It is long past time for
the federal government to get their noses out of the state and local
business. Long past time.
>2. Why do you not recognize the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum (appeal
>to popularity)? It is one of the basic fallacies in reasoning.
It is the basic and most fundamental essence of any free society in
which you have anything but a Marxist, a Monarch, or a Fascist form of
government. It is majority rule and when you insist on allowing all
things to be settled against the majority you have the tyranny of the
minority, not minority rights! When the concept of minority rights is
carried to the extreme that it has been carried to in the USA you have
tyranny, not minority rights and a tyranny that leads to Marxism or
control by central committee.
Yes Comrade! No Comrade, I mean yes Comrade. Whatever you say
Comrade. Please don't shoot me Comrade!
This is what the majority of America has been reduced to by minority
rights. The majority is terrorized by political correctness and a
vocal and well-funded minority that dares to ask who cares if 79% of
the nation wants something or not. That some moron could even think
that 21 % should overrule 79 % is Marxist and more than a little
insane!
>
>Here again is the part that you snipped, including ALL the polls:
>
>79% of Americans think that "creationism" should be taught alongside
>evolution in public schools; only 20% thought evolution should be taught
>without mentioning creationism.
>--"Survey Finds Support Is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories," James
>Glanz, The New York Times, Mar. 11, 2000.
>
>According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll--
>52% would allow the police to search without court order the homes of
>people suspected of selling drugs, even if some homes were searched by
>mistake
I think the Patriot Act confirmed this and made it law.
>71% would make it against the law to show the use of illegal drugs in
>the movies
This is a Constitutional issue over freedom of speech and requires a
constitutional amendment.
>67% would allow police to stop cars at random to search for drugs
This is directly covered by the Constitution and would require a
constitutional amendment.
>62% were willing to give up "a few" freedoms in order to curb drug use
>--quoted in Szasz T. Our Right to Drugs. New York: Praeger, 1992
We did this already. The recent Supreme Court decision on marajuana
did just this and it was not a majority in favor of their criminal
decision.
>
>According to a Gallup poll of Americans in July 1999--
>74% favor allowing public schools to display the Ten Commandments; 24%
>oppose
This should be a local school district decision.
>70% favor allowing daily prayer to be spoken in the classroom; 28% oppose
This should be a local school district decision.
>
>According to a recent national poll, "Half of all Americans believe
>everything in the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
So what is your point? No one is suggesting we teach this in school.
>
>About half of Americans would not vote for an atheist presidential
>candidate (Gallup Poll, Feb. 1999)
That is their right.
>
>So if you think that popular opinion is so significant, should it also
>be followed in these cases?
I think until you have a complete Marxist dictatorship in place we
would do well to keep majority rule with the few exceptions
specifically set forth in the Constitution. We will be in far more
trouble not paying attention to the majority than we will by ignoring
them, and that is a fact Jack.
No one should expect perfection from the majority, but we damn sure
don't get anything close to perfection by following some minority, and
which minority should we follow?
>
>But of course using popular opinion as an argument is a form of
>argumentum ad numerum (appeal to popularity), one of the classic
>fallacies in reasoning.
Popular opinion is never to be ignored. There may be other
considerations, but that does not mean we should just ignore popular
opinion or the majority of our citizens.
>
>Nor is there any practical reason to value popular opinion unless you're
>a demagogue: For centuries, the vast majority of people thought that
>slavery was morally acceptable and that the sun went round the earth.
Nor is there any practical reason to project minority rights onto an
entire nation, unless you're a tyrant and a dictator that wishes to
impose your will on the majority. It was also a majority of Americans
that came to the decision that slavery should be abolished. Also had
we waited a few years America would have come to that majority
position without enduring a devastating war which produced such
profound damage that some parts of our nation have yet to recover
fully over 140 years later.
It was the insistence of a growing minority to force the issue ahead
of its time that provided much of the animosity that led to that
horrible civil war. Attitudes were quickly changing all over even in
the south, but an aggressive and controlling minority insisted on
forcing their will on a nation and because they did so before there
was a majority acceptance, hundreds of thousands died and more were
wound, and far more were left destitute and homeless.
No one claims the majority is always correct, but they are correct far
more often than not. Otherwise lets appoint a king and be done with
it. Besides polls are rotten to the core for the most part and I can
designe a poll to get almost any results that I want.
jessie
The Lone Weasel
I suppose most people are pro-violence, and this loving, caring bunch
has to spread the word that violence is naughty.
The Lone Weasel replied:
No, mainly gundunces like yourself are prone to fantasize about
violence then act it out when you think nobody's looking, like Harold
Fish the murderer.
And yes, these people do care about reducing violence. And I'm
interested in reducing the layer of dried snot on the inside of my
monitor, so have a nice summer, Gundunce.
___________
MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll
released today from The Gallup Organization found that only one
in four (Americans) think private citizens should be allowed to
pack concealed weapons. The poll revealed that Americans in
overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's agenda to permit more
hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans
say they would feel less safe if they were in a public place and
knew that concealed firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of
gun owners said they would feel less safe, if concealed firearms
were in a place they were at.
The national survey shoots down the gun lobby's claim that
putting more deadly handguns on the streets is supported by the
general public. The vast majority of Americans rejects such an
agenda and even feels personally threatened from someone packing
a loaded handgun near them.
"These numbers from the Gallup poll speak for themselves: The gun
lobby's agenda to permit the carrying of hidden, loaded handguns
in public is extremist and out of the mainstream," said Jeri
Bonavia, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence
Effort. "Lawmakers should know when they push for CCW
legislation, they're going out on a limb for a radical policy
that is not supported by the voters in their districts."
--
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9678744BEE298...@204.153.244.170...
> > National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> > Overwhelming Numbers
>
> Except that we continue to see "shall issue" CCW enacted in more and more
> states.
Not for long, Snout.
> One has to wonder about the validity of polls which don't reflect what it
> actually occurring.
What's actually occuring is a wealthy rightwing special interest
organization bribing state and federal congressmen and apparently
judges in the 5th Circuit to achieve their goals of selling more new
guns.
If the rightwing wins, they'll confiscate your guns. If they lose,
you'll have about the same gun rights as before.
And you'll be helping the right until the bitter, embarrassing,
possibly murderous end, eh Snout?
Good for you.
Jim Yanik
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>
>>> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>>> Overwhelming Numbers
>>
>>
>>> MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll
>>> released today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in
>>> four (Americans) think private citizens should be allowed to pack
>>> concealed weapons. The poll revealed that Americans in overwhelming
>>> numbers reject the gun lobby's agenda to permit more hidden, loaded
>>> handguns to be carried on the streets.
>>
I would counter that this is more an indication of how the US citizenry has
been misinformed/disinformed by the mainstream media (MSM)than anything
else.
MSM rarely reposts on defensive gun uses(DGUs),and does everything in their
power to distort gun issues.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:iLqdndsnj-i...@adelphia.com:
>
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9678744BEE298...@204.153.244.170...
>> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>> Overwhelming Numbers
>
> Except that we continue to see "shall issue" CCW enacted in more and
> more states.
AND their rates of misuse are extremely low,much better than the general
population or even the police as a group.
>
> One has to wonder about the validity of polls which don't reflect what
> it actually occurring.
>
>
>
What good is any poll if the people polled are ignorant of the facts on the
topic? (and fed disinformation by the "mainstream media" or MSM)
Zero.
Jim Yanik
news:1119043677.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>> Overwhelming Numbers
>> Distribution Source : U.S. Newswire
>> Date : Tuesday - June 14, 2005
>> To: State Desk
>> Contact: Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort,
>> 414-510-7594 or 414-232-4509
>
> The anti-violence effort? What idiot would conceive of an
> "anti-violence" effort? I suppose most people are pro-violence, and
> this loving, caring bunch has to spread the word that violence is
> naughty.
Well,I'm anti-violence when it's directed against ME.
Of course,I will meet violence with violence if that occurs,in self-
defense.
>
>> MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll
>> released today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in
>> four (Americans) think private citizens should be allowed to pack
>> concealed weapons. The
>
> Golly! If Gallup said that, then we certainly should abridge the
> Constitutional rights of legally unimpeachable citizens. The majority
> should do to the minority whatever it wants, Sparkie! If that means
> taking their guns away, we should do it, boy howdy.
>
> [...]
>
Yes,socialists are great at "overlooking" Constitutional rights -and
minority rights.
Cole Firearms Inc.
You Know Who wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns The Lone Weasel <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said in
>><news:MvydncRRdal...@rcn.net>:
>>
>>
>>>Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
>>
>>So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your insane
>>gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel LESS SAFE in a
>>room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
>
>
> Most Americans also feel the police should be able to search for drugs
> without warrants.
Those few, are called liberals.
The Lone Weasel
>>>insane gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel
>>>LESS SAFE in a room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
>>
>>
>> Most Americans also
I said just 45% of gun owners, almost half but not most.
How do you feel about a sizeable percentage of gun owners feeling just as
UNSAFE around concealed carry loons as people who don't even own guns,
Blobborama?
Now feel about this:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling
organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). April
17-19, 1999. N=1,006 adults nationwide.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the idea of passing new
laws to make it easier for people to carry concealed
weapons?"
Approve 22%
Disapprove 73%
Not sure 5%
James F. Mayer
> Scout wrote:
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9678744BEE298...@204.153.244.170...
>
>
>> > National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>> > Overwhelming Numbers
>>
>> Except that we continue to see "shall issue" CCW enacted in more and more
>> states.
>
> Not for long, Snout.
>
You have been saying that for years now and every time you do, another
state passes ccw/chl laws.
>> One has to wonder about the validity of polls which don't reflect what it
>> actually occurring.
>
> What's actually occuring is a wealthy rightwing special interest
> organization bribing state and federal congressmen and apparently
> judges in the 5th Circuit to achieve their goals of selling more new
> guns.
>
Right and the Brady Campaign attempts to bribe legislators to pass their
gun control laws. Brady has how many members? The NRA has how many MORE
members?
> If the rightwing wins, they'll confiscate your guns.
Like G.E.Ernst wants to do with the "lawless and disloyal"?
Dr. Zarkov
> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said:
More evasions. I ask again:
1. If you really believe popularity is so significant, do you also
believe that the results of the polls I posted should be implemented or
significant in determining policy? Should "creationism" be taught in
public schools because 79% of Americans favor it?
2. Why do you not recognize the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum (appeal
to popularity)? It is one of the basic fallacies in reasoning.
Here again is the part that you snipped, including ALL the polls:
79% of Americans think that "creationism" should be taught alongside
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>>>>So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your
And how do you feel that the real poll (called elections) support
concealed carry? 38 states now?
edi...@netpath.net
>Then all they have to do is elect representatives to pass the
>appropriate laws.
>Looks like the "real poll" trumps yours.
Exactly. "Polls" nowadays are jokes. Who the hell is at home to be
"polled" during the workday? Just retirees, welfare people, the
unemployed, and people too young to vote! Add in the fact that so many
people are using answering machines to screen calls - and "polls" now
have dishonest samples.
Dr. Zarkov
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote:
>>The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said
>>>
>>>>Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
>>IOW, you're trying to weasel out of the point as usual because you
Let us have local control--but of *everything.* Let everyone choose
locally what type of social system they want to live in. But that
evades the issue: What gives the majority even in a district the right
to impose its will on everyone else?
>>2. Why do you not recognize the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum (appeal
>>to popularity)? It is one of the basic fallacies in reasoning.
>
>
> It is the basic and most fundamental essence of any free society in
> which you have anything but a Marxist, a Monarch, or a Fascist form of
> government. It is majority rule and when you insist on allowing all
> things to be settled against the majority you have the tyranny of the
> minority, not minority rights! When the concept of minority rights is
> carried to the extreme that it has been carried to in the USA you have
> tyranny, not minority rights and a tyranny that leads to Marxism or
> control by central committee.
No, majority rule is not the essence of a free society. What gives the
majority the right to impose its will on everyone else? If 90% of the
population thinks the other 10% should be their slaves, is that right?
If the majority wants all Jews to wear Stars of David, or all
homosexuals to be persecuted, or even all those not of the majority
religion to be persecuted, would that make it right? And those are not
hypothetical examples.
> Yes Comrade! No Comrade, I mean yes Comrade. Whatever you say
> Comrade. Please don't shoot me Comrade!
>
> This is what the majority of America has been reduced to by minority
> rights. The majority is terrorized by political correctness and a
> vocal and well-funded minority that dares to ask who cares if 79% of
> the nation wants something or not. That some moron could even think
> that 21 % should overrule 79 % is Marxist and more than a little
> insane!
Really? You think it's insane for a minority to want its rights and
freedom?
The point is that NO ONE has to rule! NO ONE has to impose their will
on everyone else! NO ONE--majority OR minority--has the right to impose
their will on everyone else.
>>Here again is the part that you snipped, including ALL the polls:
>>
>>79% of Americans think that "creationism" should be taught alongside
>>evolution in public schools; only 20% thought evolution should be taught
>>without mentioning creationism.
>>--"Survey Finds Support Is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories," James
>>Glanz, The New York Times, Mar. 11, 2000.
>>
>>According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll--
>>52% would allow the police to search without court order the homes of
>>people suspected of selling drugs, even if some homes were searched by
>>mistake
>
>
> I think the Patriot Act confirmed this and made it law.
>
>
>>71% would make it against the law to show the use of illegal drugs in
>>the movies
>
>
> This is a Constitutional issue over freedom of speech and requires a
> constitutional amendment.
It evades the point to fall back on Constitutional technicalities. The
Constitution can be changed. And if you believe that majority will
should prevail, shouldn't it be changed to suit the majority, especially
such a large majority? They don't even go through the stated
Constitutional steps anymore--just get the courts to rule that it's
Constitutional. Hell, just invoke the commerce clause--they've done
that for everything else, including what you can put into your own body
in your own home.
>>67% would allow police to stop cars at random to search for drugs
>
>
> This is directly covered by the Constitution and would require a
> constitutional amendment.
Again, this evades the point. If the majority wills it, why shouldn't
the Constitution be changed? If they can allow the police to break down
doors to raid people's homes to arrest them for what they are putting
into their own bodies, they can find a pretext to allow random searches
of cars. But the fact is that cops already do this in practice! In
many places, they also seize money from the occupants--
For just one of *many* examples, see: Mike Gray, _Drug Crazy_ New York:
Random House, 1998
"80% of the people from whom assets are seized are never even charged
with a crime. They just lose their possessions. Lawmen in Volusia
county, Florida, started using forfeiture laws as a toll gate on I-95.
A special sheriff's drug squad began stopping Miami-bound drivers for
traffic violations, then conducting searches. If more than a hundred
dollars in cash, it was assumed to be drug money...Since fighting to get
the money back in court could cost as much as ten grand, few people
bothered to try. When public outrage began to attract attention, the
Orlando Sentinel discovered that the deputies had resorted to
plea-bargaining, offering to take only part of the money if the
travelers promised not to complain. (Henry Hyde, Forfeiting Our Property
Rights, Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1995; Jeff Brazil and Steve
Barry, "Tainted Cash or Easy Money, Orlando Sentinel, June 14-17, 1992)"
>>62% were willing to give up "a few" freedoms in order to curb drug use
>>--quoted in Szasz T. Our Right to Drugs. New York: Praeger, 1992
>
>
> We did this already. The recent Supreme Court decision on marajuana
> did just this and it was not a majority in favor of their criminal
> decision.
Indeed. And it shows how the alleged protections of the Constitution
have been subverted.
>>According to a Gallup poll of Americans in July 1999--
>>74% favor allowing public schools to display the Ten Commandments; 24%
>>oppose
>
>
> This should be a local school district decision.
>
>>70% favor allowing daily prayer to be spoken in the classroom; 28% oppose
>
> This should be a local school district decision.
Why should the majority even in a district have the right to impose its
will on everyone else unless everyone has specifically agreed to such a
system? That means that atheists or adherents of other religions are
forced to support schools in which religion, in fact one religion, is
promoted.
>>According to a recent national poll, "Half of all Americans believe
>>everything in the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
>
>
> So what is your point? No one is suggesting we teach this in school.
The point of this and the preceding polls is to show how foolish it is
to rely on the opinion of people in general. There is no reason on
earth--practical or ethical reason--why it should be imposed on everyone
else.
>>About half of Americans would not vote for an atheist presidential
>>candidate (Gallup Poll, Feb. 1999)
>
>
> That is their right.
Sure, they have a right to be stupid. They don't have a right to
inflict their stupidity on everyone else.
>>So if you think that popular opinion is so significant, should it also
>>be followed in these cases?
>
>
> I think until you have a complete Marxist dictatorship in place we
> would do well to keep majority rule with the few exceptions
> specifically set forth in the Constitution. We will be in far more
> trouble not paying attention to the majority than we will by ignoring
> them, and that is a fact Jack.
Straw man argument. Marxist dictatorship?
> No one should expect perfection from the majority, but we damn sure
> don't get anything close to perfection by following some minority, and
> which minority should we follow?
None, any more than we should be dictated to by the majority. The
fallacy of the majority rule argument is obvious when we consider such
matters as religion or race or sexual orientation or lifestyle. These
were also once things determined by government fiat. Why should other
matters be different?
There is an alternative: Individual freedom. If you want to live in a
nanny state, fine; that should be your right. But you--or the
majority--have no right to impose it on everyone else.
"If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and
tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be
loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom."
--Murray Rothbard, _For a New Liberty_
>>But of course using popular opinion as an argument is a form of
>>argumentum ad numerum (appeal to popularity), one of the classic
>>fallacies in reasoning.
>
>
> Popular opinion is never to be ignored. There may be other
> considerations, but that does not mean we should just ignore popular
> opinion or the majority of our citizens.
Popular opinion is generally worthless, as those examples quoted illustrate.
As Mencken wrote:
"The common man is chiefly to be distinguished by his plentiful _lack_
of common sense: he believes things on evidence that is too scanty, or
that distorts the plain facts, or that is full of non sequiturs."
--H. L. Mencken
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mencken.htm
"The great masses of men, even in this inspired republic, are precisely
where the mob was at the dawn of history. They are ignorant, they are
dishonest, they are cowardly, they are ignoble. They know little if
anything that is worth knowing, and there is not the slightest sign of a
natural desire among them to increase their knowledge.... Every step in
human progress, from the first feeble stirrings in the abyss of time,
has been opposed by the great majority of men. Every valuable thing that
has been added to the store of man's possessions has been derided by
them when it was new, and destroyed by them when they had the power.
They have fought every new truth ever heard of, and they have killed
every truth-seeker who got into their hands."
--H. L. Mencken
Homo Neanderthalensis
http://www.wav3.com/WAV3Pages/HLMenckenPage.html
>>Nor is there any practical reason to value popular opinion unless you're
>>a demagogue: For centuries, the vast majority of people thought that
>>slavery was morally acceptable and that the sun went round the earth.
>
>
> Nor is there any practical reason to project minority rights onto an
> entire nation, unless you're a tyrant and a dictator that wishes to
> impose your will on the majority. It was also a majority of Americans
> that came to the decision that slavery should be abolished. Also had
> we waited a few years America would have come to that majority
> position without enduring a devastating war which produced such
> profound damage that some parts of our nation have yet to recover
> fully over 140 years later.
>
> It was the insistence of a growing minority to force the issue ahead
> of its time that provided much of the animosity that led to that
> horrible civil war. Attitudes were quickly changing all over even in
> the south, but an aggressive and controlling minority insisted on
> forcing their will on a nation and because they did so before there
> was a majority acceptance, hundreds of thousands died and more were
> wound, and far more were left destitute and homeless.
>
> No one claims the majority is always correct, but they are correct far
> more often than not. Otherwise lets appoint a king and be done with
> it. Besides polls are rotten to the core for the most part and I can
> designe a poll to get almost any results that I want.
The Gallup poll and those other polls are well-validated instruments,
not some half-assed magazine or Web poll.
There is no reason to project majority or minority rule on everyone
unless they freely choose it. And you ignore the centuries through
which the vast majority thought that slavery was morally acceptable. If
majority opinion is so wonderful, why did it permit slavery and numerous
other barbarities for so long? It's always easy to see after the fact
how wrong something was. And it was not the majority but a minority who
dared to think and propose the original ideas that led to the abolition
of slavery as well as religious and other freedoms.
But again, if a person wants to be dictated to by the majority, he
should have that right. But he does not have the right to force that
view on everyone else. The fact is that the statists seized control of
this land by *force* and massacred the native inhabitants--not by any
peaceful, majority decision or "social contract."
Kent Finnell
news:bXIse.13705$Nx1.7938@trndny05...
> Scout wrote:
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9678744BEE298...@204.153.244.170...
>>
>>>National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>>>Overwhelming Numbers
>>
>>
>> Except that we continue to see "shall issue" CCW enacted in more and more
>> states.
>>
>> One has to wonder about the validity of polls which don't reflect what it
>> actually occurring.
>>
>>
> Speaking of which, how many states now have it?
>
> --
>
>
> -Andy V.
>
check, fingerprints, photo, or fee paid to the state. Tennessee is pretty
much like Florida. Tennessee requires a first time fee of $115 (good for 4
years, renewal $50), background check (NICS), photo, fingerprints, and
certified training (8 hour minimum, half classroom, half range). The
minimum training is generally $75. That goes to the trainer.
--
The Second Amendment ...
America's Original Homeland Defense
Kent Finnell
From The Music City USA
The Lone Weasel
<news:b9Sdnev4iaa...@rcn.net>:
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said:
>
> More evasions.
So Dr. Markoff, you question the validity of the polls I post. That's your
assertion, and I deny it.
So prove your assertion you ridiculous B Movie gunloon.
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of
the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. Dig.
22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. §74;
3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411."
________________
The Gallup Poll. Oct. 11-14, 2004. N=1,012 adults
nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of
firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as
they are now?"
More Strict Less Strict Kept As Now No Opinion
% % % %
10/11-14/04 54 11 34 01
1/9-11/04 60 06 34 -
10/6-8/03 55 09 36 -
10/14-17/02 51 11 36 02
10/11-14/01 53 08 38 01
5/5-7/00 62 05 31 02
4/00 61 07 30 02
12/99 60 10 29 01
8/99 66 06 27 01
6/99 62 06 31 01
5/99 65 05 28 02
4/99 66 07 25 02
2/99 60 09 29 02
4/95 62 12 24 02
12/93 67 07 25 01
3/93 70 04 24 02
1991 68 05 25 02
1990 78 02 17 03
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
The Lone Weasel
<news:1119061969....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
> "Polls" nowadays are jokes.
So why don't you SHOW US how this poll's a joke, Bedwettor? Don't just
bitch about it, show us exactly what's wrong with the methodology. Tell us
again how 1500 randomly selected respondants can't possibly give an
accurate view of national opinion.
But use facts instead of your chickenshit prejudices, for once.
Let's see how long Bedwettor can avoid proving anything except that he
doesn't like the results of the surveys, eh Wetpath?
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
________________
The Gallup Poll. Oct. 11-14, 2004. N=1,012 adults
nationwide. MoE ą 3.
The Lone Weasel
<news:Xns9678CA6DB35...@129.250.170.86>:
And how do you know the people surveyed didn't understand the issues
involved, Mr. Yankit? Have you read the text of the survey? Have you read
anything at all about the polling firm's methodology? What proof do you
have of anything you say against the polls I post?
None.
A real adversary would check these things out, post them and embarrass the
hell out of me...
But I have a document from Gallup that explains how they conduct their
polls, which is how all polling forms conduct polls. You can find it at
Gallup's website if you're interested, if you have a real question about
Gallup's method.
Don't guess we'll be bothered by you for awhile, eh Mr. Yankit?
jessie
wrote:
>Let us have local control--but of *everything.* Let everyone choose
>locally what type of social system they want to live in. But that
>evades the issue: What gives the majority even in a district the right
>to impose its will on everyone else?
It is the best system that we have. I prefer that we all have as much
freedom as possible, but there are some things that have to be decided
and voting on them is better than shooting it out in the streets. We
live in a nation that gives a few rights to the federal government and
reserves the rest to the states and the individuals.
It is the states, counties, and districts through their duly elected
officials that must make decisions about how government functions,
what course will be taught, how many taxes we pay, and what laws are
enforced. As long as they do not violate our basic individual
freedoms the states have that right because we the people have given
it to them.
What do you want some minority group to dictate policy?
jessie
jessie
wrote:
>Poorly written and poorly reasoned.
>
> By the reasoning found here, the it follows that if the majority
>decided that we need to send all the black people, say, back to Africa,
>that it's OK to do so.
No a simple majority cannot do that. It would take a couple of
Constitutional Amendments to do that. But if you could get a large
enough majority that could certainly be done legally. In fact that
was Lincoln's plan, but he was assassinated before he could follow
through on it.
jessie
wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2005, Demon Buddha <tan...@verizon.net> said in <news:YfDse.5574
>$eC1.2628@trndny04>:
>
>> Poorly written and poorly reasoned.
>
>You'd hate anybody who advocates any degree of gun control, eh Bubba?
>
>What if I carried a concealed foot-long butcher knife everywhere - that's a
>concealed weapon so you must approve of that. And a knife is a joke compared
>to a gun, you could kill a guy with a knife before he took two steps.
>
>So everybody should be permitted to carry foot-long butcher knives - yes or
>no?
>
>Reality check - everybody should be allowed to carry razor sharp machetes
>wherever they go - yes or no?
>
>Everybody should be allowed to carry explosives wherever they go - after all,
>firearms use explosives to shoot their bullets, why should we be able to
>carry live hand grenades wherever we go, so we'll have something to use
>against the gunloons?
Don't tell me you people are now trying to pass hand grenades control
laws! What next no flame throwers or SUV's?
>
>Basically, you want to live in a combat zone, otherwise you're not happy,
>isn't that right? Well why the fuck don't you join the National Guard and go
>live in Iraq - it's a real combat zone! You'll get paid for it! All the
>fucking guns you can haul around. And you get to kill people.
>
>Or do you just want to live in a combat zone in which you and your rightwing
>pals are the ones with the guns?
>
>Tell us all about your plans for unarmed Americans, Blubba. What happens if
>suddenly we all start carrying concealed butcher knives - but we don't tell
>you...
>
>Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
>
Jeff Dege
>
> "In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of
> firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as
> they are now?"
>
> More Strict Less Strict Kept As Now No Opinion
> % % % %
> 10/11-14/04 54 11 34 01
> 1/9-11/04 60 06 34 -
> 10/6-8/03 55 09 36 -
> 10/14-17/02 51 11 36 02
> 10/11-14/01 53 08 38 01
> 5/5-7/00 62 05 31 02
> 4/00 61 07 30 02
> 12/99 60 10 29 01
> 8/99 66 06 27 01
> 6/99 62 06 31 01
> 5/99 65 05 28 02
> 4/99 66 07 25 02
> 2/99 60 09 29 02
> 4/95 62 12 24 02
> 12/93 67 07 25 01
> 3/93 70 04 24 02
> 1991 68 05 25 02
> 1990 78 02 17 03
I'm seeing a steady erosion of support for stricter gun control in those
numbers. At this rate, by 2010, it'll be 42% favoring stricter gun
control. By 2020, it'll be 27%.
--
I swear eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
- Thomas Jefferson
Daniel
The Lone Weasel wrote:
> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> Overwhelming Numbers
Too bad, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarrantees the
RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, and no matter how much you
libwits bleat, that will not change.
Daniel
somd_j...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
> > National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> > Overwhelming Numbers
>
> Poll question:
>
> Should convicted child molesters be allowed to carry concealed weapons
> into daycare centers?
>
> 1. Yes 2. No.
>
> Jim
Since a felon cannot leaglly possess a firearm, your question is both
irrelevant and moronic.
Daniel
The Lone Weasel wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said in
> <news:MvydncRRdal...@rcn.net>:
>
> > Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
>
> So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your insane
> gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel LESS SAFE in a
> room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
here is a question for you, numbnuts. If a person IS carrying a
CONCEALED weapon, how does ANYONE know that person is?
Daniel
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
> National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> Overwhelming Numbers
>
> Distribution Source : U.S. Newswire
>
> Date : Tuesday - June 14, 2005
>
> To: State Desk
>
> Contact: Jeri Bonavia of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, 414-510-7594
> or 414-232-4509
>
> MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll released
> today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in four (Americans)
> think private citizens should be allowed to pack concealed weapons. The
> poll revealed that Americans in overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's
> agenda to permit more hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
>
> The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans say they
> would feel less safe if they were in a public place and knew that concealed
> firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of gun owners said they would feel
> less safe, if concealed firearms were in a place they were at.
>
Concealed weapons are allowed where you are at unless they are
specifically not allowed. If these respondents thought about it, it's
those places where the guns are illegal that they should be afraid
about.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
bitch got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
Demon Buddha
> Control of School content should always be the purview of the local
> school district. ...insane Marxism,
> where a few at the national level try and pull the strings of every
> single person in the nation. Control-control-control!
>
> So the real question.... should always be about who
> can decide what our children are to be taught and that should be
> decided at the lowest level of government possible. I would suggest
> at the school district level would be the best. It is really no one
> else's goddamned business.
This solution really is not buch better than what you complain against
above. And the problem we see here isn't one of education per se, but
of the use of public funds for "cosial programs" of which education is
one. As an example, let us assume we are making the decisions at the
local board level. Just to make things really knotty to illustrate the
true nature of the problem, let us further assume that the "community"
is split 50-50, staunch creationist households and staunch
evolutionists. Each wants ONLY their views taught to their kids,
firmlyu believing that the other's viewpoint is absolutely and
unequivocally WRONG. When I mean they don't want it, I mean they don't
want it in ANY of their schools; no compromises whatsoever. Now what?
The answer: you're screwed. Oh yes, we all know that the board will end
up forcing one program down the throats of everyone for expedience's
sake and will cite all manner of legal precedent to support their
decision, and I'm sure any court would uphold the decision for reasons
of pure practicality. But the fact will remain that taxes that are
forcibly extracted from the purses of some people will be used to fund
programs that those very people find intolerable and absoilutely
unacceptable. This is not a hallmark of freedom. It is
authoritarianist-enforced collectivism/socialism.
>
> If the secularist and atheists would just take care of their own
> school districts and stop trying to control the entire nation's school
> system, we would all be a lot better off and would have a hell of a
> lot less conflict and strife.
In many cases you are probably correct, but even so there will be those
whose forcibly collected tax funds will be used to finance programming
that is either offensive to them or perhaps even damaging to them.
Imagine a district that is 90% black and 10% white. Imagine that the
black proportion of that community is hell bent on delivering "radical"
black pride social studies programs where white people are depicted
(perhaps even correctly) as horrific racist devils whose hegemony of
race-based bigotry has served to destroy the black race in America and
must be, well, let's just say "destroyed". This has been decided at the
lowest level possible. I cannot think of too many white families that
would be so very eager to be footing the bill so their own children can
grow up feeling like shit about whoe and what they are. Reverse the
situation if it makes you feel more comfortable... a white KKK community
that happens to have a small proportion of black "trash" across the
proverbial railroad tracks.
My examples are extreme only to clearly illustrate the fundamental
idea. The divisions don't have to be so stark. There's ten
ultra-fundamental christian families that do NOT want their children
being shown how to use birth control or to be taught that "gay is OK".
Where are their rights? In the real world, their rights are NOWHERE.
Don't like it? Take your whelps out of school and do something else
with them. You'll still have your money stolen from you under threat of
force, violence, destitution, and prison, but you won't reap any
"benefit". It's a great big "FUCK YOU" waved in the faces of any and
all families that do not agree with the mainline orthodoxy. This is not
the hall mark of a free nation.
> When you start bringing the idiot
> judges into this they will gladly extent their power to every domain
> possible and will love to tell everyone when they can wipe their ass
> and what color paper to use on Tuesdays before noon.
I completely agree with you. Well put.
> But it is not
> their right or their business. It is the business of the local school
> board as to how the local schools are run and what goes on in them.
Though presently impractical due to the grat entrenchment of the
current system, I firmly believe that the public school system should be
completely dismantled in favor of a return to the one-room schoolhouse,
but that is a topic that could fill several large volumes.
>
> The idea of federal government intervention was wrong when Ike sent
> troops into Arkansas and it is still wrong. It is long past time for
> the federal government to get their noses out of the state and local
> business. Long past time.
They will NEVER do this voluntarily. Power always seeks to maintain
or, if possible, increase itself (Andy's law of power #1). Power will
never attenuate itself unless forced to by some externally acting
influence (Andy's law of power #2).
Unless we, the people, grab them by the balls and threaten them with
the horror of horrors, they will never concede the powers they have
usurped over the years. It simply will not happen by itself. If you or
anyone is waiting for these people to have a sudden fit of conscience,
then you're nuts.
>
>
>>2. Why do you not recognize the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum (appeal
>>to popularity)? It is one of the basic fallacies in reasoning.
>
>
> It is the basic and most fundamental essence of any free society in
> which you have anything but a Marxist, a Monarch, or a Fascist form of
> government. It is majority rule and when you insist on allowing all
> things to be settled against the majority you have the tyranny of the
> minority, not minority rights! When the concept of minority rights is
> carried to the extreme that it has been carried to in the USA you have
> tyranny, not minority rights and a tyranny that leads to Marxism or
> control by central committee.
That is not how the USA is structured. We are a constitutional
republic, meaning that the majority opinion is supposed to be heavily
curbed by the limitations set upon it by the provisions of the
constitution. Have I misinterpreted what you've written?
>
> Yes Comrade! No Comrade, I mean yes Comrade. Whatever you say
> Comrade. Please don't shoot me Comrade!
That is largely what we have, but it isn't supposed to be this way.
>
> This is what the majority of America has been reduced to by minority
> rights. The majority is terrorized by political correctness and a
> vocal and well-funded minority that dares to ask who cares if 79% of
> the nation wants something or not. That some moron could even think
> that 21 % should overrule 79 % is Marxist and more than a little
> insane!
Majority , minority... both irrelevant in the sense that neither is
supposed to be able to adversely bust the balls of the other. We are
supposed to be in a state that is vastly and overwhelmingly one of "live
and let live", with but very few exceptions such as murder laws.
THought they are couched in some idiotic moralistic framing, they are,
ultimately, a practical restriction that as far as I can see, very fewo
people would argue with. I believe we need about half a dozen laws to
cover all criminal issues. Much more than that and we're on the road to
destruction. And a bumpy road it has turned into.
>
>>According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll--
>>52% would allow the police to search without court order the homes of
>>people suspected of selling drugs, even if some homes were searched by
>>mistake
>
>
> I think the Patriot Act confirmed this and made it law.
I believe you are correct. Once they had the right boogie in the
closet, I knew that a majority of people in this nation would lay down
and open their legs. I've predicted and expected this for at least 20
years, and finally it has come.
>
>
>>71% would make it against the law to show the use of illegal drugs in
>>the movies
>
>
> This is a Constitutional issue over freedom of speech and requires a
> constitutional amendment.
In theory yes. So should the other one, above. Obtain the right
boogie and all constitutional restrictions are swept away as by a great
tsunami. 9-11 was the proof of concept for this and I fear that this
will be used again to further cement the hegemony in this nation. I
hope I will eat great crow on this point one day, but I fear we have
only seen the beginning of things yet to come. Heaven help us. Heaven
help our posterity.
>>According to a recent national poll, "Half of all Americans believe
>>everything in the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
>
>
> So what is your point? No one is suggesting we teach this in school.
But if it were to be so that majority opinion rules, there is nothing
in principle, to prevent the establishment of a fundamentalist xtian
state, for example. Forget the issues of separation of church and
state; the problems with questions of interpretation, of which version
would be the law of the land... we'd be in civil war in no time.
>
> I think until you have a complete Marxist dictatorship in place we
> would do well to keep majority rule with the few exceptions
> specifically set forth in the Constitution.
Constitutionally LIMITED majority rule. BIG difference.
> We will be in far more
> trouble not paying attention to the majority than we will by ignoring
> them, and that is a fact Jack.
That may be so, but it still doesn't address the question of what to do
about majority opinions. Unrestricted opinion-become-law is pure
democracy, which is a euphemism for pure mob rule, which is the scariest
form of government imaginable to me. I'd literally rather see formal
communism adopted here, and I'd probably rather die than see that.
>
> No one should expect perfection from the majority, but we damn sure
> don't get anything close to perfection by following some minority, and
> which minority should we follow?
Two-edged sword you're waving around. Same can be said for the
majority. That's why we have a bill of rights.
> Popular opinion is never to be ignored. There may be other
> considerations, but that does not mean we should just ignore popular
> opinion or the majority of our citizens.
I've not heard it suggested that anyone ignore the majority, but that
majority opinion can be, and often is, WRONG. I'd sure hate to be some
poor, unassuming fag living in a nation whose government said "OK" when
the majority said "we don't want no fags no more". If it can happen to
one group, it can happen to ANY group. There are no inherently eternal
"values" that are immutable, except by agreement, and agreements change
all the time. I'm no great fan of many things here. I despise ghetto
culture. I grew up in the middle of it, and it turns my stomach. There
is a part of me that would wipe every ghetto scumbag from the face of
the earth, were I granted such power. I have a lot of history and
"baggage" on this issue. Yet I will defend such people to the bitter
end to live their wrectched and miserable lives as they please because
I, too want to live my life as I please. If they can be targeted for
forcible change, then anyone can be; then nobody is safe, not even those
in stern power, for the fortunes of power can at times change with the
wind. Many in power don't realize this, it seems. Be that as it may,
to defend others is to defend oneself. Not to descend into a case of
Godwin's Law, but hitler targeted "undesirable" icky people like Jews,
queers, gypsies, and a few others. Foundations of political power
almost always need some enemy to fight as this maintains focus,
direction, and cohesion within a group. Had Uncle Adolph won, we might
assume he could have goote rid of all the jews and other icky people.
Then what? The choice would be to roll along and eventually fall into a
state of couch-potato-ness, which precipitates decadence and collapse,
or one needs to find a new cause. The only way to do this that I have
ever seen that works is to find a new enemy. Well, all those smally,
nasty jews are gone... no more queers... no more evil gypsies, all the
horrid little catholics are gone. Well, we could go after the niggers.
Then what? After all the enemies that stood starkly in one's eyes are
vanquished, we begin hinging our eyes to fins ever finer distinctions.
We KNOW there are enemies in our midst... we have only to find them.
And so on it goes until... what? Where does it end? The logically
absurd conclusion leaves two guys left on the planet in a Mexican
standoff. And the original point was... ???
>
>>Nor is there any practical reason to value popular opinion unless you're
>>a demagogue: For centuries, the vast majority of people thought that
>>slavery was morally acceptable and that the sun went round the earth.
>
>
> Nor is there any practical reason to project minority rights onto an
> entire nation,
Your statement is really predicated upon how those rights are
"projected". Would you suggest that black people do not have the right
to the same freedoms as the rest of us? I think you may be confusing
minority rights with special privileges, recognition, and protection, in
which case you should choose your terms more carefully. Assuming this
to be the case, then I agree with you 100%. I am fully against and
special privilege of any minority group over another. Black people
ought not receive any special advantage over anyone else. Homos merit
no special protection. What they DO merit ie EQUAL protection under the
law so that when some poor fag is surrounded and beaten into a coma by a
gang of ersatz macho-boy latents, the incident isn't conveniently
forgotten by police. That is, well... FUCKED. Either nobody is a
nigger, or we are ALL niggers. You cannot have it half way.
> Also had
> we waited a few years America would have come to that majority
> position without enduring a devastating war which produced such
> profound damage that some parts of our nation have yet to recover
> fully over 140 years later.
I fully agree with you, but the war had NOTHING to do with slavery.
The issue was only a convenient means by which to justify certain
actions on the part of the north. From what I've read, the average
northerner wanted freedom for blacks about as much as they wanted a
sharp stick in the eye.
> No one claims the majority is always correct, but they are correct far
> more often than not.
I would need proof of this well beyond simple assertions.
Government, especially governments of state, are inherently evil
constructs that MAY be necessary to some degree, depending on what
people want, but they must be treated with utter suspicion, eternal
vigilance, and complete CONTEMPT in order to keep them in their proper
place and measure. Otherwise there is no other conclusion that can be
reached besides authoritarian rule, which is precisely what we have in
the USA this very day. We're not totalitarian yet, but we are working
our way in that direction. Perhaps the pendulum shall swing once again.
-andy V.
Demon Buddha
> Let us have local control--but of *everything.* Let everyone choose
> locally what type of social system they want to live in. But that
> evades the issue: What gives the majority even in a district the right
> to impose its will on everyone else?
You just succeeded in crapping on the constitution. I don't think that
is what you intended, but that's what you did. Your statement, in order
to not crap on it, must add qualifiers to the effect that whatever is
being chosen is done within the limitations of the constitution in
general, and the bill of rights most specifically. Otherwise the nation
would become a feudal mess. Where can I carry a gun? Will I end up in
prison if I carry in Philly? Trenton? Columbus? Is farting in
public a felony on Middletown USA? How will I know? WAAAAAAAAAAAA....
at fast food
Demon Buddha
> I would counter that this is more an indication of how the US citizenry has
> been misinformed/disinformed by the mainstream media (MSM)than anything
> else.
> MSM rarely reposts on defensive gun uses(DGUs),and does everything in their
> power to distort gun issues.
A mark and indication of the depth of their dishonesty and of how we
must not trust a word that issues from their pie holes.
jessie
wrote:
>jessie wrote:
You got it. That is exactly correct. You cannot not have any kind of
free society, either democratic or representative government, in a
multi-cultural society. It just will not work. The US Constitution
and form of government was never intended to be used in a
multi-cultural society, but rather in a Christian White Male dominated
society. Once you breakdown the borders with massive minority
immigration, the entire thing will fall apart. Those pushing for
massive immigration know this and that is exactly what they have
planned.
>
>
>> Yes Comrade! No Comrade, I mean yes Comrade. Whatever you say
>> Comrade. Please don't shoot me Comrade!
>>
>> This is what the majority of America has been reduced to by minority
>> rights. The majority is terrorized by political correctness and a
>> vocal and well-funded minority that dares to ask who cares if 79% of
>> the nation wants something or not. That some moron could even think
>> that 21 % should overrule 79 % is Marxist and more than a little
>> insane!
>
>
>Really? You think it's insane for a minority to want its rights and
>freedom?
>The point is that NO ONE has to rule! NO ONE has to impose their will
>on everyone else! NO ONE--majority OR minority--has the right to impose
>their will on everyone else.
>
I think it is insane for them to expect to rule over the majority,
which is what we have now. You cannot have government if no one is
in charge. That leads to such disorder that we end up right back at
majority rule. There are always predators who would take what others
have and you have to have some way to deal with them effectively and
orderly.
In a highly homogeneous society, social norms and mores handle most of
the daily problems and you need very few laws. Once you introduce
multi-culturalism and multiple races into the society, you no longer
have those social norms and mores at work and you have to have more
and more repressive laws to provide for any social order at all.
With sufficient immigration, especially over a short period of time,
and no society can maintain its cohesiveness and will crumble from its
own internal strife, unless some predator spots their weakness and
conquers them first. It has been this way all through history without
exception.
You appear to live in some liberal fantasy that of course is little
more than a crack dream. You appear to think that there can be
freedom in a massive multi-cultural society without anyone imposing
their will on anyone else. That is real sweet, but it ignores the
realities of life and of human nature.
In such a society only one thing will rise up to rule and that is
highly organized crime and that is what we are seeing take over in the
USA. Also you might remember that organized crime is the very
definition of conspiracy.
>>>(snipped)
, including ALL the polls:
>>>
>>>79% of Americans think that "creationism" should be taught alongside
>>>evolution in public schools; only 20% thought evolution should be taught
>>>without mentioning creationism.
>>>--"Survey Finds Support Is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories," James
>>>Glanz, The New York Times, Mar. 11, 2000.
>>>
>>>According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll--
>>>52% would allow the police to search without court order the homes of
>>>people suspected of selling drugs, even if some homes were searched by
>>>mistake
>>
>>
>> I think the Patriot Act confirmed this and made it law.
>>
>>
>>>71% would make it against the law to show the use of illegal drugs in
>>>the movies
>>
>>
>> This is a Constitutional issue over freedom of speech and requires a
>> constitutional amendment.
>
>
>It evades the point to fall back on Constitutional technicalities. The
>Constitution can be changed. And if you believe that majority will
>should prevail, shouldn't it be changed to suit the majority, especially
>such a large majority? They don't even go through the stated
>Constitutional steps anymore--just get the courts to rule that it's
>Constitutional. Hell, just invoke the commerce clause--they've done
>that for everything else, including what you can put into your own body
>in your own home.
No. The constitution was written to guarantee certain rights and
those rights should not have been allowed to be amended. However they
were and all we can do now is to live by the guidelines set up in a
homogeneous society. Our current diversity precludes any kind of
reasonable agreement in changing the guidelines for amending the
constitution.
As more and more minorities flood into being and begin to demand more
and more special treatment, our entire legal system will of course
collapse. We are headed for Marxism under the control of organized
crime syndicates. That is all that is capable of ruling in a
multi-cultural society like we are fast becoming. Already the
political correctness police are hard at work to force all things to
be considered as equal. All races, all cultures, all nations, all
sexual orientations, both genders, and even children and adults. This
of course is the very essence of Marxism, using the government to
force unequal things to be treated as equals.
In the words of Aristotle, "The worst form of inequality is to try to
make unequal things equal." Long before Karl (Levy) Marx wrote a
single word about Marxism, Aristotle knew the absolute dangers of this
philosophy that would become Marxism. That is what the civil rights
movement was about; that is what the woman's movement was about; that
is what the homosexual marriage movement is about; and that is what
immigration is about.
These trends did not just happen. They were planned attacks on the
USA and they are working almost perfectly to destroy use from within.
I suspect that is what your bullshit messages are all about.
>>>67% would allow police to stop cars at random to search for drugs
>>
>>
>> This is directly covered by the Constitution and would require a
>> constitutional amendment.
>
>
>Again, this evades the point. If the majority wills it, why shouldn't
>the Constitution be changed? If they can allow the police to break down
>doors to raid people's homes to arrest them for what they are putting
>into their own bodies, they can find a pretext to allow random searches
>of cars. But the fact is that cops already do this in practice! In
>many places, they also seize money from the occupants--
>
>For just one of *many* examples, see: Mike Gray, _Drug Crazy_ New York:
>Random House, 1998
>"80% of the people from whom assets are seized are never even charged
>with a crime. They just lose their possessions. Lawmen in Volusia
>county, Florida, started using forfeiture laws as a toll gate on I-95.
>A special sheriff's drug squad began stopping Miami-bound drivers for
>traffic violations, then conducting searches. If more than a hundred
>dollars in cash, it was assumed to be drug money...Since fighting to get
>the money back in court could cost as much as ten grand, few people
>bothered to try. When public outrage began to attract attention, the
>Orlando Sentinel discovered that the deputies had resorted to
>plea-bargaining, offering to take only part of the money if the
>travelers promised not to complain. (Henry Hyde, Forfeiting Our Property
>Rights, Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1995; Jeff Brazil and Steve
>Barry, "Tainted Cash or Easy Money, Orlando Sentinel, June 14-17, 1992)"
>
These are some of the most reprehensible laws ever perpetrated against
free men. I have railed against them since the first RICO law was
passed. Now about 134 types of crimes have been included in such
laws. This is not a majority decision, but rather the beginnings of
the organized crime element that is taking over our government. It
has come from both parties being corrupted.
These laws are also a most serious violation of Constitutional
protections and there is not sufficient support to change the
constitution. So what they are is illegal and they are being forced
on both the majority and the minority in this country by a very small
and wealthy group with inordinate power to corrupt.
If our supreme court were not so vile and corrupt, they would have
struck down all such laws.
See "The Death of Due Process"
http://www.vdare.com/pb/death_of_due_process.htm
(snipped)
>
> The fact is that the statists seized control of
>this land by *force* and massacred the native inhabitants--not by any
>peaceful, majority decision or "social contract."
Well that was a long time ago. However just look to Israel to see it
happening today as they are genociding the Palestinians to take their
land as we type back and forth. Rather that prevent that, we have
been financing it partly because of the corruption that has taken over
and prevents majority rule. It is certainly not the wish of the
majority of the USA citizens that we support such activities, not by a
long shot.
Of course those that do the genociding are the ones that protest the
loudest about such behavior.
jessie
wrote:
They don't and that is the beauty of it. Criminals have to assume
everyone is armed, so my being armed protects liberals as well as
myself because it prevents many attacks that would occur if the
criminal did not fear everyone might be armed and deadly.
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said in
><news:b9Sdnev4iaa...@rcn.net>:
>
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said:
>>
>> More evasions.
>
>So Dr. Markoff, you question the validity of the polls I post. That's your
>assertion, and I deny it.
It seems that about 38 states have conducted a "poll" that quite
convincingly proves you wrong.
--
Glenn
In the heart of the Ozarks
Dr. Zarkov
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said :
>>>On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said:
>>
>>More evasions.
>
>
> So Dr. Markoff, you question the validity of the polls I post. That's your
> assertion, and I deny it.
Nonsense; it's not a question of the validity of the polls and I never
said anything of the sort. There seems to be something wrong with your
reading comprehension as well as your reasoning.
> So prove your assertion you ridiculous B Movie gunloon.
That was not my assertion. Answer the questions you keep avoiding
instead of retreating behind adolescent ranting. I repeat:
1. If you really believe popularity is so significant, do you also
believe that the results of the polls I posted should be implemented or
significant in determining policy? Should prayer be allowed in public
schools because 70% of Americans favor it? Should "creationism" be
taught in public schools because 79% favor it? Should the police be
able to stop cars at random to search for drugs because 67% favor it?
> The Gallup Poll. Oct. 11-14, 2004. N=1,012 adults
> nationwide. MoE ą 3.
Dr. Zarkov
It was not I who crapped all over the Constitution but the government
itself. For example, the rights supposedly guaranteed by the 2nd, 4th,
9th, and 10th Amendments have been practically nullified. As in the one
example I noted, the police routinely break down people's doors, throw
the homeowners to the floor, seize their property, and imprison them for
years for what they put into their own bodies in their own homes.
What is wrong with having individuals determine locally what sort of
social system they live under? Or more to the point, what gave the
government or the majority the right to seize control of this land and
impose its will on everyone else? Sure, you would have to know and
accept what the local conditions were; what's wrong with that? To a
large extent, that is necessary now in any case. If you object strongly
to the local conditions, you don't have to go into that area.
The Lone Weasel
<news:1119068944.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Well, as your hero John Mary Lott Rosh says there are DGUs all the time.
The same must be true for other concealed weapons - the paranoid knife nut
or billy club nut or gun nut will brandish the concealed weapon, then
somebody will know they have it.
Maybe the fuzz, eh Danielle?
___________
MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll
released today from The Gallup Organization found that only one
in four (Americans) think private citizens should be allowed to
pack concealed weapons. The poll revealed that Americans in
overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's agenda to permit more
hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans
say they would feel less safe if they were in a public place and
knew that concealed firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of
gun owners said they would feel less safe, if concealed firearms
were in a place they were at.
The national survey shoots down the gun lobby's claim that
putting more deadly handguns on the streets is supported by the
general public. The vast majority of Americans rejects such an
agenda and even feels personally threatened from someone packing
a loaded handgun near them.
"These numbers from the Gallup poll speak for themselves: The gun
lobby's agenda to permit the carrying of hidden, loaded handguns
in public is extremist and out of the mainstream," said Jeri
Bonavia, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence
Effort. "Lawmakers should know when they push for CCW
legislation, they're going out on a limb for a radical policy
that is not supported by the voters in their districts."
Dr. Zarkov
Who are "we the people" who have given the government that right? I
never agreed to surrender my basic rights. The native inhabitants of
this land were not part of "we the people." The governments seized
control of this land and our rights by *force*, not by any voluntary
agreement.
> What do you want some minority group to dictate policy?
Look, that is a silly straw man argument. As I posted, I don't want any
minority group to dictate policy and more than I want any minority or
majority group dictating religion or lifestyle or sexual orientation.
Let each individual have the right to live their lives as they choose as
long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. What applies
to the free market can be equally well used for people to voluntarily
arrange for other matters that are now dictated by government "policy."
You Know Who
You have to remember, liberals think they have a right "to be free of
fear and anxiety."
Demon Buddha
> You got it. That is exactly correct. You cannot not have any kind of
> free society, either democratic or representative government, in a
> multi-cultural society. It just will not work.
I believe this is precisely so. I don't think the founders ever
imagines that this nation would be opened up the way it has been. It
was founded with Europeans in mind. I'm thinking it should have stayed
that way for purely practical reasons, but it hasn't and now we have to
learn to deal with what we have. Well enough, I suppose, but the future
of this nation as anything worthwhile is in some very serious quesiton
at this point. This is not to disparage any other group, whether
Chinese or what have you. It is just that multiculturalism and open
government such as this do not appear to mix well at all for the reasons
you cite.
> The US Constitution
> and form of government was never intended to be used in a
> multi-cultural society, but rather in a Christian White Male dominated
> society. Once you breakdown the borders with massive minority
> immigration, the entire thing will fall apart. Those pushing for
> massive immigration know this and that is exactly what they have
> planned.
The we have a mass of traitors in our midst, it would appear, and it
that is really so, then there is only one solution. This is pretty
scary stuff, if you follow it through to some conclusion in your
thoughts. OTOH, one must consider what the alternatives are, and I
believe there are few, and those may be even more unpleasant.
> I think it is insane for them to expect to rule over the majority,
> which is what we have now. You cannot have government if no one is
> in charge. That leads to such disorder that we end up right back at
> majority rule. There are always predators who would take what others
> have and you have to have some way to deal with them effectively and
> orderly.
Agreed, but having one in charge is only good if they do the correct
things, and clearly nobody has been doing that for a very long time.
The CCW laws are one of the few indications of something being done
right, and to be honest, I have been utterly amazed to see them pass.
>
> In a highly homogeneous society, social norms and mores handle most of
> the daily problems and you need very few laws. Once you introduce
> multi-culturalism and multiple races into the society, you no longer
> have those social norms and mores at work and you have to have more
> and more repressive laws to provide for any social order at all.
I"m not at all sure I can agree with this in particular. Not sure I
can't. I just think this may be simplistic and may be just plain wrong.
I agree that multiculturalism as it has been practiced in the USA is a
complete disaster, but there are many other places that are very
multicultural that have existed for centuries with apparent success.
But I do agree that having a single point of view in terms of
government has to be in operation. The problem is the question of whose
point of view? I opt for maximum liberty and minimum government, but
these days there are so many professional victim groups that have whined
well enough to get their ways that we, as a nation, are beginning to
have very significant troubles. But we have to bear in mind that is
goes far beyond this single issue. Just consider NAFTA, GATT, and
similar other legislations and agreements. They have altered the face
of this nation in ways that many people never figured on, and none of it
has been for the better, unless you are at the top of the economic food
chain. Low low K-Mart prices don't mean much if you're too poor to
afford even those.
ANyone watch "30 Days" last night? It was DEPRESSING and scary as holy
hell... the thread from which we all hang. USA used to be a land of
opportunity. It still is, but the avenues have greatly narrowed. I'm a
well educated male, about to enter graduate school for my MBA and what I
see scares even me. I cannot imagine being my age and having to work
for close to minimum wage.
> With sufficient immigration, especially over a short period of time,
> and no society can maintain its cohesiveness and will crumble from its
> own internal strife, unless some predator spots their weakness and
> conquers them first. It has been this way all through history without
> exception.
I believe that this is the goal of the power trust. The people of the
USA are the single greatest barrier to world dominion that exists and
for those that want such dominion, we must be broken. Utterly and
completely. Rather than doing it head on, we are allowed to maintain
our illusions of freedom (CCW laws and the sort) while the chains of
economic slavery are forged and slipped upon us. I believe that the
greatest chance is that we as a nation are doomed. The great mass of
the nation either isn't aware, doesn't care, or has members of groups
whose interests are served by knocking down the status quo. I can only
think that all the Mexicans coming over the border in hordes would be
well interested in seeing the order of things utterly reversed. They
have nothing to lose. The old majority have everything to lose and they
are losing it rapidly.
You Know Who
>On 18 Jun 2005, "Daniel" <sabot...@hotmail.com> said in
><news:1119068944.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said in
>>> <news:MvydncRRdal...@rcn.net>:
>>
>>
>>> > Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
>>>
>>> So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your
>>> insane gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel
>>> LESS SAFE in a room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
>>
>> here is a question for you, numbnuts. If a person IS carrying a
>> CONCEALED weapon, how does ANYONE know that person is?
>
>Well, as your hero John Mary Lott Rosh says there are DGUs all the time.
What's that got to do with concealed weapons?
>The same must be true for other concealed weapons - the paranoid knife nut
>or billy club nut or gun nut will brandish the concealed weapon, then
>somebody will know they have it.
That's the whole point. You can't have a DGU and keep it hidden. But
DGU's make people happy- unless you're a thug or rapist. The thought
of a woman using a gun to keep you at bay doesn't make you happy, does
it Jabba?
>Maybe the fuzz, eh Danielle?
You don't want the fuzz to carry ammo, remember?
___________
"If we had effective gun control in this country, there's no
reason why police would need to carry bullets in their
weapons. They could collect bullets from a locked safe in
the patrol car when needed."
Lee "Jabba The Hutt" Harrison
The Lone Weasel
<news:upj7b15oqio3dqn42...@4ax.com>:
> wrote:
>>The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>> On 17 Jun 2005, "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> said in
>>> <news:MvydncRRdal...@rcn.net>:
>>> > Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see.
>>>
>>> So now you don't need to lie about how many Americans support your
>>> insane gun obsessions, eh Dr. Markoff? Even 45% of gun owners feel
>>> LESS SAFE in a room where somebody's carrying a concealed weapon.
>>
>>
>>here is a question for you, numbnuts. If a person IS carrying a
>>CONCEALED weapon, how does ANYONE know that person is?
>
> They don't and that is the beauty of it.
Actually, even 45% of gun owners feel LESS SAFE with gunloons carrying
loaded guns secretly in their presence.
[begin excerpt]
MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll
released today from The Gallup Organization found that only one
in four (Americans) think private citizens should be allowed to
pack concealed weapons. The poll revealed that Americans in
overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's agenda to permit more
hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans
say they would feel less safe if they were in a public place and
knew that concealed firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of
gun owners said they would feel less safe, if concealed firearms
were in a place they were at.
The national survey shoots down the gun lobby's claim that
putting more deadly handguns on the streets is supported by the
general public. The vast majority of Americans rejects such an
agenda and even feels personally threatened from someone packing
a loaded handgun near them.
"These numbers from the Gallup poll speak for themselves: The gun
lobby's agenda to permit the carrying of hidden, loaded handguns
in public is extremist and out of the mainstream," said Jeri
Bonavia, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence
Effort. "Lawmakers should know when they push for CCW
legislation, they're going out on a limb for a radical policy
that is not supported by the voters in their districts."
[end excerpt]
Now you understand that the beauty of threatening other people secretly is
all in your paranoid delusions. Nobody else sees the beauty in you having
the gun - especially law-abiding citizens who don't need or want your
protection. We just want your absence.
> Criminals have to assume
> everyone is armed, so my being armed protects liberals as well as
So let's assume you carry a loaded gun secretly, whether legally or
illegally doesn't matter because if you can carry a gun secretly anybody
can, right Nessie? Even the kiddos. What if all the Americans who don't
own guns got together and agreed to carry big long razor sharp knives
secretly? Where machetes count as knives. Some kids already carry
machetes, now the whole unarmed country wants'em. And we don't tell you of
course; but you've heard rumors. Al Gonzales is ranting & raving, These
miscreants are carrying knives illegally! Knives that are big and sharp!
Something must be done to stop this insanity that threatens gunloons
secretly carrying guns to advance freedom and democracy!
If you suspected the guy standing behind you had a foot-long butcher knife
concealed in his coat - why's he wearing a coat in the summertime? - do you
pull down on him? And what if he does have a knife? So what? You're the
dunce who says concealed weapons are fine, that your concealed weapon makes
you a crime fighter and savior of unarmed citizens, and you don't have to
do anything except carry the weapon around secretly.
So much of the gunlobby's agenda rests on you gunloons not having to do
anything - except buy more new guns guns guns guns guns all the time. And
national security and crime fighting take care of themselves, eh Nessie?
edi...@netpath.net
>Too bad, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarrantees the
>RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, and no matter how much you
>libwits bleat, that will not change.
Exactly. Is the FIRST Amendment's guarantees of a free press and
free speech up for veto the first time opponents of dissidents or the
media can get 50% of voters plus one to vote to repeal it? No - the
Constitution allows repealing and amending its provisions - but just
not that way.
Polls about Constitutional rights thus don't matter - even if those
polls really were valid.
Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Don Staples
Give me another 365.
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119052565.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Scout wrote:
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9678744BEE298...@204.153.244.170...
>
>
>> > National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
>> > Overwhelming Numbers
>>
>> Except that we continue to see "shall issue" CCW enacted in more and more
>> states.
>
> Not for long, Snout.
>
>> One has to wonder about the validity of polls which don't reflect what it
>> actually occurring.
>
> What's actually occuring is a wealthy rightwing special interest
> organization bribing state and federal congressmen and apparently
> judges in the 5th Circuit to achieve their goals of selling more new
> guns.
>
> If the rightwing wins, they'll confiscate your guns. If they lose,
> you'll have about the same gun rights as before.
>
> And you'll be helping the right until the bitter, embarrassing,
> possibly murderous end, eh Snout?
>
> Good for you.
>
> ___________
>
>
> MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll
> released today from The Gallup Organization found that only one
> in four (Americans) think private citizens should be allowed to
> pack concealed weapons. The poll revealed that Americans in
> overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's agenda to permit more
> hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
>
> The Gallup poll also found that "nearly two in three Americans
> say they would feel less safe if they were in a public place and
> knew that concealed firearms were allowed." Even 45 percent of
> gun owners said they would feel less safe, if concealed firearms
> were in a place they were at.
>
> The national survey shoots down the gun lobby's claim that
> putting more deadly handguns on the streets is supported by the
> general public. The vast majority of Americans rejects such an
> agenda and even feels personally threatened from someone packing
> a loaded handgun near them.
>
> "These numbers from the Gallup poll speak for themselves: The gun
> lobby's agenda to permit the carrying of hidden, loaded handguns
> in public is extremist and out of the mainstream," said Jeri
> Bonavia, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence
> Effort. "Lawmakers should know when they push for CCW
> legislation, they're going out on a limb for a radical policy
> that is not supported by the voters in their districts."
>
jessie
wrote:
>jessie wrote:
You advocate no government or a great void. Nature abhors a vacuum
and you can bet that organized crime will rush in to fill that void,
especially if no government is there to resist it. What you want is
not possible and you are the one putting up a fantasy that cannot be
as some goal and then stopping your feet and holding your breath to
try and make it so. LOL
This of course if the ugliest thing about liberals. They just fail to
understand the world does not respect the wishes of three-year-olds.
The Lone Weasel
<news:1119102830.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Daniel:
>>Too bad, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarrantees the
>>RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, and no matter how much you
>>libwits bleat, that will not change.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in relation to the well-
regulated militia, see Art I, Sect 8, Clauses 15-16. That's a collective
right of the people to keep up these militias - which have always been
composed of only a few persons either drafted by the people or volunteers,
but never every single citizen or anything near it.
So if you're not willing to serve in the well-regulated militia, the only
RKBA you have under the Second Amendment is the right to have the National
Guard protect your sorry ass whether you deserve it or not.
That's a right you should cherish, and one you should defend when the
Republican Congress and the Republican President disarm your fucking well-
regulated militia just to give huge tax breaks to their wealthy pals.
Never heard you complain about that infringement of your Second Amendment
right, chickenheart.
> Exactly. Is the FIRST Amendment's guarantees of a free press and
> free speech up for veto the first time opponents of dissidents or the
> media can get 50% of voters plus one to vote to repeal it? No - the
> Constitution allows repealing and amending its provisions - but just
> not that way.
Thanks for bringing this up; the 4th Circuit just ruled that Congress can
"abrogate" some Constitutional rights under certain conditions. This isn't
anything new, just timely to our discussion.
"Constantine asserts a claim under Title II of the ADA, which forbids
disability discrimination in the provision of public services. 42 U.S.C. §
12132. Constantine argues that Congress abrogated the States’ Eleventh
Amendment immunity when it enacted Title II. Congress may abrogate the
States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, but only by stating unequivocally its
desire to do so and only pursuant to a valid exercise of constitutional
authority. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55 (1996)."
Constantine v. George Mason University
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
No. 04-1410
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CA-03-653)
Argued: February 3, 2005
Decided: June 13, 2005
jessie
wrote:
No that is democracy when the vote is used to determine how funds will
be spent. Also at the local level people can move to other more
hospital areas. At the national level this is not realistic. What
you want is the federal government to force your views to be taught to
the majority all over the nation and that is Marxism.
>>
>> If the secularist and atheists would just take care of their own
>> school districts and stop trying to control the entire nation's school
>> system, we would all be a lot better off and would have a hell of a
>> lot less conflict and strife.
>
> In many cases you are probably correct, but even so there will be those
>whose forcibly collected tax funds will be used to finance programming
>that is either offensive to them or perhaps even damaging to them.
>Imagine a district that is 90% black and 10% white. Imagine that the
>black proportion of that community is hell bent on delivering "radical"
>black pride social studies programs where white people are depicted
>(perhaps even correctly) as horrific racist devils whose hegemony of
>race-based bigotry has served to destroy the black race in America and
>must be, well, let's just say "destroyed". This has been decided at the
>lowest level possible. I cannot think of too many white families that
>would be so very eager to be footing the bill so their own children can
>grow up feeling like shit about whoe and what they are. Reverse the
>situation if it makes you feel more comfortable... a white KKK community
>that happens to have a small proportion of black "trash" across the
>proverbial railroad tracks.
This is now taking place in Detroit where it is 82 % Black. No one
much appears to care one way or the other as they have city backed
loans "just for Blacks."
But once again at the local level this type of abuse is mitigated by
the mobility factor. On a national level there is no place to run and
no place to hide. That is what makes federalism so very damaging.
The control is in the hands of a tiny minority, far removed from their
constituency. The more distance between the leaders and those that
elect them, the less responsive those leaders are to their
constituency.
We can survive some abuses when they are only local; we cannot survive
long the abuse of power at the national level.
>
> My examples are extreme only to clearly illustrate the fundamental
>idea. The divisions don't have to be so stark. There's ten
>ultra-fundamental christian families that do NOT want their children
>being shown how to use birth control or to be taught that "gay is OK".
>Where are their rights? In the real world, their rights are NOWHERE.
>Don't like it? Take your whelps out of school and do something else
>with them. You'll still have your money stolen from you under threat of
>force, violence, destitution, and prison, but you won't reap any
>"benefit". It's a great big "FUCK YOU" waved in the faces of any and
>all families that do not agree with the mainline orthodoxy. This is not
>the hall mark of a free nation.
I agree this is not the hallmark of a free nation, but this is the
liberal approach from the federal government. The federal government
and federal funds should never be used in local schools in the first
place. The feds steal the taxes so they can return them with big
strings attached. If this were allowed to be handled on the local
level groups could work through it like they did for decades before
this new political correctness based on DIVERSITY AT ALL COSTS, which
is the new secular religion that is being forced on everyone by a
small minority at the federal level.
>
> > When you start bringing the idiot
>> judges into this they will gladly extent their power to every domain
>> possible and will love to tell everyone when they can wipe their ass
>> and what color paper to use on Tuesdays before noon.
>
> I completely agree with you. Well put.
>
> > But it is not
>> their right or their business. It is the business of the local school
>> board as to how the local schools are run and what goes on in them.
>
> Though presently impractical due to the grat entrenchment of the
>current system, I firmly believe that the public school system should be
>completely dismantled in favor of a return to the one-room schoolhouse,
>but that is a topic that could fill several large volumes.
The current educational system has been taken by the Marxist and the
only option is private schools or home schooling. However, the
Marxist will not long tolerate even those options and will soon be
making it impossible to do anything but put your child in the public
system at the mercy of the Marxist brainwashers that control our
schools, write the text books, and develop the curriculum that is used
to force teachers to teach only what is allowed from the Marxist
control above.
This is not new and was fundamental to any Marxist government such as
in the Soviet Union. You might have noticed the fall of the Soviet
Union coincided with massive emigration from there to the USA and with
a rise in radical Marxism in the USA. Thank you Reagan for trading
the Cold War for the Internal Rot of Marxism. The rats left the
sinking ship of the Soviet Union for the rich free turf of the USA
where they fortified the existing Marxists and redoubled their efforts
of undermining us from within.
This can only be done at the federal and occasional at the state
level. They lack the resources to control from a local level. That
is the true danger of federalism. Concentration of power into just a
few hands allows for massive, massive control. That is what the EU is
all about. That is what the gobalist movement is all about.
Concentration of power in to a hierarchy that allows for maximum
control by a small well organized group of organized criminals.
>>
>> The idea of federal government intervention was wrong when Ike sent
>> troops into Arkansas and it is still wrong. It is long past time for
>> the federal government to get their noses out of the state and local
>> business. Long past time.
>
> They will NEVER do this voluntarily. Power always seeks to maintain
>or, if possible, increase itself (Andy's law of power #1). Power will
>never attenuate itself unless forced to by some externally acting
>influence (Andy's law of power #2).
These are certainly valid (if not perfectly universal laws of human
nature and political reality), and they are certainly almost universal
in nature.
The war did have much to do about slavery. Without the issue of
slavery to inflame the population, there would have been no war. No I
will agree that the primary reasons that the slavery issue was
inflamed and that war was pushed had to do with other factors than
slavery. But to say the war had nothing to do with slavery ignores
the catalyst function that slavery played in that horrible event.
The war was about financial control of the South by the North. The
South wanted nothing more than the freedom to be self-determining in
their lives. They needed some relief from the oppressive FEDERALISM
that was controlled by rich northern capitalist, industrialist, and
foreign bankers.
They used the issue of slavery like a wedge to divide and then they
used the issue of slavery to justify their war of aggression on the
south. In reconstruction, they used Blacks as a tool of violence
against the southern Whites and that was what created the seed that
would spawn the KKK. The KKK was originally a defensive group to
shield defenseless and defeated southerners against a rapacious and
vicious reconstruction program (diametrically the opposite of what
Lincoln had proposed) that sought to punish and pillage the southern
Whites. Well they did that very well as at no time in our history has
so much wrong been heaped upon one group with the full support of the
federal government.
At the heart of all this was the ongoing struggle for foreign bankers
to impose a central banking system on the USA to drain it of its
resources. These bankers were mostly English and are the decedents of
those who controlled King George and the original colonization of the
USA. Some people actually think we escaped the position of colony.
We have sadly not. Oh Jackson gave us some freedom for a while, but
Wilson and Roosevelt sold us out with the Federal Reserve Banking
System which once again controls the USA and drains us for our
masters, the foreign bankers that own and control the Federal Reserve
Banking System.
Both Lincoln and Kennedy crossed these bankers by issuing silver
backed debt free money.
Two Bears
organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). Nov.
8-10, 2003. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
"About 10 years ago, Congress banned the sale and
manufacture of assault weapons. In your view, should
Congress keep or end this ban?"
Keep Ban 78%
End Ban 16%
Not Sure 5%
"Could you give the defintion of an assault weapon?"
Yes 4%
No 90%
Don't know 76%
Another poll of the world's people was taken, politicians were
excluded.
Question: Would you prefer that law abiding citizens have the right ot
keep, bear and own
guns or would you like to see the Holocausts of the 20th century
repeated?
In favor of the right to have firearms ...................98%
In favor of repeat Holocausts ............................... 2%
Don't know
.............................................................. 2%
Two Bears
So now when the Lone Hippo can't manage to make up any more lies,
he/she/it posts someone else's lies.
ROFL.
gaffaw gaffaw gaffaw gaffaw gaffaw...
jessie
wrote:
>Dr. Zarkov wrote:
Your point is well taken and you are correct. I just assumed that
went without saying, but I should have said it anyway for clarity.
However I assure you that farting is a states rights issue and no
power was granted to the Federal government to restrict or prohibit
your farting anywhere you please. That does not preclude the state or
local governments from protecting themselves from your flatulence
however.
This was never intended to be a unified nation where everything is the
same from state to state. It was designed as a federation of states
where states rights were supreme except in a very few areas for mutual
defense. This has been perverted, mostly by the illegal war of
aggression against the south under Lincoln. Since then the south has
been an occupied nation that was forced into this federation by use of
force.
Lincoln shredded the Constitution and invaded a free and legally
independent nation of the Confederate States of America and since then
we have been prisoners of the Federal Government that pissed on states
rights and the clear right of any state to voluntarily withdraw from
this sad union.
The real function of the Constitution is to place limits on the
federal government and to define certain rights that all people should
have. The Constitution has been shat upon by the Supreme Court and is
no longer being observed other than in a cursory way. I am a true
believer in the Constitution and consider it the fundamental law of
the land. However it is only as good as those who interpret and
reinterpret it to suit their own needs.
Those that wrote the Constitution knew that all governments seek to
corrupt and oppress those that they govern. They wrote the
Constitution to try and guard against such abuse by a federal
government. Those controls have been ignored and abused by our
elected officials and especially by the activist Supreme Court that
has destroyed the USA with its abuse of power.
Not one ruling in 10 by the Supreme Court complies with the
Constitution of the USA and that is their only job, their only job.
That we do not demand the impeachment of all who abuse the
Constitution is shitting on the Constitution. We all do it every
single day and we will all pay dearly for not standing up to protect
this sacred document.
Two Bears
Two Bears
Two Bears
Curly Surmudgeon
Nonsense, study history. Organized crime, for example, only invaded the
liquor industry during prohibition because of enormous profits to be made.
Once booze was legalized the price came down, quality was regulated and
the profit motive left. So did organized crime.
How is organized crime going to profit when everyone can grow their own
pot?
> What you want is
> not possible and you are the one putting up a fantasy that cannot be
> as some goal and then stopping your feet and holding your breath to
> try and make it so. LOL
People who refuse to study history are doomed to repeate mistakes of the
past.
> This of course if the ugliest thing about liberals. They just fail to
> understand the world does not respect the wishes of three-year-olds.
Oh, the old insult thing. How does that help your arguement against my
points? Certainly you cannot label me a 'liberal', or are you just
against the educated and intelligent?
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/weird/political/bushire.jpeg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Bears
gaffaw gaffaw gaffaw gaffaw gaffaw
POINT sooooo fucking .... P R O V E N ~~~!!!!
ta tah...
Two Bears
BWWWWHHH AA ha haa hha haa BWahh ahha ha ha hhhaaaaa....
point proven
ta tah...
jessie
wrote:
> Agreed, but having one in charge is only good if they do the correct
>things, and clearly nobody has been doing that for a very long time.
>The CCW laws are one of the few indications of something being done
>right, and to be honest, I have been utterly amazed to see them pass.
>>
I cut this out, as it appears to touch on a very important point. Why
have the CCW laws been so effective? It is the one area in which the
majority of Whites in this nation have actually organized to advance
their own desires.
In all other areas, Whites are labeled as racists or bigots if we try
and organize. However, there are some 300 Jewish organizations in the
USA and worldwide. The Blacks have several organizations. The Cubans
and Mexicans have their organizations. The rich bankers and
industrialists have organizations. Only Whites fail to organize to
advance their own desires and needs.
No group of individuals can stand against even a much smaller group
that is well organized and well funded. The NRA has led the fight for
CCW and it is their organization that has fought off groups like the
ADL that want nothing more than to disarm all Americans and all people
everywhere.
Until we can shake off the power of political correctness that demands
that Whites only support Diversity and that allows all other groups to
organize for their own advancement, then we will continue this
downward spiral into oblivion.
The answer to your question is that we had organization working for us
to secure the many CCW laws passed by states not by the federal
government. Also we have the second amendment that still has some
little bit of punch. The anti-gun lobby was organized and without an
organization to fight back for us, none of those laws would have
passed.
Name Redacted
Dr. Zarkov wrote:
something stupid.
First of all, creationism is a wacko belief. As valid a concept as
Zeus, Thor, Isis, worshipping cows, etc. IOW creationism is imaginary,
a gun hidden a wacko's pants is very real. Guess why tourists aren't
allowed to carry concealed weapons into George Bush's White House.
That's the problem with mixing crazy notions and valid concerns.
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > National Gallup Poll Shows Americans Oppose Concealed Weapons in
> > Overwhelming Numbers
>
> > MILWAUKEE, Wis., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new national poll released
> > today from The Gallup Organization found that only one in four (Americans)
> > think private citizens should be allowed to pack concealed weapons. The
> > poll revealed that Americans in overwhelming numbers reject the gun lobby's
> > agenda to permit more hidden, loaded handguns to be carried on the streets.
> ...
>
> Still haven't learned the argumentum ad numerum fallacy, I see. I ask
> again:
>
> Should the results of the following polls be implemented?
>
> 79% of Americans think that "creationism" should be taught alongside
> evolution in public schools; only 20% thought evolution should be taught
> without mentioning creationism.
> --"Survey Finds Support Is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories," James
> Glanz, The New York Times, Mar. 11, 2000.
>
> According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll--
> 52% would allow the police to search without court order the homes of
> people suspected of selling drugs, even if some homes were searched by
> mistake
> 71% would make it against the law to show the use of illegal drugs in
> the movies
> 67% would allow police to stop cars at random to search for drugs
> 62% were willing to give up "a few" freedoms in order to curb drug use
> --quoted in Szasz T. Our Right to Drugs. New York: Praeger, 1992
>
> According to a Gallup poll of Americans in July 1999--
> 74% favor allowing public schools to display the Ten Commandments; 24%
> oppose
> 70% favor allowing daily prayer to be spoken in the classroom; 28% oppose
>
> According to a recent national poll, "Half of all Americans believe
> everything in the bible is literally true."--Newark Star Ledger 11/16/00.
>
> About half of Americans would not vote for an atheist presidential
> candidate (Gallup Poll, Feb. 1999)
>
> So if you think that popular opinion is so significant, should it also
> be followed in these cases?
>
> But of course using popular opinion as an argument is a form of
> argumentum ad numerum (appeal to popularity), one of the classic
> fallacies in reasoning.
>
You Know Who
>
>Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
>something stupid.
>
>First of all, creationism is a wacko belief.
Doesn't matter- according to Lee, we now make these decisions by poll,
so we're going to ram Creationism down your fucking throat, because
that's what the majority wants, capisce?
Name Redacted
Ignoring the lunatic notion the Confederacy was a legal entity, they
attacked the United States first. Fort Sumpter anyone?
> and since then
> we have been prisoners of the Federal Government
That's odd, I thought planes, boats, trains, cars, hikers crossed US
borders every day. You can leave. Find your paradise. A strong
independent person like you should be able to construct a utopian
heaven anywhere those weak-minded socialists are: North Korea, China,
Vietnam. Maybe you like religious conservatism. Move your white
christianity to Iran or Saudi Arabia. All it takes is a strong willed
person. Go for it.
> that pissed on states
> rights and the clear right of any state to voluntarily withdraw from
> this sad union.
>
>
> The real function of the Constitution is to place limits on the
> federal government and to define certain rights that all people should
> have. The Constitution has been shat upon by the Supreme Court and is
> no longer being observed other than in a cursory way. I am a true
> believer in the Constitution and consider it the fundamental law of
> the land. However it is only as good as those who interpret and
> reinterpret it to suit their own needs.
>
What freedoms have you lost?
The right to carry a concealed weapon? Well, the answer might be to
allow you to carry a concealed weapon if you also carry a big sign that
"I am a total idiot and I am carrying a concealed weapon". That way
everyone is happy, you get your penile enhancement and we can see
you're a dangerous idiot.
jessie
wrote:
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in relation to the well-
>regulated militia, see Art I, Sect 8, Clauses 15-16. That's a collective
>right of the people to keep up these militias - which have always been
>composed of only a few persons either drafted by the people or volunteers,
>but never every single citizen or anything near it.
>
>So if you're not willing to serve in the well-regulated militia, the only
>RKBA you have under the Second Amendment is the right to have the National
>Guard protect your sorry ass whether you deserve it or not.
>
>That's a right you should cherish, and one you should defend when the
>Republican Congress and the Republican President disarm your fucking well-
>regulated militia just to give huge tax breaks to their wealthy pals.
>Never heard you complain about that infringement of your Second Amendment
>right, chickenheart.
I though you boys were famous for your verbal skills. Why is it you
cannot seem to read for shit?
Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.
There are two parts to this. The first states that a well regulated
militia is necessary to a free state. This refers to the fact that
the federal government was never meant to have a free standing army in
peacetime.
The second part states that "the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed." This refers to the fact that all
people shall have the right to keep and bear arms and that this right
shall not be infringed, period. This right to keep and bear arms is
not dependent upon the person being in the militia as anyone who can
read can clearly observe. It is that that right of all citizens to
keep and bear arms is vital to being able to have a militia.
Nowhere does it say only people of militia age and sex have the right
to keep and bear arms. It does not say that people can only keep and
bear arms that are semi-automatic or single shot or lever action or
revolver or any other damned limitation.
The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." This is as clear and as straightforward as it gets in
the US constitution. Any law that in anyway restricts any citizen
from owning a gun shall not be infringed. The only limitation on
this right is the right after due process of law to restrict the
rights of convicted criminals.
It also does not state that guns over a .50 cal are in anyway to be
restricted or that marching guns are to be restricted or that silencer
are to be restricted. That is why machineguns and silencers are not
outlawed and can be purchased legally. The BTAF and federal
government did an end run to circumvent the US Constitution by putting
a tax on machineguns and on silencers to deter people for buying them.
They also have a massive background check that amounts to nothing less
than governmental subversion of the legal activities of citizens.
Every damned law that restricts the ownership of firearms is illegal
and unconstitutional and any six-year-old that can read knows it.
edi...@netpath.net
>What's actually occuring is a wealthy rightwing special interest
>organization bribing state and federal congressmen and apparently
>judges in the 5th Circuit to achieve their goals of selling more new
>guns.
Even the antigun, lefty Washington Post sees what you don't. In a
postmortem of how an antigun law lost in the House right after
Columbine, the Washington Post attributed it to the fact that the NRA
actually has a huge grassroots in almost every congressional district -
and the antigun lobby doesn't. The Washington Post concluded by saying
that the NRA's huge grassroots - that the antigun lobby lacked any
counterpart to - could and did pester its legislators when key votes
approached.
Face it, the antigun lobby just lacks a GRASSROOTS. The so-called
"Million" Mom March couldn't - on a Sunday with pleasant weather - get
more than 10,000 people to an event held in a major urban area with a
huge metro area within easy driving distance of tens of millions.
Dr. Zarkov
Government is generally little different from organized crime. It's
been estimated that governments were responsible for over 100 million
deaths in the 20th century alone. And even now the supposedly
beneficent U.S. government is persecuting and imprisoning millions for
various victimless "crimes"--and spending $50 billion a year of our tax
dollars to do it. But what I advocate is giving all people a real
choice in what social system they live in--If your statist system is so
wonderful, why does it have to be forced on everyone?
> This of course if the ugliest thing about liberals. They just fail to
> understand the world does not respect the wishes of three-year-olds.
You seem to have a strange notion of what constitutes a liberal. In
current usage, I'd say that the term more accurately applies to people
like you who favor government control of our lives.
Dr. Zarkov
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> First of all, creationism is a wacko belief. As valid a concept as
> Zeus, Thor, Isis, worshipping cows, etc. IOW creationism is imaginary,
> a gun hidden a wacko's pants is very real. Guess why tourists aren't
> allowed to carry concealed weapons into George Bush's White House.
>
> That's the problem with mixing crazy notions and valid concerns.
Evading the point as much as the original poster, I see.
Who are you to say what is a whacko belief and what is a legitimate
concern. If you believe that popular opinion polls are so significant,
"creationism" is important and should be taught in public schools. You
also must believe that the police can stop cars randomly to search for
drugs. Is that also a whacko belief?
Why do you not recognize the basic fallacy of the argumentum ad numerum
involved here? But logical thought never was a strong point of statists.