Is 'Sex and the City 2' Anti-Muslim?
Ubiquitous
City 2, which takes the aging girls on a prowl through the Middle East. In
addition to a swarm of standard "bad" reviews, however, the comedy � set in
Abu Dhabi, but forced to film in Morocco because of local sensitivities � has
been berated by critics for "anti-Muslim" sentiments. While Warner Bros. claim
the film is not "political," detractors say its giddy advocacy of skimpy
clothing, in particular, shows a blatant disregard for conservative Islamic
culture. Is the movie actively anti-Muslim, or just culturally tone-deaf?
(Watch the trailer for Sex and the City 2)
Sex and the City 2 is clearly anti-Muslim: This foolish film "completely"
disrespects "the Middle East, its people, its religion and its culture," says
Wajahat Ali in Salon. It "ignorantly and inaccurately" paints Abu Dhabi as an
"oppressive dungeon populated by intolerant men who cannot comprehend cleavage
or bare shoulders," and does so "in a wacky cultural vacuum blissfully unaware
of its own arrogance and prejudices." Needless to say, this is a terrible
film.
"Sex and the City 2's stunning Muslim clich�s"
It's bad, but not all bad: Yes, Sex and the City 2 is "blatantly anti-Muslim,"
says Stephen Farber in The Hollywood Reporter. But it's also "proudly
feminist," which is a respectable agenda given the "puritanical and
misogynistic culture of the Middle East." So while I understand why the film's
"scathing portrayal of Muslim society" could "confound liberal viewers," I
still find "something bracing about the film's saucy political incorrectness."
"Sex and the City 2 � review"
Did you really expect enlightenment? The film may be insensitive to Muslims,
says Hadley Freeman in the Daily Mail, but, considering the show's poor record
of handling "non-Caucasians," is it any surprise? The first film introduced a
black character, who, "cravenly grateful for Carrie's designer cast-offs,"
ultimately returns to the south where, presumably, "black people belong." Sex
and the City is certainly guilty of cultural insensitivity. But we're equally
guilty of over-high expectations.
"How Carrie & co. became man-obsessed morons"
--
Islam is a peaceful religion, just as long as the women are beaten, the boys
buggered and the infidels are killed.
Sean Walsh
> Carrie Bradshaw and company return in the much-anticipated sequel, Sex and the
> City 2, which takes the aging girls on a prowl through the Middle East. In
> addition to a swarm of standard "bad" reviews, however, the comedy — set in
> Abu Dhabi, but forced to film in Morocco because of local sensitivities — has
> been berated by critics for "anti-Muslim" sentiments.
With all due respect, if a movie is forced to film elsewhere because
of *ahem* "local sensitivities" (presumably regarding women and/or the
cultural background of said movie), then why are these "sensitivities"
not detailed anywhere like all the "OMFG ANTI-MUSLIM HATEHATEHATE!"
comments are?
--
Sean
Thanatos
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> Sex and the City 2 is clearly anti-Muslim: This foolish film "completely"
> disrespects "the Middle East, its people, its religion and its culture,"
> says Wajahat Ali in Salon. It "ignorantly and inaccurately" paints Abu
> Dhabi as an "oppressive dungeon populated by intolerant men who cannot
> comprehend cleavage or bare shoulders," and does so "in a wacky cultural
> vacuum blissfully unaware of its own arrogance and prejudices." Needless
> to say, this is a terrible film.
Why is it that we're always expected to respect the sensitivities of
Muslims but they're never expected to respect our sensitivities?
RichA
Because liberals run the media.
David Johnston
Actually you ban troublesome Muslims from your country as well.
Thanatos
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
Not effectively enough, apparently. We even promote them as officers in
our military. Until they erupt in an orgy of mass-murder, that is.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Maybe because Morrocco is also primarily Muslim, and had no problem
allowing filming on thieir soil; heck, they were important US allies
in WWII!
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Funny how Seung-Hui Cho's religion wasn't brought up when he
similarly shot up Virginia Tech!
--
- ReFlex76
Tim
> On Jun 1, 11:20 am, Sean Walsh <seanoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 5:56 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Carrie Bradshaw and company return in the much-anticipated sequel, Sex and the
>>> City 2, which takes the aging girls on a prowl through the Middle East. In
>>> Abu Dhabi, but forced to film in Morocco because of local sensitivities � has
>>> been berated by critics for "anti-Muslim" sentiments.
>> With all due respect, if a movie is forced to film elsewhere because
>> of *ahem* "local sensitivities" (presumably regarding women and/or the
>> cultural background of said movie), then why are these "sensitivities"
>> not detailed anywhere like all the "OMFG ANTI-MUSLIM HATEHATEHATE!"
>> comments are?
>>
>> --
>> Sean
>
> Because liberals run the media.
RIGHT-WING STUPID-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *silly
0* -*- *Reaganite
* |\ *moronic
* \ *Nixonian
* \ *diagnosed retard
* _\/ *Bushite
* * *damned for all eternity
Tom
> In article <anka06taed7io9s99hf6rii6tk99ut0...@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:42:42 -0400, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <GL6dna1i6rRwgpjRnZ2dnUVZ_tSdn...@giganews.com>,
> > > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Sex and the City 2 is clearly anti-Muslim: This foolish film "completely"
> > >> disrespects "the Middle East, its people, its religion and its culture,"
> > >> says Wajahat Ali in Salon. It "ignorantly and inaccurately" paints Abu
> > >> Dhabi as an "oppressive dungeon populated by intolerant men who cannot
> > >> comprehend cleavage or bare shoulders," and does so "in a wacky cultural
> > >> vacuum blissfully unaware of its own arrogance and prejudices." Needless
> > >> to say, this is a terrible film.
>
> > >Why is it that we're always expected to respect the sensitivities of
> > >Muslims but they're never expected to respect our sensitivities?
>
> > Actually you ban troublesome Muslims from your country as well.
>
> Not effectively enough, apparently. We even promote them as officers in
> our military. Until they erupt in an orgy of mass-murder, that is.
Unlike these apparently non-Muslim types:
* Charles Albright: AKA "The Eyeball Killer"; convicted of
murdering three prostitutes in Dallas, Texas; sentenced to life
imprisonment in 1991
* Rodney James Alcala: AKA "the Dating Game Killer"; convicted
rapist and serial killer.
* Joe Ball: AKA "The Alligator Man"; killed at least 20 women in
the early 20th century in Texas
* Herb Baumeister: suspected of killing 20+ men along I-70; fled
and committed suicide after remains of 11 were found on his Westfield,
Indiana property
* David Berkowitz: AKA "Son of Sam" and "The .44 Caliber Killer";
convicted of six murders in New York
* Bloody Benders: family who killed guests at their inn in Labette
County, Kansas in 1872
* Robert Berdella: convicted of killing six men in 1988 in Kansas
City, Missouri; sexually tortured and dismembered his victims
* Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono Jr: AKA the "Hillside
Strangler"; killers of 13 women and possibly involved in three other
killings
* Richard Biegenwald: convicted of killing five people in the
early 1980s in the Asbury Park, New Jersey area; suspected in at least
six other murders
* Arthur Gary Bishop: Utah man who murdered five young boys;
executed in 1988
* Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris: kidnapped, tortured, raped and
murdered five girls in 1979
* Terry Blair: Kansas City serial killer and rapist; active 1982–
2004
* William Bonin: AKA "The Freeway Killer"; with several
accomplices, claimed the lives of 20 boys in California
* Briley Brothers: three brothers and an accomplice responsible
for 11 murders in the 1970s in Richmond, Virginia
* Robert Charles Browne: convicted of two murders in Colorado;
confessed to 48 murders
* Jerry Brudos: AKA "The Lust Killer" and "Shoe Fetish Slayer";
killed at least five women in Oregon
* Ted Bundy: law student who raped and murdered more than 35 women
in six states; executed in Florida State Prison on January 24, 1989
* David Carpenter: AKA the "Trailside Killer"; murdered five women
on San Francisco-area hiking trails between 1979 and 1981
* Michael Bear Carson and Suzan Carson: nomadic hippie killers
involved in the counter-culture movement; suspects in 12 homicides;
sentenced to life imprisonment for three San Francisco Bay Area
murders in 1983
* Dean Carter: murdered at least four women
* Richard Chase: AKA "The Vampire of Sacramento"; murdered six
people in California the 1970s
* Doug Clark and Carol M. Bundy: AKA "Sunset Strip Killers";
killed at least seven people during 1980
* Carroll Cole: killed 16 people between 1948 and 1980; executed
in 1985
* Alton Coleman and Debra Denise Brown: multi-state killers whose
killings took place during two months in 1984; convicted of murder in
three states
* Ray Copeland and Faye Copeland: oldest couple ever sentenced to
death in the United States at the ages of 75 and 69; convicted of
killing five men; modus operandi was to hire unskilled drifters as
farm hands and later kill them
* Dean Corll, Elmer Wayne Henley and David Brooks: committed the
Houston Mass Murders in the 1970s
* Juan Corona: California killer convicted of murdering 25 men in
1971
* Andre Crawford a convicted serial killer, who killed 11 women
between 1993 to 1997
* Charles Cullen: nurse in New Jersey and Pennsylvania who killed
as many as 40 patients through lethal injection
* Jeffrey Dahmer: Milwaukee, Wisconsin cannibal who kept heads,
skulls and body parts in his apartment for sexual gratification;
convicted of 15 murders, but believed responsible for at least two
others
* Albert DeSalvo: AKA "The Boston Strangler"; convicted of
unrelated rapes; DeSalvo was never indicted for the Strangler murders,
although he did confess to them
* Westley Allan Dodd: raped and murdered three boys in 1989;
executed on January 5, 1993
* Ronald Dominique: confessed to raping and murdering at least 23
men in Louisiana; sentenced to eight life sentences in 2008
* Nannie Doss: AKA "The Giggling Granny" and "The Jolly Black
Widow"; serial poisoner who killed 11 family members
* Paul Durousseau: murdered seven in southeast United States
between 1997 and 2003; may have killed while stationed in Germany with
the Army
* Mack Ray Edwards: convicted of murdering three children after
confessing to the murders of six in Los Angeles County between 1953
and 1969; claimed at one point to have killed as many as 18
* Raymond Fernandez and Martha Beck: AKA the "Lonely Hearts
Killers"; killed at least three women and one child in the 1940s but
suspected in up to 20 murders in New York and Michigan
* Albert Fish: AKA the "Werewolf of Wisteria"; sadist and
pedophile who cannibalized several children; convicted of one murder,
confessed to 2 others,claimed to have molested 100 children
* Wayne Adam Ford: AKA "Wayward Wayne"; confessed to murdering
four women; believed to have killed others
* Kendall Francois: serial killer from Poughkeepsie, New York who
targeted prostitutes; after strangling the women, he would store them
in various crawl spaces in and around his home
* Joseph Paul Franklin: racist serial killer who targeted
interracial couples and attempted to assassinate Larry Flynt and
Vernon Jordan; convicted of 11 murders and confessed to nine others
* John Wayne Gacy: AKA "Killer Clown"; killer of at least 33 men
and boys; kept bodies buried under his Chicago home
* Gerald and Charlene Gallego: AKA the "Gallego Sex Slaves
Killers"; kidnapped, raped and killed victims in the late 1970s; most
of them were teenagers
* Carlton Gary: convicted of the murders of seven elderly women in
Georgia
* Donald Henry "Peewee"" Gaskins: AKA "Meanest Man in America";
convicted of nine murders; confessed to more than 200; executed on
September 6, 1991
* Ed Gein: two known victims, one suspected victim, four missing
persons; elements of Gein's life and crimes have inspired, at least in
part, the films Psycho and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and the novel/
movie The Silence of the Lambs
* Janie Lou Gibbs: Georgia poisoner who killed five family members
* Kristen Gilbert: AKA the "Angel of Death"; nurse convicted of
killing four by epinephrine injection
* Lorenzo Gilyard: killed up to 13 prostitutes in the Kansas City
area 1977 to 1993
* Harvey Glatman: Californian rapist and killer of three women;
lured women to pose for "bondage photographs"; executed September 18,
1959
* Jeffrey Gorton: convicted of two rape-murders in Michigan,
suspected of more
* Dana Sue Gray: convicted of murder of three elderly women and
attempted murder of a fourth in California
* Vaughn Greenwood: convicted of nine counts of murder, including
eight of the "Skid Row Slasher" killings in southern California
* Belle Gunness: Norwegian-born murder-for-profit killer who
killed her suitors and children in Indiana
* Anna Marie Hahn: German-born murder-for-profit killer who
poisoned five elderly men; executed in 1938
* Robert Hansen: Alaskan baker who killed prostitutes at his
cabin; convicted of four murders but admitted to 11 others
* Donald Harvey: AKA "Angel of Death"; hospital orderly; confessed
to more than 80 "mercy killings" with 37 confirmed killings
* William Heirens: AKA "The Lipstick Killer"; confessed to three
murders spanning from June 1945 to January 1946
* Dr. H. H. Holmes: active from 1890 to 1894 during Chicago's 1893
World's Columbian Exposition; convicted of only one murder but
definitively tied to at least eight more and confessed to a total of
27
* Waneta Hoyt: New York woman who murdered her five children
* Michael Hughes: killed four women in the Los Angeles area
between 1992 and 1993; charged in 2008 with raping and murdering four
additional women between 1986 and 1993
* Leslie Irvin: AKA "Mad Dog"; convicted of killing six people in
Indiana in the mid-1950s; his Supreme Court case set a precedent for
fair trials of highly publicized defendants
* Phillip Carl Jablonski: killed at least four women in California
and Utah
* Keith Hunter Jesperson: Canadian serial killer convicted in the
United States
* Vincent Johnson: AKA the "Brooklyn Strangler"; a homeless crack
addict who killed at least five prostitutes
* Genene Jones: Texas pediatric nurse who poisoned infants in her
care; convicted of only one murder but suspected of 10 or more others
* Patrick Kearney: necrophiliac convicted of 21 murders in
California and admitted to seven other murders
* Edmund Kemper: started killing when he was 15 years old in Santa
Cruz, California; convicted of six murders and implicated in four
others
* Tillie Klimek: Chicago woman who poisoned five husbands;
sentenced to life imprisonment
* Paul John Knowles: raped and murdered 18 people
* Randy Kraft: convicted of the murders of 16 young men and boys;
suspected of 51 others in California
* Timothy Krajcir: confessed to killing more than nine women—five
in Missouri and four others in Illinois and Pennsylvania
* Peter Kudzinowski: killed children in New Jersey in the 1920s
* Leonard Lake and Charles Ng: ex-Marines and survivalists; killed
at least 11 people and suspected of 25 in Wilseyville, California;
collected and murdered female sex slaves
* Derrick Todd Lee: AKA the "Baton Rouge Serial Killer"; convicted
of two murders; linked by DNA evidence to five others
* Henry Lee Lucas: convicted of 11 murders and confessed to
approximately 3,000 others, although most of his confessions are
considered outlandish; a task force set up to investigate his claims
suggested that the true number of his murders may be as high as 213
* Rhonda Belle Martin: Alabama poisoner who murdered six family
members; suspected of poisoning at least nine; executed in 1957
* Michigan murders (John Norman Collins and Gary Leiterman):
committed separately in Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor between 1967 and 1969
* Frederick Mors: Austrian who killed 17 elderly patients by
poisoning in New York
* Herbert Mullin: schizophrenic in Santa Cruz, California who
killed people to prevent earthquakes; convicted of 10 murders and
confessed to three others
* Earle Nelson: AKA "Gorilla Man"; necrophiliac convicted and
hanged for one murder; implicated in about 20 others
* Marie Noe: murdered eight of her children between 1949 and 1968
* Gordon Stewart Northcott: AKA the "Wineville Chicken Coop
Murders"; California man who confessed to kidnapping, raping and
murdering nine young boys with the aid of his mother, Sarah Louise
Northcott in the 1920s; suspected of the murder of nearly 30, executed
in 1930
* Carl Panzram: murderer, rapist and arsonist; convicted of two
murders; confessed to 19 others; executed in 1930
* Gerald Parker: AKA the "Bedroom Basher" raped and murdered five
women and killed the unborn baby of a sixth woman in Orange County,
California
* Christopher Peterson: AKA the "Shotgun Killer", confessed to
shooting seven people with a shotgun in a killing spree spanning from
October 30, 1990 to December 18, 1990 in Indiana.
* Dorothea Puente: convicted of three killings in Sacramento,
California during the 1980s; suspected of six others
* Dennis Rader: AKA the "BTK Killer"; killed ten people between
1974 and 1991 in Sedgwick County, Kansas
* Richard Ramirez: AKA the "Night Stalker"; terrorized Los Angeles
in 1984 and 1985; convicted of 14 murders
* David Parker Ray: convicted of rape and torture and sentenced to
224 years in prison; FBI believes he was responsible for the deaths of
60 women in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico
* Paul Dennis Reid: killed seven people during armed robberies
between February and April 1997
* Ángel Maturino Reséndiz: killed nine people in Texas, Kentucky,
and Illinois
* Gary Ridgway: AKA the "Green River Killer"; convicted of
murdering 48 women in Washington state
* Joel Rifkin: murdered 17 women in the New York City and Long
Island areas
* John Edward Robinson: AKA the "Cyber Sex Killer"; lured victims
through the internet; convicted of murdering six women in Missouri and
Kansas
* Dayton Leroy Rogers: murdered at least six women in Oregon
* Danny Rolling: pleaded guilty to murdering five students in
Florida; executed in 2006
* Michael Bruce Ross: raped and murdered seven women in
Connecticut; executed May 13, 2005
* Efren Saldivar: respiratory therapist who killed six patients,
possibly as many as 120
* Altemio Sanchez: AKA the "Bike Path Rapist"; responsible for
three murders and numerous rapes spanning a 25-year period in Buffalo,
New York; currently serving three consecutive 75 years-to-life
sentences for the murders
* Heriberto Seda: New York City copycat killer of the "Zodiac
Killer" active from 1990 to 1994; convicted of shooting eight
individuals, killing three; sentenced to life imprisonment in 1998
* Gerard John Schaefer: Florida police officer who killed up to 34
women and girls
* Tommy Lynn Sells: convicted of only one murder; admitted to
murdering dozens of people across the United States, possibly in
excess of 70 although only six are confirmed
* Serial Shooter ( Dale S. Hausner and Samuel John Dieteman):
Convicted of killing 8 people in random drive-by shootings in 2006 in
Phoenix, Arizona
* Arthur Shawcross: AKA "The Genesee River Killer"; convicted of
12 murders; confessed to one more
* Robert Shulman: convicted of murdering five prostitutes between
1991 and 1996
* Lemuel Smith: confessed to the murders of five people, including
an on-duty female prison guard
* Morris Solomon Jr.: handyman who killed six young women between
1986 and 1987 in Sacramento, California
* Gerald Stano: convicted murderer of 41 women; executed in 1998
* Cary Stayner: killed four women in Yosemite, California
* Michael Swango: physician and surgeon who poisoned over 30 of
his patients and colleagues
* William Suff: AKA the "Riverside Killer"; killed up to 19 women
near Riverside, California
* Marybeth Tinning: New York woman who smothered nine of her
children to death
* Ottis Toole: Henry Lee Lucas' accomplice; convicted of six
murders in Florida; confessed to but never tried for Adam Walsh's
murder
* Maury Travis: St. Louis area torture killer of 12–17 prostitutes
from 2000 to 2002
* Chester Turner: murderer of women in Los Angeles, California;
convicted of 12 murders and linked through DNA evidence to another
* Henry Louis Wallace: Charlotte, North Carolina killer of at
least nine young women from 1992 to 1994
* Coral Eugene Watts: convicted of two murders; admitted to
killing 80 people in Texas and Michigan; possibly guilty of 100
murders
* Nathaniel White: convicted of stabbing to death six women in the
Hudson Valley, New York area from 1991 to 1992
* Wayne Williams: convicted of two murders; police claim his
arrest solved 23 others in a string of 29
* Gwendolyn Graham and Cathy Wood: Michigan duo who murdered five
elderly nursing home residents in their care and claimed to have
killed another
* Randall Woodfield: AKA the "The I-5 Killer" and "The I-5
Bandit"; convicted of four murders; believed responsible for 14 others
* Aileen Wuornos: shot six men dead in Florida; executed in 2002
* Robert Lee Yates: murdered at least 13 women in Spokane County,
Washington
So, what was your point?
Tom
Tom
> In article <GL6dna1i6rRwgpjRnZ2dnUVZ_tSdn...@giganews.com>,
I'm quite confident that's rooted in the teachings of Jesus... you
know... turn the other cheek and such.
Tom
Thanatos
<7b78b708-51e5-4ee3...@o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 11:42�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <GL6dna1i6rRwgpjRnZ2dnUVZ tSdn...@giganews.com>,
> >
> > �Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> > > Sex and the City 2 is clearly anti-Muslim: This foolish film "completely"
> > > disrespects "the Middle East, its people, its religion and its culture,"
> > > says Wajahat Ali in Salon. It "ignorantly and inaccurately" paints Abu
> > > Dhabi as an "oppressive dungeon populated by intolerant men who cannot
> > > comprehend cleavage or bare shoulders," and does so "in a wacky cultural
> > > vacuum blissfully unaware of its own arrogance and prejudices." Needless
> > > to say, this is a terrible film.
> >
> > Why is it that we're always expected to respect the sensitivities of
> > Muslims but they're never expected to respect our sensitivities?
>
> I'm quite confident that's rooted in the teachings of Jesus... you
> know... turn the other cheek and such.
Well, that works if you're a Christian. For those of us who aren't
superstitious, it's just a double-standard.
Thanatos
Probably because he didn't make a point of it while he was committing
his crime.
Tom
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, taking the high road usually requires one to be better than
those on the low road.
It's a burden.
Tom
Thanatos
<f8e2d17b-1a1f-4e3c...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2:07�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7b78b708-51e5-4ee3-9729-4484d27d7...@o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 1, 11:42�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > Why is it that we're always expected to respect the
> > > > sensitivities of Muslims but they're never expected to
> > > > respect our sensitivities?
> >
> > > I'm quite confident that's rooted in the teachings of Jesus...
> > > you know... turn the other cheek and such.
> >
> > Well, that works if you're a Christian. For those of us who aren't
> > superstitious, it's just a double-standard.
> Yeah, taking the high road usually requires one to be better than
> those on the low road.
Well, if "taking the high road" requires us to allow people to
continually insult, offend and disrespect us, while still affording
their often-barbaric cultures and religion high respect, then I'll be
heading down the low road every time.
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-E956E1...@news.giganews.com...
Am I the only one reading this that finds it laughable that you claim 'we'
don't expect Muslims (and everyone else) to conform to 'our' sensitivities?
In fact, your posts here reflect that that is exactly what you expect. 'We'
expect everyone to think Democracy is better than all alternatives. 'We'
expect a 'God fearing society' to be allowed to flourish, but 'we' don't
want it interfering with government. 'We' expect capitalism and English
language to be the official methods by which all things are done
financially. 'We' expect...well, pretty much the whole world to act like
'us' and wish to be like 'us'...and we openly condemn anyone that doesn't
tow that line.
AZ Nomad
>Carrie Bradshaw and company return in the much-anticipated sequel, Sex and the
>City 2, which takes the aging girls on a prowl through the Middle East. In
cities and civilization are antimuslim.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
Umm... I never claimed that at all. Please quote it back to me if you
think I did.
> 'We' expect a 'God fearing society' to be allowed to flourish, but
> 'we' don't want it interfering with government.
As an atheist, I find it hilarious that you've somehow read into my
comments that I expect god-fearing societies to flourish.
> 'We' expect...well, pretty much the whole world to act like
> 'us' and wish to be like 'us'
I don't know who you're talking about but I don't know anyone who
expects the whole world to act like us and wish to be us.
Sounds like a strawman to me.
> ...and we openly condemn anyone that doesn't tow that line.
Well, now that your little rant is over, we can get back to the actual
subject under discussion, which is the fact that Americans are expected
to be "culturally sensitive", even to the point of refraining from
displaying our own flag in our own country because it might offend a
foreigner, but we're supposed to bite our tongues when others do things
designed to purposely offend us, like building a mosque at Ground Zero
because to do otherwise might be somehow insensitive to *them*.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-
Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
What you said was:
>>>Why is it that we're always expected to respect the
>>>sensitivities of Muslims but they're never expected to
>>>respect our sensitivities?
It is an amazingly naive and inaccurate comment. On what level is it that
you don't think that 'we' are expecting Muslims to respect our
sensitivities?
>> 'We' expect a 'God fearing society' to be allowed to flourish, but
>> 'we' don't want it interfering with government.
>
> As an atheist, I find it hilarious that you've somehow read into my
> comments that I expect god-fearing societies to flourish.
Not that you want God-fearing to flourish, just that you think that 'we'
should all live in a society that allows it.
>> 'We' expect...well, pretty much the whole world to act like
>> 'us' and wish to be like 'us'
>
> I don't know who you're talking about but I don't know anyone who
> expects the whole world to act like us and wish to be us.
You kid yourself immensely. Why is it that you think the US garners so much
frustration/anger from other cultures. 'We' think that our way is best at
all times and 'we' try to impose 'our' culture on th4e rest of the world
every chance 'we' get.
> Sounds like a strawman to me.
No, a 'strawman' would be your initial claim that 'we' are expected to
respect everyone else, but that others are not expected to give us the same
in return.
>> ...and we openly condemn anyone that doesn't tow that line.
>
> Well, now that your little rant is over, we can get back to the actual
> subject under discussion, which is the fact that Americans are expected
> to be "culturally sensitive", even to the point of refraining from
> displaying our own flag in our own country because it might offend a
> foreigner, but we're supposed to bite our tongues when others do things
> designed to purposely offend us, like building a mosque at Ground Zero
> because to do otherwise might be somehow insensitive to *them*.
>
> http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-
> Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html
Keep shoveling the propaganda.
RichA
True, the only pro-Muslims are...Muslims.
Tom
That's not true at all.
Prove the truthfulness of that claim.
Tom
James Dale Guckert
> True, the only pro-Muslims are...Muslims.
And the only amateur Muslims are...Muslims.
The rest are not.
Gee, that was easy.
--
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> Maybe because Morrocco is also primarily Muslim
And that's an understatement.
--
JDG
Tom
>
>
>
> Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 2:07 am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7b78b708-51e5-4ee3-9729-4484d27d7...@o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 1, 11:42 am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > Why is it that we're always expected to respect the
> > > > > sensitivities of Muslims but they're never expected to
> > > > > respect our sensitivities?
>
> > > > I'm quite confident that's rooted in the teachings of Jesus...
> > > > you know... turn the other cheek and such.
>
> > > Well, that works if you're a Christian. For those of us who aren't
> > > superstitious, it's just a double-standard.
> > Yeah, taking the high road usually requires one to be better than
> > those on the low road.
>
> Well, if "taking the high road" requires us to allow people to
> continually insult, offend and disrespect us, while still affording
> their often-barbaric cultures and religion high respect, then I'll be
> heading down the low road every time.
Taking the high road often requites us to do and experience
uncomfortable things.
Taking the low road is the easy way out.
I'm constantly amazed how thin-skinned we tough Americans are...
Tom
Tom
> "Thanatos" <atro...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:atropos-E956E1...@news.giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <f8e2d17b-1a1f-4e3c-829f-529da89b4...@d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
No, you're not the only one.
Well stated, sir.
Tom
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> 'We' expect everyone to think Democracy is better than all
> >> alternatives.
> >
> > Umm... I never claimed that at all. Please quote it back to me if you
> > think I did.
> >>> Why is it that we're always expected to respect the
> >>> sensitivities of Muslims but they're never expected to
> >>> respect our sensitivities?
>
> It is an amazingly naive and inaccurate comment. On what level
> is it that
You always sprinkle your responses with this kind of gibberish.
"Levels"? Really?
> you don't think that 'we' are expecting Muslims to respect our
> sensitivities?
It's evident any time someone objects to the latest affront du jour. The
Ground Zero mosque is a prime example. People have been vilified, called
everything from "insensitive" to "racist" because they objected to it,
when there's no doubt that the Muslims chose the location precisely
because they knew it would offend. All of New York City to choose from
and they just happen to settle on a lot across the street from the WTC?
Riiighhht...
> >> 'We' expect a 'God fearing society' to be allowed to flourish, but
> >> 'we' don't want it interfering with government.
> >
> > As an atheist, I find it hilarious that you've somehow read into my
> > comments that I expect god-fearing societies to flourish.
>
> Not that you want God-fearing to flourish, just that you think that 'we'
> should all live in a society that allows it.
I "think" no such thing. When did you decide that you're such an expert
on what I believe? I only ask because it's not really working out for
you. I don't believe the whole world should live in a society that
allows god-fearing to flourish. People are free to live however they
like in their own countries. If they want all religion to flourish,
great. If they want only one religion to flourish, fantastic. If they
want no religion at all, have at it.
That's what I *actually* think, as oppose to what you seem to have
psychically deduced that I think.
> >> 'We' expect...well, pretty much the whole world to act like
> >> 'us' and wish to be like 'us'
> >
> > I don't know who you're talking about but I don't know anyone who
> > expects the whole world to act like us and wish to be us.
>
> You kid yourself immensely. Why is it that you think the US garners so much
> frustration/anger from other cultures. 'We' think that our way is best at
> all times and 'we' try to impose 'our' culture on th4e rest of the world
> every chance 'we' get.
And they lap it up, even as they bitch about it. If America suddenly
stopped exporting its culture-- movies, TV, books, etc.-- a black market
the likes of which you've never seen would spring up for all of it, and
the people who would be the best customers are the very people who whine
about the "decadence" and "filth" of it all.
We're not out there forcing people to absorb our culture at the point of
a gun. We don't "impose" it on people. We offer it for sale and they buy
it. It's pervasive because people all over the world *like* it.
> >> ...and we openly condemn anyone that doesn't tow that line.
> >
> > Well, now that your little rant is over, we can get back to the actual
> > subject under discussion, which is the fact that Americans are expected
> > to be "culturally sensitive", even to the point of refraining from
> > displaying our own flag in our own country because it might offend a
> > foreigner, but we're supposed to bite our tongues when others do things
> > designed to purposely offend us, like building a mosque at Ground Zero
> > because to do otherwise might be somehow insensitive to *them*.
> >
> > http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-
> > Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html
>
> Keep shoveling the propaganda.
LOL! So now new reports you don't like have become propaganda.
You're a cartoon.
Thanatos
<d3867382-6be6-4936...@y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Tom <drs...@aol.com> wrote:
Which is why I said I'm not interested in patting myself on the back for
making some philosophical point.
> Taking the low road is the easy way out.
So?
> I'm constantly amazed how thin-skinned we tough Americans are...
There's a difference between thin-skinned and letting people walk all
over you.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Yeah, funny how mentally unstable people do things like that,
especially in workplace shootings!
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
So, other than Baghdad, Istambul, Dubai . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Thanatos
I agree with you that Islamic extremists are mentally unstable. You'd
have to be to look forward to blowing yourself up and murdering children
all so you can fuck three-score virgins in some fantasyland afterlife.
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> It is an amazingly naive and inaccurate comment. On what level
>> is it that you don't think that 'we' are expecting Muslims to respect our
>> sensitivities?
>
> It's evident any time someone objects to the latest affront du jour. The
> Ground Zero mosque is a prime example. People have been vilified, called
> everything from "insensitive" to "racist" because they objected to it,
> when there's no doubt that the Muslims chose the location precisely
> because they knew it would offend. All of New York City to choose from
> and they just happen to settle on a lot across the street from the WTC?
> Riiighhht...
Thank you for proving my point. The laws are very clear in this country:
we do not have a legal ban on religious activity building a 'church' of any
sort near the WTC site. Yet, for some pathetic reason, you think that your
'sensitivity' should trump the laws of this nation. How can you not see
that you are the one demanding that your (or 'our' if you don't want to own
up to it being your personal request here) sensitivities be pandered to?
>> Not that you want God-fearing to flourish, just that you think that 'we'
>> should all live in a society that allows it.
>
> I "think" no such thing. When did you decide that you're such an expert
> on what I believe? I only ask because it's not really working out for
> you. I don't believe the whole world should live in a society that
> allows god-fearing to flourish. People are free to live however they
> like in their own countries. If they want all religion to flourish,
> great. If they want only one religion to flourish, fantastic. If they
> want no religion at all, have at it.
No one believes for even one second that you would openly support and praise
a country that outlawed the freedom to practice any/all religion. Nope, you
would use it as yet another example of how 'we' are better than 'them'.
> We're not out there forcing people to absorb our culture at the point of
> a gun. We don't "impose" it on people. We offer it for sale and they buy
> it. It's pervasive because people all over the world *like* it.
...and yet when people in this country choose to want to go to a mosque you
want to restrict that activity because it isn't 'our' culture.
>> > http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-
>> > Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html
>>
>> Keep shoveling the propaganda.
>
> LOL! So now new reports you don't like have become propaganda.
You are most definitely using it as propaganda.
> You're a cartoon.
Yes, Bluto, I am what I am.
trotsky
How does this compare to Ammuricans signing up to fight "the war in Iraq"?
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> It is an amazingly naive and inaccurate comment. On what level
> >> is it that you don't think that 'we' are expecting Muslims to respect our
> >> sensitivities?
> >
> > It's evident any time someone objects to the latest affront du jour. The
> > Ground Zero mosque is a prime example. People have been vilified, called
> > everything from "insensitive" to "racist" because they objected to it,
> > when there's no doubt that the Muslims chose the location precisely
> > because they knew it would offend. All of New York City to choose from
> > and they just happen to settle on a lot across the street from the WTC?
> > Riiighhht...
>
> Thank you for proving my point. The laws are very clear in this
> country: we do not have a legal ban on religious activity building
> a 'church' of any sort near the WTC site.
Since when has this discussion been about law? It's about sensitivity.
We don't have a legal ban on displaying the American flag, but the PC
intelligentsia has decided that Cinco de Mayo and "sensitivity" to
Mexicans trumps it.
There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of examples in the media
of people doing and saying things which are perfectly legal, but which
are vilified by those who say we should refrain from them in order to be
"sensitive" to the feelings of minorities.
Of course there's no law against building that mosque there. I never
said there was. Nor did I advocate the government force them to stop.
What I commented on was the fact that they chose to build it there
knowing it offend and also knowing that anyone who vocalized their
offense would be shouted down in the name of "tolerance".
> Yet, for some pathetic reason, you think that your 'sensitivity'
> should trump the laws of this nation.
I certainly do not. Quote me back any instance where I claimed
otherwise. (You're not exactly batting a thousand on your claims of
"what I think". Maybe you should quit while you're only slightly behind.)
On the other hand, Muslims *do* believe that their sensitivities should
trump the laws of this nation. When it comes to a choice between the 1st
Amendment and principles of free speech versus their rules against, for
example, drawing Mohammed, they believe their rules should prevail.
They're also pushing for separate Shari'a courts in Britain and France
as well as here in the U.S.
> How can you not see that you are the one demanding that your (or
> 'our' if you don't want to own up to it being your personal request
> here) sensitivities be pandered to?
?!?!? Of course I am. That was the whole effin point of my original
comment. Just once I'd like to see American sensitivities given priority
in such a situation by those who constantly demand theirs be catered to.
> >> Not that you want God-fearing to flourish, just that you think that 'we'
> >> should all live in a society that allows it.
> >
> > I "think" no such thing. When did you decide that you're such an expert
> > on what I believe? I only ask because it's not really working out for
> > you. I don't believe the whole world should live in a society that
> > allows god-fearing to flourish. People are free to live however they
> > like in their own countries. If they want all religion to flourish,
> > great. If they want only one religion to flourish, fantastic. If they
> > want no religion at all, have at it.
>
> No one believes for even one second that you would openly support
> and praise a country that outlawed the freedom to practice any/all
> religion.
I would respect it as their choice. I certainly wouldn't suggest we
should go over there and impose our way of life on them.
> Nope, you would use it as yet another example of how 'we' are better
> than 'them'.
Why don't you wait until I actually say things before criticizing me for
them? Instead you make up shit, attribute it to me, then vilify me for
it.
If that's the new standard, I have a whole lot of crap I can make up
about you. I can claim that you "think" a lot of things that probably
won't sit well with you and according to your own standards, once I do,
it becomes fact.
> > We're not out there forcing people to absorb our culture at the point of
> > a gun. We don't "impose" it on people. We offer it for sale and they buy
> > it. It's pervasive because people all over the world *like* it.
>
> ...and yet when people in this country choose to want to go to a
> mosque you want to restrict that activity because it isn't 'our' culture.
Again, I never made any such claim. Quote back to me any instance where
I advocated restricting anyone from going to a msoque. If you can, that
is. I know you can't.
> >> > http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-
> >> > Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html
> >>
> >> Keep shoveling the propaganda.
> >
> > LOL! So now news reports you don't like have become propaganda.
>
> You are most definitely using it as propaganda.
What exactly did I say about it that was inaccurate? Or is it just that
it's an effective example of what I'm talking about that's caused you to
try and dismiss it with a pejorative label?
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> It is an amazingly naive and inaccurate comment. On what level
>> >> is it that you don't think that 'we' are expecting Muslims to respect
>> >> our
>> >> sensitivities?
>> >
>> > It's evident any time someone objects to the latest affront du jour.
>> > The
>> > Ground Zero mosque is a prime example. People have been vilified,
>> > called
>> > everything from "insensitive" to "racist" because they objected to it,
>> > when there's no doubt that the Muslims chose the location precisely
>> > because they knew it would offend. All of New York City to choose from
>> > and they just happen to settle on a lot across the street from the WTC?
>> > Riiighhht...
>>
>> Thank you for proving my point. The laws are very clear in this
>> country: we do not have a legal ban on religious activity building
>> a 'church' of any sort near the WTC site.
>
> Of course there's no law against building that mosque there. I never
> said there was. Nor did I advocate the government force them to stop.
> What I commented on was the fact that they chose to build it there
> knowing it offend and also knowing that anyone who vocalized their
> offense would be shouted down in the name of "tolerance".
The people that are 'sensitive' to a mosque being built are going to be
sensitive and complain about it wherever it is built...most certainly if it
is built near their home/community.
>> Yet, for some pathetic reason, you think that your 'sensitivity'
>> should trump the laws of this nation.
>
> I certainly do not. Quote me back any instance where I claimed
> otherwise. (You're not exactly batting a thousand on your claims of
> "what I think". Maybe you should quit while you're only slightly behind.)
You just whined above about how the mosque should not be built out of
sensitivity to our feelings. You can pawn it off as some comment about how
some random third person would feel, but it doesn't change one bit what you
are advocating.
> On the other hand, Muslims *do* believe that their sensitivities should
> trump the laws of this nation. When it comes to a choice between the 1st
> Amendment and principles of free speech versus their rules against, for
> example, drawing Mohammed, they believe their rules should prevail.
A whole lot of Christians feel the same way when their 'sensibilities' are
offended. Start with the PTC if you need guidance on understanding that the
Muslims are not the only ones wishing for less 'free speech'.
> They're also pushing for separate Shari'a courts in Britain and France
> as well as here in the U.S.
...lots of whacko's here in the good old USA claim that the court system of
this country should not aplly to them.
>> How can you not see that you are the one demanding that your (or
>> 'our' if you don't want to own up to it being your personal request
>> here) sensitivities be pandered to?
>
> ?!?!? Of course I am. That was the whole effin point of my original
> comment. Just once I'd like to see American sensitivities given priority
> in such a situation by those who constantly demand theirs be catered to.
American 'sensitivities' are constantly pandered to here in the USA and all
over the world. if you don't see.know that, there really isn;'t any point
in having this discussion since your jingoism knows no bounds.
>> >> Not that you want God-fearing to flourish, just that you think that
>> >> 'we'
>> >> should all live in a society that allows it.
>> >
>> > I "think" no such thing. When did you decide that you're such an expert
>> > on what I believe? I only ask because it's not really working out for
>> > you. I don't believe the whole world should live in a society that
>> > allows god-fearing to flourish. People are free to live however they
>> > like in their own countries. If they want all religion to flourish,
>> > great. If they want only one religion to flourish, fantastic. If they
>> > want no religion at all, have at it.
>>
>> No one believes for even one second that you would openly support
>> and praise a country that outlawed the freedom to practice any/all
>> religion.
>
> I would respect it as their choice.
No you wouldn't. You would belittle them for their lack of American style
freedom.
> I certainly wouldn't suggest we
> should go over there and impose our way of life on them.
A big chunk of people supporting the invasion of Afghanistan did so under
the impression that the women needed to be freed from their cultures
religious restrictions.
>> Nope, you would use it as yet another example of how 'we' are better
>> than 'them'.
>
> Why don't you wait until I actually say things before criticizing me for
> them? Instead you make up shit, attribute it to me, then vilify me for
> it.
You never own up to anything. Instead, you constantly avoid taking credit
for any thought; always passing it off as what a third party might
think...and all the while claiming that everyone else is wrong. The mosque
bit is a perfect example of it. You know that it isn't illegal to build a
mosque. You know that it would be wrong for the government to make it
illegal. Yet, you would vilify those that think it should be stopped by
government intervention AND you vilify those that defend the right of the
mosque to be built.
>> >> > http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-
>> >> > Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html
>> >>
>> >> Keep shoveling the propaganda.
>> >
>> > LOL! So now news reports you don't like have become propaganda.
>>
>> You are most definitely using it as propaganda.
>
> What exactly did I say about it that was inaccurate? Or is it just that
> it's an effective example of what I'm talking about that's caused you to
> try and dismiss it with a pejorative label?
Yes, you are using it as propaganda.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
A claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up. I see that you're not
limiting yourself to psychically deducing what I think and believe and
are expanding your repertoire to everyone else as well.
Also, I noticed your response completely failed to address the point
that YOU YOURSELF RAISED: that the laws of the U.S. are somehow involved
in all of this. After I pretty much handed you your ass on that point,
suddenly we're talking about how people you don't even know will
complain no matter where the building is located.
> >> Yet, for some pathetic reason, you think that your 'sensitivity'
> >> should trump the laws of this nation.
> >
> > I certainly do not. Quote me back any instance where I claimed
> > otherwise. (You're not exactly batting a thousand on your claims of
> > "what I think". Maybe you should quit while you're only slightly
> > behind.)
>
> You just whined above about how the mosque should not be built out of
> sensitivity to our feelings.
Yes, but not through force of law, bright eyes. They should voluntarily
censor themselves out of respect for the sensitivities of the community,
the same way they continually expect all the rest of us to do for them.
The same way the school administrators in California expected the
students to voluntarily censor themselves and refrain from displaying
the American flag out of respect for the Mexicans.
> You can pawn it off as some comment about how some random third person
> would feel, but it doesn't change one bit what you are advocating.
You're either truly thick or playing dumb for effect. I can't tell which.
> > On the other hand, Muslims *do* believe that their sensitivities should
> > trump the laws of this nation. When it comes to a choice between the 1st
> > Amendment and principles of free speech versus their rules against, for
> > example, drawing Mohammed, they believe their rules should prevail.
>
> A whole lot of Christians feel the same way when their 'sensibilities'
> are offended.
Yes, and Christians are told "too bad." Muslims are told, "yes, of
course."
> Start with the PTC if you need guidance on understanding that the
> Muslims are not the only ones wishing for less 'free speech'.
I've been vocal in my opposition to that group of nutbags as well. This
isn't an either/or binary proposition here. Opposing one doesn't endorse
or imply endorsement of the other.
> > They're also pushing for separate Shari'a courts in Britain and France
> > as well as here in the U.S.
>
> ...lots of whacko's here in the good old USA claim that the court system of
> this country should not aplly to them.
Well, at least you agree they're wackos. We're making progress. Baby
steps, I guess.
The difference with the Muslims, of course, is that they're not
dismissed as wackos. (That would "insensitive", after all.) Their claims
are given credence at the highest levels:
Harold Koh, former dean of Yale Law School, and President Obama's pick
to become the legal adviser to the State Department, said in a 2007
speech that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why
Shari'a law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."
In Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, proclaimed
that "Islamic law is unavoidable in Britain. For there to be one law for
everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger."
Equality of treatment under the law and equality of rights for all
people? That's now a dangerous concept!
And most disturbing of all, a Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, has
upheld both the legitimacy and legal authority of a Shari'a court in
Texas:
http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=1
4601
The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for
arbitration to Texas Islamic court within Seven Days from
the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of
Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including
those filed against or on behalf of other family members
related to the parties. Each party will notify the other
party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys,
in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers
from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic
Court.
1. The Parties agree to arbitrate all existing issues among
them in the above mentioned Cause Numbers in the appropriate
District Court, which includes the Divorce Case, the child
custody of the [sic] Noor Qaddura and Farah Qaddura,
the determination of each partys responsibilities and
duties according to the Islamic rules of law by Texas
Islamic Court.
2. All parties agree to sign the Texas Islamic Court required
legal forms, and each party pays his required fees.
3.The panel of arbitrators of Texas Islamic Court will be
formed according to the rules and regulations of Texas Islamic
Court.
4.Each Party will submit all of his documents, exhibits, and
evidence to Texas Islamic Court.
5.The parties agree that the Ruling of the Texas Islamic
Court in the above mentioned Cause Numbers is Binding, and
Final, and no party will take any appeal or future legal
action of any matter afterwards.
> >> How can you not see that you are the one demanding that your (or
> >> 'our' if you don't want to own up to it being your personal request
> >> here) sensitivities be pandered to?
> >
> > ?!?!? Of course I am. That was the whole effin point of my original
> > comment. Just once I'd like to see American sensitivities given priority
> > in such a situation by those who constantly demand theirs be catered to.
>
> American 'sensitivities' are constantly pandered to here in the USA and all
> over the world. if you don't see.know that, there really isn;'t any point
> in having this discussion since your jingoism knows no bounds.
LOL! "I have no evidence so I'll just keep repeating the same thing over
and over and hope it suddenly becomes true."
Maybe you even believe it.
> >> >> Not that you want God-fearing to flourish, just that you think that
> >> >> 'we'
> >> >> should all live in a society that allows it.
> >> >
> >> > I "think" no such thing. When did you decide that you're such an expert
> >> > on what I believe? I only ask because it's not really working out for
> >> > you. I don't believe the whole world should live in a society that
> >> > allows god-fearing to flourish. People are free to live however they
> >> > like in their own countries. If they want all religion to flourish,
> >> > great. If they want only one religion to flourish, fantastic. If they
> >> > want no religion at all, have at it.
> >>
> >> No one believes for even one second that you would openly support
> >> and praise a country that outlawed the freedom to practice any/all
> >> religion.
> >
> > I would respect it as their choice.
>
> No you wouldn't.
Yes, I would.
> You would belittle them for their lack of American style
> freedom.
That's better than what you'd do. You'd advocate killing anyone who took
that position.
> > I certainly wouldn't suggest we
> > should go over there and impose our way of life on them.
>
> A big chunk of people supporting the invasion of Afghanistan did so under
> the impression that the women needed to be freed from their cultures
> religious restrictions.
Can you show that I was one of them? If not, then your claim as to what
*I* would think and do was nothing but bullshit, then, wasn't it?
> >> Nope, you would use it as yet another example of how 'we' are better
> >> than 'them'.
> >
> > Why don't you wait until I actually say things before criticizing
> > me for them? Instead you make up shit, attribute it to me, then
> > vilify me for it.
>
> You never own up to anything.
That's because everything you expect me to "own up to" is fantasy crap
you've made up in your own head and attributed to me.
> You know that it isn't illegal to build a
> mosque.
For the nth time, dumbass, I never claimed it was a violation of law AT
ALL. I never even brought up *any* legal issues or claims.
> You know that it would be wrong for the government to make it
> illegal.
I never advocated any such thing. I've challenged you repeatedly to
quote back any instance where I said or implied any remotely like that.
> Yet, you would vilify those that think it should be stopped by
> government intervention
Where did I *ever* suggest the government should intervene? Quote it
back to me, dipshit. You keep saying I've said these things when I
clearly never have.
Quite ironic, coming from a guy who thinks it's just fine to jail people
indefinitely without trial for saying anything negative about Muslims.
> >> >> > http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Fl
> >> >> > ag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Keep shoveling the propaganda.
> >> >
> >> > LOL! So now news reports you don't like have become propaganda.
> >>
> >> You are most definitely using it as propaganda.
> >
> > What exactly did I say about it that was inaccurate? Or is it just that
> > it's an effective example of what I'm talking about that's caused you to
> > try and dismiss it with a pejorative label?
>
> Yes, you are using it as propaganda.
So no answer, then? Quelle surprise.
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
Right...because we all know that the racists and 'sensitive people' in this
country are happy to welcome a new mosque into their neighborhood.
> I see that you're not
> limiting yourself to psychically deducing what I think and believe and
> are expanding your repertoire to everyone else as well.
No more than you do when you claim to know what these 'sensitive people'
really have as their motive.
> Also, I noticed your response completely failed to address the point
> that YOU YOURSELF RAISED: that the laws of the U.S. are somehow involved
> in all of this.
Yes, I said that it is legal...and it is. ...you responded with abstract
drivel about how third party people might feel (as usual doing exactly what
you condemn others of doing).
> After I pretty much handed you your ass on that point,
You agreed with me that it was legal. The only hand on my ass is yours.
> suddenly we're talking about how people you don't even know will
> complain no matter where the building is located.
Which is no different than you claiming to know what these people that are
'sensitive' really feel or have in mind. They can claim that they only have
'sensitivity' about this one location, but such claims are illogical. They
should welcome a mosque to the location as it might reduce the chances of
repeat attacks on the same location.
>> >> Yet, for some pathetic reason, you think that your 'sensitivity'
>> >> should trump the laws of this nation.
>> >
>> > I certainly do not. Quote me back any instance where I claimed
>> > otherwise. (You're not exactly batting a thousand on your claims of
>> > "what I think". Maybe you should quit while you're only slightly
>> > behind.)
>>
>> You just whined above about how the mosque should not be built out of
>> sensitivity to our feelings.
>
> Yes, but not through force of law, bright eyes.
Right...not through law, but through indirectly spoken 'intimidation'.
> They should voluntarily
> censor themselves out of respect for the sensitivities of the community,
> the same way they continually expect all the rest of us to do for them.
Except that 'they' don't do that any more than you do it.
> The same way the school administrators in California expected the
> students to voluntarily censor themselves and refrain from displaying
> the American flag out of respect for the Mexicans.
You don't think the decision to wear the flag was 'intentional disrespect'
the same way you claim the building of a mosque is?
>> You can pawn it off as some comment about how some random third person
>> would feel, but it doesn't change one bit what you are advocating.
>
> You're either truly thick or playing dumb for effect. I can't tell which.
I am mimmicking you. Does that help you determine how I am acting?
>> > On the other hand, Muslims *do* believe that their sensitivities should
>> > trump the laws of this nation. When it comes to a choice between the
>> > 1st
>> > Amendment and principles of free speech versus their rules against, for
>> > example, drawing Mohammed, they believe their rules should prevail.
>>
>> A whole lot of Christians feel the same way when their 'sensibilities'
>> are offended.
>
> Yes, and Christians are told "too bad." Muslims are told, "yes, of
> course."
...sure they are...because Comedy Central is the whole country and it was an
issue of National importance rqather than simply the best/shortest path to
reducing risk to the employees.
>> Start with the PTC if you need guidance on understanding that the
>> Muslims are not the only ones wishing for less 'free speech'.
>
> I've been vocal in my opposition to that group of nutbags as well.
Then why do you claim that Muslim 'sensitivities' are the only ones pandered
to?
> This
> isn't an either/or binary proposition here.
Sure it is. You claimed that Muslims expect us to pander to their
sensitivities, but that 'we' don't expect 'our' sensitivities to be pandered
to. If your claims of 'we' and 'our' only meant that you think that
everyone on the planet expects to be pandered to except for you personally,
then maybe you should have said that instead of making the broad claim that
you were speaking about Muslims in one column and 'we/'our' in the other.
>> > They're also pushing for separate Shari'a courts in Britain and France
>> > as well as here in the U.S.
>>
>> ...lots of whacko's here in the good old USA claim that the court system
>> of
>> this country should not aplly to them.
>
> Well, at least you agree they're wackos. We're making progress. Baby
> steps, I guess.
As long as we are clear that you fit the whacko label on some topics as
well.
> The difference with the Muslims, of course, is that they're not
> dismissed as wackos. (That would "insensitive", after all.) Their claims
> are given credence at the highest levels:
That isn't true at all. Pretty much the entire population of the USA
dismisses them as 'whackos', including you.
> Harold Koh, former dean of Yale Law School, and President Obama's pick
> to become the legal adviser to the State Department, said in a 2007
> speech that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why
> Shari'a law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."
Key words being 'in an appropriate case'. Do you have some cite for where
he stated that US law should be set aside (in a US jurisdiction) in favor of
Shari'a Law? Otherwise, your random attempt to bring in another attack
angle is meaningless. For all I know, the guy was talking hypathetically
about pre-meditated murder of one's own Father being illegal under both
systems of Law, so it wouldn't matter which one was used to get to the same
verdict.
> In Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, proclaimed
> that "Islamic law is unavoidable in Britain. For there to be one law for
> everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger."
More random insertion of irrelevant stuff...or are you now admitting that
your 'we' and 'our' was meant to cover the entire non-Muslim world as a
single 'us vs them' claim?
> Equality of treatment under the law and equality of rights for all
> people? That's now a dangerous concept!
You have put forth nothing to show that anyone meant for inequitable laws.
Referencing two different systems won't lead to different conclusions in
what is likely to be a wide swath of overlap. Please site specific cases
where there is not overlap between the laws, but that part of the 'we' has
claimed that 'their' laws should be used rather than 'ours'.
> And most disturbing of all, a Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, has
> upheld both the legitimacy and legal authority of a Shari'a court in
> Texas:
>
> http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=1
> 4601
We have long since established that everyone in Texas is an idiot.
Beyond that, it seems that you are referencing a divorce case in which the
two parties were arguning over whether or not they should be bound by the
decisions of an arbitrator. Arbitration is an agreed upon part of the US
legal system, so what is it that you are whining about?
>> >> How can you not see that you are the one demanding that your (or
>> >> 'our' if you don't want to own up to it being your personal request
>> >> here) sensitivities be pandered to?
>> >
>> > ?!?!? Of course I am. That was the whole effin point of my original
>> > comment. Just once I'd like to see American sensitivities given
>> > priority
>> > in such a situation by those who constantly demand theirs be catered
>> > to.
>>
>> American 'sensitivities' are constantly pandered to here in the USA and
>> all
>> over the world. if you don't see.know that, there really isn;'t any point
>> in having this discussion since your jingoism knows no bounds.
>
> LOL! "I have no evidence so I'll just keep repeating the same thing over
> and over and hope it suddenly becomes true."
>
> Maybe you even believe it.
Do you honestly believe that US 'sensitivities' are not pandered to?
>> >> >> Not that you want God-fearing to flourish, just that you think that
>> >> >> 'we'
>> >> >> should all live in a society that allows it.
>> >> >
>> >> > I "think" no such thing. When did you decide that you're such an
>> >> > expert
>> >> > on what I believe? I only ask because it's not really working out
>> >> > for
>> >> > you. I don't believe the whole world should live in a society that
>> >> > allows god-fearing to flourish. People are free to live however they
>> >> > like in their own countries. If they want all religion to flourish,
>> >> > great. If they want only one religion to flourish, fantastic. If
>> >> > they
>> >> > want no religion at all, have at it.
>> >>
>> >> No one believes for even one second that you would openly support
>> >> and praise a country that outlawed the freedom to practice any/all
>> >> religion.
>> >
>> > I would respect it as their choice.
>>
>> No you wouldn't.
>
> Yes, I would.
You don't even respect their legal right to build a mosque.
>> You would belittle them for their lack of American style
>> freedom.
>
> That's better than what you'd do. You'd advocate killing anyone who took
> that position.
You are the gun nut (from Texas no less), not me.
>> > I certainly wouldn't suggest we
>> > should go over there and impose our way of life on them.
>>
>> A big chunk of people supporting the invasion of Afghanistan did so under
>> the impression that the women needed to be freed from their cultures
>> religious restrictions.
>
> Can you show that I was one of them?
Why would I need to?
> If not, then your claim as to what
> *I* would think and do was nothing but bullshit, then, wasn't it?
I made an accurate assessment of your mental state with regard to you not
respecting cultures that don't follow whatever 'morals' you think should
aply . If you don't like having yourself pegged, feel free to walk away.
>> >> Nope, you would use it as yet another example of how 'we' are better
>> >> than 'them'.
>> >
>> > Why don't you wait until I actually say things before criticizing
>> > me for them? Instead you make up shit, attribute it to me, then
>> > vilify me for it.
>>
>> You never own up to anything.
>
> That's because everything you expect me to "own up to" is fantasy crap
> you've made up in your own head and attributed to me.
Says the guy that started this threadline with claims that Muslims expect us
to pander to them, but that 'we' are not expecting to be pandered to.
>> You know that it isn't illegal to build a
>> mosque.
>
> For the nth time, dumbass, I never claimed it was a violation of law AT
> ALL. I never even brought up *any* legal issues or claims.
Did I say that you did make that claim? Nope. I factually stated that you
wanted to pander to 'sensitivity' with respect to the WTC mosque issue and
that you claimed that 'we' never expect such pandering in return.
>> You know that it would be wrong for the government to make it
>> illegal.
>
> I never advocated any such thing. I've challenged you repeatedly to
> quote back any instance where I said or implied any remotely like that.
Did I say that you advocated it? Nope. Why do you keep agreeing with what
I did say while claiming that I am wrong to say it?
>> Yet, you would vilify those that think it should be stopped by
>> government intervention
>
> Where did I *ever* suggest the government should intervene?
Did I write that you suggested it? No, I wrote that you would vilify it.
> Quote it
> back to me, dipshit.
'dipshit'
> You keep saying I've said these things when I
> clearly never have.
You clearly need to work on your reading skills...or just simplify the whole
thing down and admit that you were wrong in your claim that 'we' don't
expect to be pandered to...or, as an alternative, you can just clarify that
your 'we' and 'our' meant only you specifically...and then we could discuss
how wrong you are when you claim that you specifically do not expect to be
pandered to.
> Quite ironic, coming from a guy who thinks it's just fine to jail people
> indefinitely without trial for saying anything negative about Muslims.
You need to stop looking in the mirror when claiming to talk about someone
else. You are more the type to think that holding people in 'jail' without
trial is ok if it furthers the 'homeland security' silliness.
>> >> >> > http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Fl
>> >> >> > ag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Keep shoveling the propaganda.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL! So now news reports you don't like have become propaganda.
>> >>
>> >> You are most definitely using it as propaganda.
>> >
>> > What exactly did I say about it that was inaccurate? Or is it just that
>> > it's an effective example of what I'm talking about that's caused you
>> > to
>> > try and dismiss it with a pejorative label?
>>
>> Yes, you are using it as propaganda.
>
> So no answer, then? Quelle surprise.
Answer to what? Was there even a question or just another side/slide job by
you designed to move away from your initial false claim?
moviePig
> In article <hu8m77$hv...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
...
>
> > You just whined above about how the mosque should not be built out of
> > sensitivity to our feelings.
>
> censor themselves out of respect for the sensitivities of the community,
> the same way they continually expect all the rest of us to do for them.
> The same way the school administrators in California expected the
> students to voluntarily censor themselves and refrain from displaying
> the American flag out of respect for the Mexicans.
Seems to me the mosque is, if anything, more likely intended to disown
and/or apologize for Muslim participation in 9/11. I.e., it *might*
have been situated with the very best of intentions... with any "in
your face" message flashing only in minds where already indelibly
written...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Obveeus
>"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
>news:ef66df9c-66c3-4c7e...@y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 3, 2:24 pm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <hu8m77$hv...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>
>> "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>...
>>
>> > You just whined above about how the mosque should not be built out of
>> > sensitivity to our feelings.
>>
>> Yes ... They should voluntarily
>> censor themselves out of respect for the sensitivities of the community,
>> the same way they continually expect all the rest of us to do for them.
>> The same way the school administrators in California expected the
>> students to voluntarily censor themselves and refrain from displaying
>> the American flag out of respect for the Mexicans.
>
>Seems to me the mosque is, if anything, more likely intended to disown
>and/or apologize for Muslim participation in 9/11.
Agreed.
> I.e., it *might*
>have been situated with the very best of intentions... with any "in
>your face" message flashing only in minds where already indelibly
>written...
Those that would get that same 'in your face' message if a mosque was
announced for their own neighborhood.
Ed Stasiak
> > Thanatos
> >
> > I agree with you that Islamic extremists are mentally unstable. You'd
> > have to be to look forward to blowing yourself up and murdering children
> > all so you can fuck three-score virgins in some fantasyland afterlife.
>
> How does this compare to Ammuricans signing up to fight "the war in Iraq"?
Wow, you are one low-life piece of shit, trotsky.
Tom
> >"moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
I'll second that agreement.
Once again, you and movie pig have made some very astute observations.
Many thanks.
Tom.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Which has nothing to do with workplace shootings, like Virginia
Tech, or Fort Hood; well, whatever floats your boat!
--
- ReFlex76
Thanatos
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 04:24:57 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3sme06heeb6luc7b6...@4ax.com>,
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 03:08:27 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3hfb06hgthp9rds8f...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:04:33 -0400, Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> > Not effectively enough, apparently. We even promote them as
> >> >> > officers in our military. Until they erupt in an orgy of
> >> >> > mass-murder, that is.
> >> >>
> >> >> Funny how Seung-Hui Cho's religion wasn't brought up when he
> >> >> similarly shot up Virginia Tech!
> >> >
> >> > Probably because he didn't make a point of it while he was
> >> > committing his crime.
> >>
> >> Yeah, funny how mentally unstable people do things like that,
> >> especially in workplace shootings!
> >
> >I agree with you that Islamic extremists are mentally unstable. You'd
> >have to be to look forward to blowing yourself up and murdering children
> >all so you can fuck three-score virgins in some fantasyland afterlife.
>
> Which has nothing to do with workplace shootings, like Virginia
> Tech, or Fort Hood
Ah, so you're another one of those brain-dead morons who has managed to
convince himself that Fort Hood wasn't an act of Islamic terror.
He goes around yelling "Allahu akhbar" while executing people; he'd been
spouting radical Islamism for months beforehand; he'd been in regular
contact with known Islamist extremists and al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen...
but none of that really matters. Just a coincidence. He was really just
a lone crazy guy who inexplicably snapped. Riiighhht...
I wish people like you walked around with some kind of identifying
marker so the rest of us could make a killing selling you no end of
bullshit that you'd eagerly buy.
moviePig
> In article <a80h06t2t80gidn0nhfadqm97dol4dn...@4ax.com>,
> Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 04:24:57 -0400, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <3sme06heeb6luc7b6jfkmt4p3ibgmi8...@4ax.com>,
> > > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 03:08:27 -0400, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >In article <3hfb06hgthp9rds8f3qcscgoqkh700v...@4ax.com>,
> > >> > Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
What people like me see is that most *any* religion enhances
irrationality... (and, on that basis, could logically be viewed as a
gateway drug...)
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> The people that are 'sensitive' to a mosque being built are
> >> going to be sensitive and complain about it wherever it is
> >> built...most certainly if it is built near their home/community.
> >
> > A claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
>
> Right...because we all know that the racists and 'sensitive people'
> in this country are happy to welcome a new mosque into their neighborhood.
There's one that was built about a mile down the road from me about two
years ago. No one said a thing about it as far as I know. There
certainly was no organized protest against it.
> The only hand on my ass is yours.
Now you're getting creepy.
> > suddenly we're talking about how people you don't even know will
> > complain no matter where the building is located.
>
> They should welcome a mosque to the location as it might reduce the
> chances of repeat attacks on the same location.
LOL! Yeah, see how well that works out for them in the Middle East.
> >> You just whined above about how the mosque should not be built out of
> >> sensitivity to our feelings.
> >
> > Yes, but not through force of law, bright eyes.
>
> Right...not through law,
Praise Jesus and pass the mustard! He finally admits that the whole law
thing was nothing but his own fantasy bullshit. Will wonders never cease?
> but through indirectly spoken 'intimidation'.
Peer pressure, societal mores, whatever you want to call it. No matter
the label, it's sauce for the goose...
> > The same way the school administrators in California expected
> > the students to voluntarily censor themselves and refrain from
> > displaying the American flag out of respect for the Mexicans.
>
> You don't think the decision to wear the flag was 'intentional
> disrespect' the same way you claim the building of a mosque is?
Not according to everyone involved. Even the school principal who
started the mess by telling them to cover up admits that those
particular kids as well as many others at the school wear that sort of
thing often.
> > You're either truly thick or playing dumb for effect. I can't tell which.
>
> I am mimmicking you.
LOL! You know, it would help you look like a lot less of an ass-clown if
you managed to spell your insults correctly.
> >> A whole lot of Christians feel the same way when their 'sensibilities'
> >> are offended.
> >
> > Yes, and Christians are told "too bad." Muslims are told, "yes, of
> > course."
>
> ...sure they are...because Comedy Central is the whole country
Who said anything about Comedy Central? Is this another mind-burp of
yours?
> >> Start with the PTC if you need guidance on understanding that the
> >> Muslims are not the only ones wishing for less 'free speech'.
> >
> > I've been vocal in my opposition to that group of nutbags as well.
>
> Then why do you claim that Muslim 'sensitivities' are the only
> ones pandered to?
First, I never claimed anyone was "pandering" to anything. That's your
pejorative label, not mine.
Second, I never claimed Muslims sensitivities were the only ones for
which respect is demanded. All sorts of groups make the same demand. La
Raza demands it for illegals. Al Sharpton has made career out of
demanding it for whomever he feels he can exploit. Jesse Jackson the
same. The list is long and varied.
> > This isn't an either/or binary proposition here.
>
> Sure it is.
No, it isn't. It's perfectly possible to oppose more than one thing at a
time.
> You claimed that Muslims expect us to pander to their
> sensitivities
They demonstrably do. They've "demanded" women-only swim times at public
pools. They've "demanded" hand and foot baths at public universities. in
the aftermath of the flying imam incident, they "demanded" laws be
passed that would give them a cause of action against anyone who reports
a Muslim's suspicious behavior to the authorities.
> but that 'we' don't expect 'our' sensitivities to be pandered
> to.
Which, for the nth time, I never actually said.
(1) I never said anything about "pandering". That's your pejorative
label, not mine.
(2) I never said we don't expect our sensitivities to be honored. We
absolutely do expect that. I lamented the fact that they never are-- at
least not by those who are most vocal about expecting the same in return.
For someone who throws shots about lack of reading comprehension, you
sure seem to have a few problems of your own on that front.
> >> ...lots of whacko's here in the good old USA claim that the court system
> >> of this country should not aplly to them.
> >
> > Well, at least you agree they're wackos. We're making progress. Baby
> > steps, I guess.
>
> As long as we are clear that you fit the whacko label on some topics as
> well.
Buddy, if I'm a wacko, then you're the Grand Emperor of Wackovania.
>
> > The difference with the Muslims, of course, is that they're not
> > dismissed as wackos. (That would "insensitive", after all.)
> > Their claims are given credence at the highest levels:
>
> That isn't true at all. Pretty much the entire population of the USA
> dismisses them as 'whackos', including you.
Except for the people who are actually running things these days... the
president, various judges, cabinet officials, etc.
The current government hasn't shown itself to be particularly responsive
to the desires of the people it supposedly represents.
> > Harold Koh, former dean of Yale Law School, and President Obama's pick
> > to become the legal adviser to the State Department, said in a 2007
> > speech that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why
> > Shari'a law would not be applied to govern a case in the United
> > States."
>
> Key words being 'in an appropriate case'.
Well then, please describe for me a case where it would appropriate to
replace American federal, state or local laws with Muslim religious laws
and give them full force and effect. You can start with trying to
conceive of an instance where that wouldn't be a massive violation of
the 1st Amendment.
> Do you have some cite for where he stated that US law should be set
> aside (in a US jurisdiction) in favor of Shari'a Law?
I just gave you one: he didn't see any reason why Shari'a law would not
be applied to GOVERN a case in the United States.
If Shari'a law governs, that means its superior to all other applicable
laws. Otherwise it couldn't govern.
> For all I know, the guy was talking hypathetically about pre-meditated
> murder of one's own Father being illegal under both systems of Law,
> so it wouldn't matter which one was used to get to the same
> verdict.
Yes, it would. Even if the results are the same, it's violated local,
state and federal laws to apply and any other law in a duly constituted
court other than the ones passed by the legitimately elected legislative
bodies.
That's how our society works. We don't bind people to the decrees of
some religious court, even if the end result would be the same in a
particular case. To do otherwise would be unconstitutional on so many
different levels, I wouldn't even know where to start explaining it to
you.
(Oh, and I'm curious, what is it with your strange habit of capitalizing
random words throughout your posts? Father, law, etc. Not that it
matters, it's just weird.)
> > And most disturbing of all, a Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, has
> > upheld both the legitimacy and legal authority of a Shari'a court in
> > Texas:
> >
> > http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=1
> > 4601
>
> We have long since established that everyone in Texas is an idiot.
Ah, another of your baseless and bigoted claims. Must be Thursday.
> >> American 'sensitivities' are constantly pandered to here in the
> >> USA and all over the world. if you don't see.know that, there
> >> really isn;'t any point in having this discussion since your
> >> jingoism knows no bounds.
> >
> > LOL! "I have no evidence so I'll just keep repeating the same
> > thing over and over and hope it suddenly becomes true."
> >
> > Maybe you even believe it.
>
> Do you honestly believe that US 'sensitivities' are not pandered to?
Yep. We have millions of illegals "demanding" we make them citizens.
They're not even here legally-- their first act upon entering the U.S.
was to break its laws and disrespect its sovereignty-- and they feel
quite comfortable making demands of the U.S. government.
No one "panders" to the sensitivities of Americans. They just make
demands and expect them to be obeyed.
> >> >> No one believes for even one second that you would openly support
> >> >> and praise a country that outlawed the freedom to practice any/all
> >> >> religion.
> >> >
> >> > I would respect it as their choice.
> >>
> >> No you wouldn't.
> >
> > Yes, I would.
>
> You don't even respect their legal right to build a mosque.
Once again, I challenge you to quote back to me any instance where I
disputed their legal right to build a mosque.
And of course building a mosque in America has nothing to do with
religious practices in other countries, so once again you're tying
together irrelevancies.
> >> You would belittle them for their lack of American style
> >> freedom.
> >
> > That's better than what you'd do. You'd advocate killing anyone
> > who took that position.
>
> You are the gun nut (from Texas no less), not me.
What's your definition of "gun nut"? I only ask so we can define terms
and make sure we're on the same page before I take you apart on yet
another issue.
And I live in Virginia, not Texas, bright eyes.
> >> > I certainly wouldn't suggest we
> >> > should go over there and impose our way of life on them.
> >>
> >> A big chunk of people supporting the invasion of Afghanistan
> >> did so under the impression that the women needed to be freed
> >> from their cultures religious restrictions.
> >
> > Can you show that I was one of them?
>
> Why would I need to?
Because you keep telling me what I believe and what I think. The burden
of proof is on you, bright eyes.
> > If not, then your claim as to what *I* would think and do was nothing
> but bullshit, then, wasn't it?
>
> I made an accurate assessment of your mental state with regard to you not
> respecting cultures that don't follow whatever 'morals' you think should
> aply .
I've never seen such an absolute load of horseshit.
Even the best psychologists and psychiatrists in the world can't make an
accurate assessment of anyone's mental state without conducting a
thorough in-person examination of the subject. And they'll tell you as
much is you ask them. Yet here you are on Usenet, claiming to do what
the experts in the field cannot.
You're so full of shit, you're burping brown. You're not making
assessments of mental states. You're making shit up and pretending like
it's real because it's what you want to believe. You do it so often,
it's practically your calling card at this point.
> If you don't like having yourself pegged, feel free to walk away.
I'll let you know if that ever happens. In the meantime, I'm having a
helluva laugh at your delusions of grandeur.
> >> >> Nope, you would use it as yet another example of how 'we' are better
> >> >> than 'them'.
> >> >
> >> > Why don't you wait until I actually say things before criticizing
> >> > me for them? Instead you make up shit, attribute it to me, then
> >> > vilify me for it.
> >>
> >> You never own up to anything.
> >
> > That's because everything you expect me to "own up to" is
> > fantasy crap you've made up in your own head and attributed
> > to me.
>
> Says the guy that started this threadline with claims that Muslims
> expect us to pander to them, but that 'we' are not expecting to be
> pandered to.
?!?!?! I never said we don't expect to be pandered to. I never used the
word "pander" at all. That's your dishonestly pejorative label.
I said our sensitivities are never respected by those who constantly
expect the same in return and anyone who questions why is called
"insensitive" and "intolerant".
> >> You know that it isn't illegal to build a
> >> mosque.
> >
> > For the nth time, dumbass, I never claimed it was a violation of law AT
> > ALL. I never even brought up *any* legal issues or claims.
>
> Did I say that you did make that claim? Nope.
Yep.
> > Quote it back to me, dipshit.
>
> 'dipshit'
Lame evasion.
Can you do it or not?
> > You keep saying I've said these things when I
> > clearly never have.
>
> You clearly need to work on your reading skills...
LOL! You repeatedly claim that I've said things I have not, then say
that it's my lack of reading skills that's to blame?
At least you're good for a laugh, if nothing else.
> or just simplify the whole thing down and admit that you were wrong
> in your claim that 'we' don't expect to be pandered to...
So after claiming that I've advocated government intervention in the
mosque project when I clearly did no such thing and failing to provide
any proof in support of that claim when challenged, you now completely
change the subject and request that I admit I was wrong about something
that has nothing whatsoever to do with government intervention.
Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
Does this kind of evasive, nonsensical and dishonest shit ever actually
work for you?
> > Quite ironic, coming from a guy who thinks it's just fine to
> > jail people indefinitely without trial for saying anything
> > negative about Muslims.
>
> You need to stop looking in the mirror when claiming to talk
> about someone else. You are more the type to think that holding
> people in 'jail' without trial is ok if it furthers the 'homeland
> security' silliness.
Except that it's you that actually believes in doing it.
> >> >> >> Keep shoveling the propaganda.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL! So now news reports you don't like have become propaganda.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are most definitely using it as propaganda.
> >> >
> >> > What exactly did I say about it that was inaccurate? Or is
> >> > it just that it's an effective example of what I'm talking
> >> > about that's caused you to try and dismiss it with a pejorative
> >> > label?
> >>
> >> Yes, you are using it as propaganda.
> >
> > So no answer, then? Quelle surprise.
>
> Answer to what? Was there even a question
Yes, the question you avoided earlier: What exactly did I say about it
that was inaccurate?
Antonio E. Gonzalez
It's called a workplace shooting!
>He goes around yelling "Allahu akhbar" while executing people; he'd been
>spouting radical Islamism for months beforehand; he'd been in regular
>contact with known Islamist extremists and al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen...
>but none of that really matters. Just a coincidence. He was really just
>a lone crazy guy who inexplicably snapped. Riiighhht...
>
It's called mental instability, part of a workplace shooting!
Since he was the only guy doing the shooting, he does indeed count
as a lone crazy guy!
>I wish people like you walked around with some kind of identifying
>marker so the rest of us could make a killing selling you no end of
>bullshit that you'd eagerly buy.
Nice projection!
--
- ReFlex76
Thanatos
I guess 9-11 was just a workplace crash, too, huh?
> >He goes around yelling "Allahu akhbar" while executing people; he'd been
> >spouting radical Islamism for months beforehand; he'd been in regular
> >contact with known Islamist extremists and al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen...
> >but none of that really matters. Just a coincidence. He was really just
> >a lone crazy guy who inexplicably snapped. Riiighhht...
> >
>
> It's called mental instability, part of a workplace shooting!
I guess 9-11 was just mental instability, part a workplace crash, too,
huh?
Jim
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> You kid yourself immensely. Why is it that you think the US garners so much
>> frustration/anger from other cultures. 'We' think that our way is best at
>> all times and 'we' try to impose 'our' culture on th4e rest of the world
>> every chance 'we' get.
>
> And they lap it up, even as they bitch about it. If America suddenly
> stopped exporting its culture-- movies, TV, books, etc.-- a black market
> the likes of which you've never seen would spring up for all of it, and
> the people who would be the best customers are the very people who whine
> about the "decadence" and "filth" of it all.
I always suspected Thanatos was one of those proverbial stopped clocks
that're right twice a day.
Now I know what he's stopped *at*.
10:51 PM.
:)
Tim
> On 6/2/10 11:25 AM, Thanatos wrote:
>> Well, if "taking the high road" requires us to allow people to
>> continually insult, offend and disrespect us,
>
I dunno. That's one helluva high hurdle to jump, to be honest.
Jim
> What people like me see is that most *any* religion enhances
> irrationality... (and, on that basis, could logically be viewed as a
> gateway drug...)
The opiate of the masses is a gateway drug?!
Extravagan
BAN IT!!!
--
"I'll admit that I'm impotent" -- WQ IV in
<0b50d7c9-fe3a-4c38...@h9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/26238a15df076ab8
Tim
> Jim wrote:
>> moviePig wrote:
>>> What people like me see is that most *any* religion enhances
>>> irrationality... (and, on that basis, could logically be viewed as a
>>> gateway drug...)
>>
>> The opiate of the masses is a gateway drug?!
>
> BAN IT!!!
RIGHT-WING STUPID-O-METER
5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* \*10
1* | ____-----> *silly
0* -*--- / *Reaganite
* | *moronic
* *Nixonian
* *diagnosed retard
* *Bushite
* * *damned for all eternity
Extravagan
> Extravagan wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>> moviePig wrote:
>>>> What people like me see is that most *any* religion enhances
>>>> irrationality... (and, on that basis, could logically be viewed as a
>>>> gateway drug...)
>>>
>>> The opiate of the masses is a gateway drug?!
>>
>> BAN IT!!!
>
>
> 5* 6* *7
> 4* *8
> 3* *9
> 2* \*10
> 0* -*--- / *Reaganite
> * | *moronic
> * *Nixonian
> * *diagnosed retard
> * *Bushite
> * * *damned for all eternity
Whaaa? Now you're saying that *getting rid of religion* is right wing,
after a whole century or so in which *pushing religion on others* was
considered right wing?
Are you fucking nuts?
This is becoming surreal. And that meter of yours looks plagiarized to
me, and from most unsavory source material at that -- a rightard.
Tim
> And that meter of yours looks plagiarized to
> me, and from most unsavory source material at that -- a rightard.
That's called "irony". I thought turning the rightards' own weapons
against them would be poetic justice.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Nope, quite obvious terrorism!
>> >He goes around yelling "Allahu akhbar" while executing people; he'd been
>> >spouting radical Islamism for months beforehand; he'd been in regular
>> >contact with known Islamist extremists and al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen...
>> >but none of that really matters. Just a coincidence. He was really just
>> >a lone crazy guy who inexplicably snapped. Riiighhht...
>> >
>>
>> It's called mental instability, part of a workplace shooting!
>
>I guess 9-11 was just mental instability, part a workplace crash, too,
>huh?
Nope, terrorism!
--
- ReFlex76
Thanatos
> >I guess 9-11 was just mental instability, part of a workplace crash, too,
> >huh?
>
> Nope, terrorism!
Well, you obviously have some cognitive dissonance going on there. Good
luck sorting that out.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Well, I can tell terrorism (I saw enough of it in Peru courtesy of
Sendero Luminoso/The Shining Path) from gun violence, the latter
all-too-common in the US!
I have no problem with guns (especially rifles; love the way they
handle!), but at least I acknowledge the inherent problems that come
when a nation is armed to the teeth! When someone goes on a crazy
killing spree elswhere, it usually ain't with guns!
--
- ReFlex76
Ed Stasiak
>
> gun violence, the latter all-too-common in the US!
There is no such thing as "gun violence", inanimate objects
cannot cannot commit violence.
But the fact is that crime is not a national problem, it's a
local problem and the vast majority of crimes involving
firearms happen in the same minority populated, inner
cities year after year after year.
For example, Detroit has averaged 400 murders per year,
every year, since the 1970's while at the same time, the
surrounding suburbs hardly have any (Warren had 5,
Sterling Heights had 4) and those that do happen out
here, are usually Detroiters shooting other Detroiters on
our side of 8 Mile Rd.
Yet while all Michigan residents have the same access to
firearms and have to abide by the same state and federal
firearm regulations, a city that makes up less then 10% of
the state's population, accounts for almost 60% of the
murders in Michigan.
If firearms were the problem, the murder rate would be more
or less the same all over the U.S. and we all know that's not
the case.
Obveeus
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
news:956eb1d7-cda3-468b...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
So, what you are saying is that cities should be outlawed because there are
idiots with guns everywhere, but most of them are such bad shots that they
only hit things when there is a high population density?
Ed Stasiak
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > If firearms were the problem, the murder rate would be more
> > or less the same all over the U.S. and we all know that's not
> > the case.
>
> So, what you are saying is that cities should be outlawed because
> there are idiots with guns everywhere, but most of them are such
> bad shots that they only hit things when there is a high population
> density?
I'm saying the U.S. as a _nation_ does not have a crime problem,
it is a wholly local and cultural problem.
The city of Detroit averages more murders per year (and has done
so since the 1970's) then the entire nation of Canada yet literally
across the street, the metro Detroit 'burbs have barely any murders.
If firearms were the problem, why am I not knee deep in blood?
Obveeus
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>> Obveeus
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > If firearms were the problem, the murder rate would be more
>> > or less the same all over the U.S. and we all know that's not
>> > the case.
>>
>> So, what you are saying is that cities should be outlawed because
>> there are idiots with guns everywhere, but most of them are such
>> bad shots that they only hit things when there is a high population
>> density?
>
> I'm saying the U.S. as a _nation_ does not have a crime problem,
> it is a wholly local and cultural problem.
The US has all kinds of crime problems; too many people with guns is just
one of them.
> The city of Detroit averages more murders per year (and has done
> so since the 1970's) then the entire nation of Canada yet literally
> across the street, the metro Detroit 'burbs have barely any murders.
So, you guys all go in to town for the 'partying'?
> If firearms were the problem, why am I not knee deep in blood?
On the plus side, Detroit's population gets smaller each year, so eventually
you will be the last one standing...regardless as to whether you are wearing
hip waders to stave off the blood stains.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
It's truly amazing the sort of connections your mind makes. The fact
that you can come to that conclusion based on what he said is amazing.
Obveeus
No doubt your gravestone will read: 'a day late and a dollar short'.
Ed Stasiak
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > I'm saying the U.S. as a _nation_ does not have a crime problem,
> > it is a wholly local and cultural problem.
>
> The US has all kinds of crime problems;
Except the reality is that crime is a local/cultural problem, with the
vast majority of Americans never being subjected to any "crime"
worse then getting flipped the bird on the highway.
The U.S. has 310,000,000 people living on 3,800,000 square miles,
it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that everybody, everywhere in the
U.S. is facing the same situation and one solution should apply to
all.
> too many people with guns is just one of them.
According to CDC stats, there were 31,000 firearm-related deaths
in 2005;
55% or 17,050 = suicides and thus irrelevant to the issue, as nobody
kills themself simply because they have a firearm.
3% or 930 = accidents, also irrelevant as shit happens and most of
these "accidents" were someone behaving stupidly with a firearm
in the first place and you can't cure stupid.
2% or 620 = justifiable homicide and whether by police or private
citizen, this is the primary purpose of firearms.
Leaving 40% or 12,400 = murder, most of which were criminals killing
other criminals in the same crime ridden, minority populated, inner-
cities
as we see year after year.
At the same time, there are over 250,000,000 firearms in the U.S. with
4,500,000 new firearms being bought every year and 48 states with
either "shall issue" or no restrictions on concealed carried handguns.
Where is the problem?
> > The city of Detroit averages more murders per year (and has done
> > so since the 1970's) then the entire nation of Canada yet literally
> > across the street, the metro Detroit 'burbs have barely any murders.
>
> So, you guys all go in to town for the 'partying'?
Instead of cracking jokes, why not address the issue?
If firearms are the problem and the problem is a national one, as
you suggest, how is it that a city which makes up less then 10%
of the state's population, accounts for almost 60% of the murders
in Michigan?
Obveeus
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>> Obveeus
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > I'm saying the U.S. as a _nation_ does not have a crime problem,
>> > it is a wholly local and cultural problem.
>>
>> The US has all kinds of crime problems;
>
> Except the reality is that crime is a local/cultural problem, with the
> vast majority of Americans never being subjected to any "crime"
> worse then getting flipped the bird on the highway.
Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of Americans are never
subjected to any crime? You cannot possible be that naive.
> The U.S. has 310,000,000 people living on 3,800,000 square miles,
> it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that everybody, everywhere in the
> U.S. is facing the same situation and one solution should apply to
> all.
No one suggested that. I have heard about idiot hunters out in the rural
heartland talking about how it would be wrong/evil/unconstitutional. etc...
for a crime ridden crap hole place like Washington, DC to control firearms,
though...as if those 'hunter' types have even the slightest clue about
people in 'other situations' than their own.
>> too many people with guns is just one of them.
>
> According to CDC stats, there were 31,000 firearm-related deaths
> in 2005;
This is going ot be the start of where you explain that 31,000 deaths isn't
a problem, right?
> 55% or 17,050 = suicides and thus irrelevant to the issue, as nobody
> kills themself simply because they have a firearm.
Well, actually, many people DO kill themselves simply because they have a
firearm. Without the firearm, many of those people would not have been
successful in their attempt...and thus could have received the help they
needed to live happy/productive lives instead of being worm food. At least
we have established that you don't think those 17,050 dead people matter,
though.
> 3% or 930 = accidents, also irrelevant as shit happens and most of
> these "accidents" were someone behaving stupidly with a firearm
> in the first place and you can't cure stupid.
Lots of stupid people in this country...but those 930 wouldn't be dead if
the gun wasn't there. They are dead for one reason only: someone
careless/stupid had a gun.
> 2% or 620 = justifiable homicide and whether by police or private
> citizen, this is the primary purpose of firearms.
Someone probably threw a rock at them and deserved to die.
> Leaving 40% or 12,400 = murder, most of which were criminals killing
> other criminals in the same crime ridden, minority populated, inner-
> cities as we see year after year.
I already agreed that we should burn Detroit to the ground and get rid of
the vile scum that lives there once and for all. Halloween is still 4
months away, though, so what do we do until then?
> At the same time, there are over 250,000,000 firearms in the U.S. with
> 4,500,000 new firearms being bought every year and 48 states with
> either "shall issue" or no restrictions on concealed carried handguns.
>
> Where is the problem?
What you just stated above is part of the problem. Lots and lots of guns in
the hands of lots and lots of stupid people. Some people might even think
that they can prove their isn't a gun problem by talking about gun deaths
while ignoring gun injuries, gun violence, or even the general state of fear
put into the entire population of the country as a result of all those guns
floating around in the hands of idiots.
>> > The city of Detroit averages more murders per year (and has done
>> > so since the 1970's) then the entire nation of Canada yet literally
>> > across the street, the metro Detroit 'burbs have barely any murders.
>>
>> So, you guys all go in to town for the 'partying'?
>
> Instead of cracking jokes, why not address the issue?
Why bother? You and I have been around and around on this. You cannot even
figure out that I'm not advocating the removal of all guns or from gun
ownership or anything else. You are solidly one of those 'pry it from my
cold dead hands' people that thinks the government is evil so there should
be no gun education, no gun registration, no limit to size/style of weapon,
etc... Last time this was addressed you couldn't even bring yourself to
clearly state that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
> If firearms are the problem and the problem is a national one, as
> you suggest, how is it that a city which makes up less then 10%
> of the state's population, accounts for almost 60% of the murders
> in Michigan?
Well, for starters I might wonder why you think that the other 40% of the
murders in Michigan don't equate with a 'problem'. I might also wonder why
you think that housing/feeding/clothing/medical caring for the people that
committed the other 60% (using your tax dollars) isn't something you should
be concerned about. The only thing you ever seem concerned with is
defending the farthest right stance on gun control available. If you
disagree with that assessment, feel free to explain to me what forms of gun
control / weapons limitations / education /etc... you would be willing to
consider as logical steps to help reduce the gun violence (not just deaths)
in this country.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> Lots of stupid people in this country...but those 930 wouldn't be
> dead if the gun wasn't there. They are dead for one reason only:
> someone careless/stupid had a gun.
And there are a lot of people alive today who would be dead if they
hadn't had a gun, my sister being one of them.
>
> > 2% or 620 = justifiable homicide and whether by police or private
> > citizen, this is the primary purpose of firearms.
>
> Someone probably threw a rock at them and deserved to die.
Or attempted to do something like and rape and murder them.
trotsky
After they're fired and/or put in jail they might wait the next time.
trotsky
> "Obveeus"<Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Lots of stupid people in this country...but those 930 wouldn't be
>> dead if the gun wasn't there. They are dead for one reason only:
>> someone careless/stupid had a gun.
>
> And there are a lot of people alive today who would be dead if they
> hadn't had a gun, my sister being one of them.
How many times did you try to rape her?
Ed Stasiak
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Except the reality is that crime is a local/cultural problem, with the
> > vast majority of Americans never being subjected to any "crime"
> > worse then getting flipped the bird on the highway.
>
> Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of Americans are never
> subjected to any crime? You cannot possible be that naive.
Do you really believe most Americans are?! I provided a cite up-
thread
showing the huge difference in murders (let alone other crimes)
between
the city of Detroit and the surrounding suburbs and this is in the
SAME
metro area.
I've lived all my 42 years just a few miles from 8 Mile Rd. (the
Detroit-
'burbs border) and have never been the victim of a crime yet literally
across the street, they average 400 murders per year.
But feel free to present evidence supporting your contention that
crime
is equally distributed across the U.S.
> > The U.S. has 310,000,000 people living on 3,800,000 square miles,
> > it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that everybody, everywhere in the
> > U.S. is facing the same situation and one solution should apply to
> > all.
>
> No one suggested that.
Yes, in fact that's exactly what you suggest, when you insist on
looking
at crime only as a national issue and purposely ignore the evidence
that it is a local problem.
> I have heard about idiot hunters out in the rural heartland talking about
> how it would be wrong/evil/unconstitutional. etc. for a crime ridden crap
> hole place like Washington, DC to control firearms, though...
That's because it would be wrong, evil and unconstitutional as
firearms do not cause crime.
> as if those 'hunter' types have even the slightest clue about people
> in 'other situations' than their own.
Whatever their situation, it was not caused by firearms.
D.C. has the strictest firearm laws in the U.S. yet crime there is as
bad
or worse then Detroit.
> > According to CDC stats, there were 31,000 firearm-related deaths
> > in 2005;
>
> This is going ot be the start of where you explain that 31,000 deaths
> isn't a problem, right?
That it's not a national problem, yes.
> > 55% or 17,050 = suicides and thus irrelevant to the issue, as nobody
> > kills themself simply because they have a firearm.
>
> Well, actually, many people DO kill themselves simply because they
> have a firearm.
So we're to believe that perfectly normal and well adjusted people
will blow their brains out, simply by being in the presence of a
firearm?
And Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday...
> > 3% or 930 = accidents, also irrelevant as shit happens and most of
> > these "accidents" were someone behaving stupidly with a firearm
> > in the first place and you can't cure stupid.
>
> Lots of stupid people in this country...but those 930 wouldn't be dead
> if the gun wasn't there. They are dead for one reason only: someone
> careless/stupid had a gun.
Disregarding the fact that firearm accidents have gone down 80%
since 1930, despite the population and number of firearms within
the population growing by leaps and bounds, that's the price we
pay for being a free society.
Sometimes, shit happens.
> > 2% or 620 = justifiable homicide and whether by police or private
> > citizen, this is the primary purpose of firearms.
>
> Someone probably threw a rock at them and deserved to die.
Note the part that reads; _justifiable_ homicide.
But go ahead and pretend you don't know what we're talking about.
> > Leaving 40% or 12,400 = murder, most of which were criminals killing
> > other criminals in the same crime ridden, minority populated, inner-
> > cities as we see year after year.
>
> I already agreed that we should burn Detroit to the ground and get rid
> of the vile scum that lives there once and for all. Halloween is still 4
> months away, though, so what do we do until then?
Ah, personal insults. Inevitable when debating an anti-gunner as the
anti-gun position is logically indefensible.
When the foundation of your philosophy is ascribing malicious intent
to inanimate objects, you've nowhere to go but down.
> > At the same time, there are over 250,000,000 firearms in the U.S. with
> > 4,500,000 new firearms being bought every year and 48 states with
> > either "shall issue" or no restrictions on concealed carried handguns.
> > Where is the problem?
>
> What you just stated above is part of the problem. Lots and lots of guns
> in the hands of lots and lots of stupid people.
Again, where is this nation-wide problem? With all these gun-owning
dumbasses, how is that we can have thousands of Americans legally
walking around with handguns in their pockets/purses and not be in
the midst of a nation wide blood bath?
Maybe the vast majority of Americans ain't as stupid as you claim?
> Some people might even think that they can prove their isn't a gun
> problem by talking about gun deaths while ignoring gun injuries,
Addressed above.
> gun violence, or even the general state of fear put into the entire
> population of the country as a result of all those guns floating
> around in the hands of idiots.
Again, firearms are inanimate objects and do not cause crime.
> > Instead of cracking jokes, why not address the issue?
>
> Why bother?
Indeed, but then I've had this debate with many other anti-gun
fundamentalists and like their religious fundi brethren, no amount
of facts or simple common sense will cause them to abandon their
"god".
> You and I have been around and around on this. You cannot even
> figure out that I'm not advocating the removal of all guns or from gun
> ownership or anything else.
Guns cause crime, crime is a nation wide problem, people commit
suicide just by being in the presence of a gun, etc. but you're not
anti-gun…
> You are solidly one of those 'pry it from my cold dead hands'
people
> that thinks the government is evil
You're God dammed right, 10,000 years of human history shows
what happens when people are denied their human right to keep
and bear arms.
But it's interesting that the Left are the standard bearers of
government
enforced "gun control", the same people who (quite rightly) railed
about
the Patriot Act expanding the government's power to tap phones, for
some reason have no problem with this same government disarming
them.
> so there should be no gun education,
Who is suggesting that?
The NRA was conceived in 1871 as a firearms education organization
and this continues to be its primary purpose today.
In fact it is the anti-gun fundies who, like their religious fundie
buddies
looking to ban the teaching of evolution, who oppose any education
and flipped their shit when the NRA offered to provide free firearm
safety materials for public schools.
> no gun registration,
That's correct. Firearm registration does nothing to prevent crime,
while it can and has been used by governments to seize firearms
owned by law abiding citizens.
> no limit to size/style of weapon, etc...
Just as our freedom of speech should be limited to quill pens?
Yeah, I didn't think so…
> Last time this was addressed you couldn't even bring yourself to clearly
> state that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
I'm not seeing a quote?
> > If firearms are the problem and the problem is a national one, as
> > you suggest, how is it that a city which makes up less then 10%
> > of the state's population, accounts for almost 60% of the murders
> > in Michigan?
>
> Well, for starters I might wonder why you think that the other 40% of
> the murders in Michigan don't equate with a 'problem'.
Not a national problem.
Because of that 40%, the majority ALSO happen in the same crime
ridden, minority populated inner cities of Flint, Saginaw, Benton
Harbor,
etc. year after year and just as with Detroit, a stones throw outside
of
these areas there are virtually no murders.
> I might also wonder why you think that housing/feeding/clothing/medical
> caring for the people that committed the other 60% (using your tax dollars)
> isn't something you should be concerned about.
Of course it's a concern but disarming law abiding Americans will
not prevent this nor diminish crime, in fact crime increases when
only the government and criminals have access to firearms.
Surely you're not suggesting humans lived in some kinda non-violent
Eden prior to the invention of gun powder?
> The only thing you ever seem concerned with is defending the farthest
> right stance on gun control available.
That's the issue I'm most concerned about, as all our rights and
freedoms
hinge on our natural, human right to keep and bear arms.
> If you disagree with that assessment, feel free to explain to me what forms
> of gun control / weapons limitations / education /etc... you would be willing
> to consider as logical steps to help reduce the gun violence (not just deaths)
> in this country.
Very few, because "gun control" does not reduce crime because crime
isn't caused by firearms.
Obveeus
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>> Obveeus
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > Except the reality is that crime is a local/cultural problem, with the
>> > vast majority of Americans never being subjected to any "crime"
>> > worse then getting flipped the bird on the highway.
>>
>> Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of Americans are never
>> subjected to any crime? You cannot possible be that naive.
>
>Do you really believe most Americans are?! I provided a cite up-
>thread showing the huge difference in murders (let alone other crimes)
>between the city of Detroit and the surrounding suburbs and this is in the
>SAME metro area.
>I've lived all my 42 years just a few miles from 8 Mile Rd. (the
>Detroit-
>'burbs border) and have never been the victim of a crime yet literally
>across the street, they average 400 murders per year.
>
>But feel free to present evidence supporting your contention that
>crime is equally distributed across the U.S.
I did not say that crime was equally distributed, Ed. What I said is that
you would have to be very naive to believe that most people have never been
a victim of crime during their life. Apparently, you stand proud and thump
your chest at being so naive.
>> > The U.S. has 310,000,000 people living on 3,800,000 square miles,
>> > it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that everybody, everywhere in the
>> > U.S. is facing the same situation and one solution should apply to
>> > all.
>>
>> No one suggested that.
>
>Yes, in fact that's exactly what you suggest, when you insist on
>lookingat crime only as a national issue and purposely ignore the evidence
>that it is a local problem.
I guess that, as per usualy, you are not going to dicuss anything honestly.
>> I have heard about idiot hunters out in the rural heartland talking about
>> how it would be wrong/evil/unconstitutional. etc. for a crime ridden crap
>> hole place like Washington, DC to control firearms, though...
>
>That's because it would be wrong, evil and unconstitutional as
>firearms do not cause crime.
Nice how you want the entire country to treat crime equally even though you
directly claim that the crime problem is completely unequal across this
country. I guess you insist on having it both ways?
>> as if those 'hunter' types have even the slightest clue about people
>> in 'other situations' than their own.
>
>Whatever their situation, it was not caused by firearms.
>
>D.C. has the strictest firearm laws in the U.S. yet crime there is as
>bad or worse then Detroit.
D.C. has a horrible problem with crime. There would be much less problem
there if the guns were gone. How is it that you cannot see guns as a
'problem' and instead insist on clinging to the irrelevant notion that the
gun doesn't shoot itself? Your argument is as silly as claiming that cars
don't drive themselves, so drunk driving should not be illegal.
>> > According to CDC stats, there were 31,000 firearm-related deaths
>> > in 2005;
>>
>> This is going ot be the start of where you explain that 31,000 deaths
>> isn't a problem, right?
>
>That it's not a national problem, yes.
Then why do you insist that gun laws across the nation shoud be equally
non-existent?
>> > 55% or 17,050 = suicides and thus irrelevant to the issue, as nobody
>> > kills themself simply because they have a firearm.
>>
>> Well, actually, many people DO kill themselves simply because they
>> have a firearm.
>
>So we're to believe that perfectly normal and well adjusted people
>will blow their brains out, simply by being in the presence of a
>firearm?
No one said that, Ed.
> And Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday...
...probably carrying a side holster loaded for bear.
>> > 3% or 930 = accidents, also irrelevant as shit happens and most of
>> > these "accidents" were someone behaving stupidly with a firearm
>> > in the first place and you can't cure stupid.
>>
>> Lots of stupid people in this country...but those 930 wouldn't be dead
>> if the gun wasn't there. They are dead for one reason only: someone
>> careless/stupid had a gun.
>Disregarding the fact that firearm accidents have gone down 80%
>since 1930, despite the population and number of firearms within
>the population growing by leaps and bounds, that's the price we
>pay for being a free society.
I suggest to you that the accidents going down is the result of better
firearm education. Maybe you should not fight against the idea that gun
owners should be educated in how to use the guns.
>Sometimes, shit happens.
Simple fact, though: without the gun in the home, that shit would not
happen.
>> > 2% or 620 = justifiable homicide and whether by police or private
>> > citizen, this is the primary purpose of firearms.
>>
>> Someone probably threw a rock at them and deserved to die.
>
>Note the part that reads; _justifiable_ homicide.
>
>But go ahead and pretend you don't know what we're talking about.
I know exactly what we are talking about...and from another thread in recent
days it is quite clear that many of the gun nuts think that having a rock
thrown at them justifies them killing someone with their gun.
>> > Leaving 40% or 12,400 = murder, most of which were criminals killing
>> > other criminals in the same crime ridden, minority populated, inner-
>> > cities as we see year after year.
>>
>> I already agreed that we should burn Detroit to the ground and get rid
>> of the vile scum that lives there once and for all. Halloween is still 4
>> months away, though, so what do we do until then?
>
>Ah, personal insults. Inevitable when debating an anti-gunner as the
>anti-gun position is logically indefensible.
I am defending your position. Give me a big enough gun and I will take out
all of Detroit in one fell swoop...and call it self defense. You are the
one that thinks that it would be uncostitutional to deny me a nuclear weapon
since the government has nuclear weapons.
>When the foundation of your philosophy is ascribing malicious intent
>to inanimate objects, you've nowhere to go but down.
You are the one claiming that Detroit is full of evil and that the people
with the guns there should be allowed to kill each other off without any of
the rest of us thinking that those murders matter. I was just agreeing with
your premise.
>> > At the same time, there are over 250,000,000 firearms in the U.S. with
>> > 4,500,000 new firearms being bought every year and 48 states with
>> > either "shall issue" or no restrictions on concealed carried handguns.
>> > Where is the problem?
>>
>> What you just stated above is part of the problem. Lots and lots of guns
>> in the hands of lots and lots of stupid people.
>Again, where is this nation-wide problem? With all these gun-owning
>dumbasses, how is that we can have thousands of Americans legally
>walking around with handguns in their pockets/purses and not be in
>the midst of a nation wide blood bath?
We already worked out how the lower population density makes it harder to
kill people, right?
>Maybe the vast majority of Americans ain't as stupid as you claim?
All evidensce to the contrary.
>> Some people might even think that they can prove their isn't a gun
>> problem by talking about gun deaths while ignoring gun injuries,
>
>Addressed above.
No it wasn't.
>> gun violence, or even the general state of fear put into the entire
>> population of the country as a result of all those guns floating
>> around in the hands of idiots.
>
>Again, firearms are inanimate objects and do not cause crime.
Thus, no one should live in fear merely becaues their neighbor is waving a
gun and screaming 'tell those kids to shut up while playing in the back yard
or else'.
>> > Instead of cracking jokes, why not address the issue?
>>
>> Why bother?
>
>Indeed, but then I've had this debate with many other anti-gun
>fundamentalists and like their religious fundi brethren, no amount
>of facts or simple common sense will cause them to abandon their
>"god".
I have had this conversation with you before and have seen no evidence that
you offer facts or common sense. Instead, you cling to the belief that
government is inherently evil, that your neighbors are evil, and that your
gun is the only thing keeping you alive...and that everyone should be
allowed to own whatever weapon they want (no matter how destructive)...and
that there should be no requirement at all to be educated in the use of that
weapon. Meanwhile, ytou classify me as a religious fundi anti-gun nut
becasue I suggest to you that your worship of all things gun is part of the
problem.
>> You and I have been around and around on this. You cannot even
>> figure out that I'm not advocating the removal of all guns or from gun
>> ownership or anything else.
>
>Guns cause crime, crime is a nation wide problem, people commit
>suicide just by being in the presence of a gun, etc. but you're not
>anti-gun�
Your lack of reading comprehension noted.
>> You are solidly one of those 'pry it from my cold dead hands'
>>people
>> that thinks the government is evil
>You're God dammed right, 10,000 years of human history shows
>what happens when people are denied their human right to keep
>and bear arms.
Not only do you that gun laws should be equal everywhere (even in those few
places where you claim all crime is isolated), but you also think that all
gun laws throughout time should be equal becasue civilization has not
changed?
>But it's interesting that the Left are the standard bearers of
>government
>enforced "gun control", the same people who (quite rightly) railed
>about
>the Patriot Act expanding the government's power to tap phones, for
>some reason have no problem with this same government disarming
>them.
Suggesting that people have to register their firearms (just like a car) or
receive education in how to use them safely (just like a car) is not
advocating that the gun be pryed from your cold dead hand.
>> so there should be no gun education,
>
>Who is suggesting that?
You certainly don't want people to be required to educate themselves before
being allowed to own a gun.
>The NRA was conceived in 1871 as a firearms education organization
>and this continues to be its primary purpose today.
That is funny...so, the NRA's official stance is that no one should be
allowed to own a gun until they are educated in its safe use?
>In fact it is the anti-gun fundies who, like their religious fundie
>buddies
>looking to ban the teaching of evolution, who oppose any education
>and flipped their shit when the NRA offered to provide free firearm
>safety materials for public schools.
How is it that you are unaware that the 'religious fundi nuts' are mostly
Republicans...same as most of the 'pro-gun, pry it from my cold dead hands'
nuts? Why are you advocating that our already overburdenned educational
ssystem take on the tastk of teaching people how to use guns as well? Why
shouldn't people have to pay for classes in gun safety?
>> no gun registration,
>
>That's correct. Firearm registration does nothing to prevent crime,
>while it can and has been used by governments to seize firearms
>owned by law abiding citizens.
You are 100% wrong. Preventing known criminals from buying guns does reduce
crime. If this country made it a crime for the gun nuts such as yourself to
buy and sell weapons unregistered through the newspapers, swapmeets, and
out the back doors of their lairs, crime could be reduced even more becasue
the criminals would no longer have unimpeded access to such weapons. Why
should guns be less restricted than cars?
>> no limit to size/style of weapon, etc...
>
>Just as our freedom of speech should be limited to quill pens?
>
>Yeah, I didn't think so�
Only a total idiot believes that every citizen should have the right to own
their own nuclear weapon.
>> Last time this was addressed you couldn't even bring yourself to clearly
>> state that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
>
>I'm not seeing a quote?
Not my problem. The Usenet archive exists, sort of, depending on Google's
mood.
>> > If firearms are the problem and the problem is a national one, as
>> > you suggest, how is it that a city which makes up less then 10%
>> > of the state's population, accounts for almost 60% of the murders
>> > in Michigan?
>
>> Well, for starters I might wonder why you think that the other 40% of
>> the murders in Michigan don't equate with a 'problem'.
>Not a national problem.
Your 'logic' makes no sense at all. You admit that 40% of the gun murders
exists in the rest of the state, yet you think those murders are 'not a
problem'? How many murders have to occur in your neighborhood before you
consider yourself part of the nation?
>Because of that 40%, the majority ALSO happen in the same crime
>ridden, minority populated inner cities of Flint, Saginaw, Benton
>Harbor, etc. year after year and just as with Detroit, a stones throw
>outside
>of these areas there are virtually no murders.
'Virtually no'? If you want to ignore whatever murders happen in your
neighborhood, lets just look at the other side of the discussion and wonder
allowed as to why you don't want their to be any laws in those crime ridden
areas that are part of the nation.
>> I might also wonder why you think that housing/feeding/clothing/medical
>> caring for the people that committed the other 60% (using your tax
>> dollars)
>> isn't something you should be concerned about.
>
>Of course it's a concern but disarming law abiding Americans will
>not prevent this nor diminish crime, in fact crime increases when
>only the government and criminals have access to firearms.
'Only criminals have access to firearms' is NRA propaganda. You have fallen
for their fundi-religious tripe hook line and sinker.
>Surely you're not suggesting humans lived in some kinda non-violent
>Eden prior to the invention of gun powder?
Again, you want to claim that society and its problems have not changed
throughout time, despite ample evidense to the contrary.
>> The only thing you ever seem concerned with is defending the farthest
>> right stance on gun control available.
>
>That's the issue I'm most concerned about, as all our rights and
>freedoms hinge on our natural, human right to keep and bear arms.
More propaganda from outdated thinking.
>> If you disagree with that assessment, feel free to explain to me what
>> forms
>> of gun control / weapons limitations / education /etc... you would be
>> willing
>> to consider as logical steps to help reduce the gun violence (not just
>> deaths)
>> in this country.
>
>Very few, because "gun control" does not reduce crime because crime
>isn't caused by firearms.
Car accidents aren't caused by cars, either, so there should be no age limit
to drinking...or driving...and no requirements for driver's licenses or
driver education...or vehicle safety. I guess we should all feel blessed
that the idiots that founded this country didn't know about cars at the time
or we would be saddled with pro-driving nuts claiming that any/all
restrictions on car ownership are a violation of the 'right to bear cars'.
...of course, the reality is that the second amendment was written because
those idiots couldn't afford a standing army and so they wished to create a
free one with the second amendment arming the population at no cost to the
government. That second amendment was in no way designed to allow citizens
to bear nuclear weapons or anti-aircraft missile launchers or etc...nor was
it designed to prevent gun registration or to prevent gun education or to
prevent the restriction of gun access from people that had committed crimes
in the past. All that stuff is just 'fundi-religious gun nut' stuff being
perpetrated in the name of the second amendment.
Thanatos
<156911c1-e6a6-480a...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > Obveeus
> > I have heard about idiot hunters out in the rural heartland
> > talking about how it would be wrong/evil/unconstitutional. etc.
> > for a crime ridden crap hole place like Washington, DC to control
> > firearms, though...
>
> That's because it would be wrong, evil and unconstitutional as
> firearms do not cause crime.
No kidding. And if I lived in a "crime-ridden craphole", that's when I'd
*most want* to own a firearm. If I was living out in rural Wyoming, my
life wouldn't be in danger on a regular basis and I wouldn't have a
pressing need to protect it.
> > What you just stated above is part of the problem. Lots and lots
> > of guns in the hands of lots and lots of stupid people.
>
> Again, where is this nation-wide problem? With all these gun-owning
> dumbasses, how is that we can have thousands of Americans legally
> walking around with handguns in their pockets/purses and not be in
> the midst of a nation wide blood bath?
>
> Maybe the vast majority of Americans ain't as stupid as you claim?
The hallmark of a liberal is that they believe that everyone is stupid
but them.
> > Last time this was addressed you couldn't even bring yourself
> > to clearly state that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own
> > nuclear weapons.
>
> I'm not seeing a quote?
Of course they can be prevented from owning nuclear weapons. That's not
an weapons-ownership issue. It's an environmental safety and public
health issue. Banning the possession and use of plutonium and uranium is
no different than any other environmental regulation of substances that
can cause serious health issues among the population.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> >D.C. has the strictest firearm laws in the U.S. yet crime there is as
> >bad or worse then Detroit.
>
> D.C. has a horrible problem with crime. There would be much less problem
> there if the guns were gone.
All evidence to the contrary, as there was *less* crime before they
instituted their draconian gun control. It's gotten worse since gun
control was instituted.
> ...of course, the reality is that the second amendment was written
> because those idiots couldn't afford a standing army
So the authors of the Constitution are now idiots? Really?
Ed Stasiak
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > But feel free to present evidence supporting your contention that
> > crime is equally distributed across the U.S.
>
> I did not say that crime was equally distributed, Ed. What I said is
> that you would have to be very naive to believe that most people
> have never been a victim of crime during their life.
If most Americans have been victims of crime, then crime must be
more or less equally distributed across the U.S.
Except everybody (including you) knows this isn't the case and that
every city has perennially "bad areas" where average people know
not to go, as that's where the crime happens.
> > Yes, in fact that's exactly what you suggest, when you insist on looking
> > at crime only as a national issue and purposely ignore the evidence
> > that it is a local problem.
>
> I guess that, as per usualy, you are not going to dicuss anything honestly.
While I guess that as usual, you will fail to back up your claims and
instead will do the "semantics dance", claiming that what you wrote
somehow doesn't mean what it says.
> > That's because it would be wrong, evil and unconstitutional as firearms
> > do not cause crime.
>
> Nice how you want the entire country to treat crime equally even though
> you directly claim that the crime problem is completely unequal across
> this country. I guess you insist on having it both ways?
The 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans and cannot be denied
because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
> > Whatever their situation, it was not caused by firearms. D.C. has the
> > strictest firearm laws in the U.S. yet crime there is as bad or worse
> > then Detroit.
>
> D.C. has a horrible problem with crime. There would be much less
> problem there if the guns were gone.
D.C. = strictest gun control = massive murder rate.
The facts are in _direct opposition_ to your statement, either you are
woefully misinformed or you are out right lying and I know you aren't
stupid…
> How is it that you cannot see guns as a 'problem' and instead insist
> on clinging to the irrelevant notion that the gun doesn't shoot itself?
Because I'm not a religious fundi who believes that despite all
evidence
to the contrary, firearms are some magical, malevolent force that
causes
otherwise normal people to commit crimes.
Your belief in this insanity wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except
that like all religious fundies, you insist that everyone must adopt
your
illogical beliefs no matter how bat-shit crazy they are and if they
refuse,
the government should kick down their doors and force them to kneel
at the alter.
> Your argument is as silly as claiming that cars don't drive themselves,
> so drunk driving should not be illegal.
Your philosophy on the other hand, is that Budweiser and Ford are
responsible for drunk driving and as some people will drive drunk,
(due to the magical powers of BudLite and Taurus station wagons)
cars should be banned.
After all, there were over 13,000 drunk driving deaths in the U.S. in
2008, 37% of all traffic fatalities.
"Won't someone please think of the children?!"
> > That it's not a national problem, yes.
>
> Then why do you insist that gun laws across the nation shoud be
> equally non-existent?
Are you seriously suggesting the Bill of Rights should NOT apply
to all Americans?!
Perhaps you'd be cool with only Black-Americans being denied
the right to keep and bear arms, maybe some kinda 3/5 ratio?…
> > So we're to believe that perfectly normal and well adjusted people
> > will blow their brains out, simply by being in the presence of a
> > firearm?
>
> No one said that, Ed.
"Many people DO kill themselves simply because they have a firearm"
-- Obveeus --
> > Disregarding the fact that firearm accidents have gone down 80%
> > since 1930,
>
> I suggest to you that the accidents going down is the result of better
> firearm education.
Education promoted by the NRA.
> Maybe you should not fight against the idea that gun owners should
> be educated in how to use the guns.
They should not be FORCED by the government.
Or are you suggesting that the free exercise of our natural human
rights
should be dependent on the whims of some crooked political
apparatchik?
Would you be willing to submit to a mandatory computer competency
class
before being allowed to exercise your 1st Amendment rights on Usenet?
Yeah, I didn't think so…
> > Sometimes, shit happens.
>
> Simple fact, though: without the gun in the home, that shit would not
> happen.
WTF kinda statement is that; "If wishes were fishes"?
Without alcohol, people wouldn't drive drunk. Lets ban booze!
> > Note the part that reads; _justifiable_ homicide.
>
> I know exactly what we are talking about...and from another thread in recent
> days it is quite clear that many of the gun nuts think that having a rock thrown
> at them justifies them killing someone with their gun.
Was it a case of justifiable homicide?
If not, why do you believe that the natural human right of all
Americans
to keep and bear arms, should be dependent on the actions of this one
individual?
> > Ah, personal insults. Inevitable when debating an anti-gunner as the
> > anti-gun position is logically indefensible.
>
> You are the one that thinks that it would be uncostitutional to deny me
> a nuclear weapon since the government has nuclear weapons.
Still waiting for a quote.
> > When the foundation of your philosophy is ascribing malicious intent
> > to inanimate objects, you've nowhere to go but down.
>
> You are the one claiming that Detroit is full of evil and that the people
> with the guns there should be allowed to kill each other off without any
> of the rest of us thinking that those murders matter.
I'm saying that our freedoms are not dependent on the actions of a
tiny
segment of the population who behave in an uncivilized way.
> We already worked out how the lower population density makes it harder
> to kill people, right?
Macomb County and the City of Detroit have approximately the same
population in approximately the same area and residents of both have
the same access to firearms and are required to abide by the same
state
and federal firearm regulations.
Yet Detroit averages 400 murders per year (more then all of Canada)
while Macomb has only a handful (and most of those are Detroiters
shooting other Detroiters).
Where's your god now, Moses?
> > Again, firearms are inanimate objects and do not cause crime.
>
> Thus, no one should live in fear merely becaues their neighbor is waving
> a gun and screaming 'tell those kids to shut up while playing in the back
> yard or else'.
Your irrational fear of inanimate objects does not abridge my natural
human right to keep and bear arms.
Plenty of laws on the books addressing reckless firearm use, why
should I be punished because your neighbor is a jackass?
> > Indeed, but then I've had this debate with many other anti-gun
> > fundamentalists and like their religious fundi brethren, no amount
> > of facts or simple common sense will cause them to abandon their
> > "god".
>
> I have had this conversation with you before and have seen no evidence
> that you offer facts or common sense.
Except that I have provided numerous cites and it is you, who have
failed to back up your claims and insist that we all simply accept
what you say based on "faith" alone.
> > Guns cause crime, crime is a nation wide problem, people commit
> > suicide just by being in the presence of a gun, etc. but you're not
> > anti-gun…
>
> Your lack of reading comprehension noted.
Your refusal to stand by your claims is noted.
> > You're God dammed right, 10,000 years of human history shows
> > what happens when people are denied their human right to keep
> > and bear arms.
>
> Not only do you that gun laws should be equal everywhere (even in those
> few places where you claim all crime is isolated), but you also think that
> all gun laws throughout time should be equal becasue civilization has not
> changed?
Human nature being what is, I'm not willing to bet my freedoms and
life
on the promise of a politician.
> > the same people who (quite rightly) railed about the Patriot Act expanding
> > the government's power to tap phones, for some reason have no problem
> > with this same government disarming them.
>
> Suggesting that people have to register their firearms (just like a car) or
> receive education in how to use them safely (just like a car) is not advocating
> that the gun be pryed from your cold dead hand.
You can trust the government, they promise not to stick it all the way
in…
> > The NRA was conceived in 1871 as a firearms education organization
> > and this continues to be its primary purpose today.
>
> That is funny...so, the NRA's official stance is that no one should be
> allowed to own a gun until they are educated in its safe use?
The NRA's stance, like mine and other non-fundies, is that people are
responsible for their own actions and the government should not impose
open-ended qualifications to exercise our human rights.
> > In fact it is the anti-gun fundies who, like their religious fundie buddies
> > looking to ban the teaching of evolution, who oppose any education
> > and flipped their shit when the NRA offered to provide free firearm
> > safety materials for public schools.
>
> Why are you advocating that our already overburdenned educational
> ssystem take on the tastk of teaching people how to use guns as well?
The program and materials were offered free of charge with no strings
attached, the schools could choose to use them or not as they saw fit.
The hope being they'd find time to slip it in, between chapters on the
historical importance of MTV and Madonna…
> > Why shouldn't people have to pay for classes in gun safety?
Why should be people be forced by the government to pay to exercise
their natural human rights?
What's next on your list of "improvements", a poll tax?
> > That's correct. Firearm registration does nothing to prevent crime,
> > while it can and has been used by governments to seize firearms
> > owned by law abiding citizens.
>
> You are 100% wrong. Preventing known criminals from buying guns
> does reduce crime.
Except registration doesn't prevent a criminal from acquiring a
firearm
or using that firearm in a crime
Criminals, by their very nature, aren't legally buying firearms from
the
corner sporting goods store and are unaffected by these regulations,
which are only obeyed by the law abiding.
> If this country made it a crime for the gun nuts such as yourself to buy
> and sell weapons unregistered through the newspapers, swapmeets,
> and out the back doors of their lairs,
You should see the new carpet I got in my kick-ass gun nut lair!
But beyond a tiny number of the tiny number of the 250,000,000+
firearms floating around the country, most firearms used in crimes
have been stolen from their legal owners by the very same criminals
who you claim will suddenly obey stricter firearms laws.
> crime could be reduced even more becasue the criminals would no
> longer have unimpeded access to such weapons.
Like in the UK? Where ALL handguns are banned (even for the UK
olympic shooting team) yet criminals still get them and still commit
crimes with them.
In fact the UK has the highest violent crime rate in Europe, far
higher
per capita then the U.S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm
> Why should guns be less restricted than cars?
Because it is our natural human right to keep and bear arms because
governments cannot be trusted.
> Only a total idiot believes that every citizen should have the right
> to own their own nuclear weapon.
Oh, who is suggesting that?
> > I'm not seeing a quote?
>
> Not my problem. The Usenet archive exists, sort of, depending on
> Google's mood.
ED STASIAK: "Last time this was addressed, Obveeus said he liked
sacrificing babies to Satan and drinking their blood by the pale moon
light, it's true!"
OBVEEUS: "I'm not seeing a quote?"
ED STASIAK: "Not my problem."
> > Not a national problem.
>
> Your 'logic' makes no sense at all. You admit that 40% of the gun murders
> exists in the rest of the state, yet you think those murders are 'not a problem'?
Michigan - 9,969,727 people = 40% of the murders
Detroit --------951,270 people = 60% of the murders
But as I've already pointed out, most of the remaining 40% happen
in the same crime ridden, minority populated inner cities of Flint,
etc.
> How many murders have to occur in your neighborhood before you
> consider yourself part of the nation?
Irrelevant, firearms do cause crime and my rights are not dependent
on the actions of a tiny segment of the population.
> > Surely you're not suggesting humans lived in some kinda non-violent
> > Eden prior to the invention of gun powder?
>
> Again, you want to claim that society and its problems have not changed
> throughout time, despite ample evidense to the contrary.
I'm still waiting for you to provide that evidence that "gun control"
somehow prevents crime.
> > That's the issue I'm most concerned about, as all our rights and
> > freedoms hinge on our natural, human right to keep and bear arms.
>
> More propaganda from outdated thinking.
So freedom is an outdated concept? Well, that's not surprising
coming from you.
"Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the
past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet
aristocrat."
-- Frank Herbert --
Obveeus
>> Obveeus
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > But feel free to present evidence supporting your contention that
>> > crime is equally distributed across the U.S.
>>
>> I did not say that crime was equally distributed, Ed. What I said is
>> that you would have to be very naive to believe that most people
>> have never been a victim of crime during their life.
>
>If most Americans have been victims of crime, then crime must be
>more or less equally distributed across the U.S.
Not a logical conclusion on your part. In 'safe' places a person may only
be subject to having a car stereo stollen or a home vandalized or something
'minor' during a decade while a really dangerous place will subject
residents to home break-ins, assaults, robbery, rape, etc... multiple times
in the decade. Crime doesn't have to be equal across all of America for the
average person to have been the victim of a crime at some point in their
lifetime.
>> Nice how you want the entire country to treat crime equally even though
>> you directly claim that the crime problem is completely unequal across
>> this country. I guess you insist on having it both ways?
>
>The 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans and cannot be denied
>because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
Except, of course, you are limiting the concept of the 2nd Amendment to your
particular interpretation of it. The Second Amendment was written under the
belief that single shot manually tamped guns were about the extend of
'arms'. It wasn't meant in any way to suggest that joe sixpack should be
entitled to carry around his own briefcase sized nuclear weapon,
anti-aircraft missle, etc... Moreover, it was meant as a cheap method of
creating an armed *militia* to defend the country...akin now to the Army
reserves...it is only by interpretation that you think it applies to every
citizen in the country, even thouse that were slaves, had no right to vote,
or are in prison.
...and then there is the simple fact that the Constitution was designed to
evolve with the times, not be set in archaic stone. These same people
didn't think women should be able to vote and they thought that owning
slaves was perfectly ok. Sticking forever by their concept of
'freedom'/'rights' isn't exactly logical.
>> > Whatever their situation, it was not caused by firearms. D.C. has the
>> > strictest firearm laws in the U.S. yet crime there is as bad or worse
>> > then Detroit.
>>
>> D.C. has a horrible problem with crime. There would be much less
>> problem there if the guns were gone.
>
>D.C. = strictest gun control = massive murder rate.
Indeed...the guns are not gone so the murder rate is really high.
>The facts are in _direct opposition_ to your statement, either you are
>woefully misinformed or you are out right lying and I know you aren't
>stupid�
I know that you aren't stupid as well...yet I have to wonder why you claim
that my statement that 'there would be much less problem if the guns were
gone' is a lie when clearly and obviously it is not.
>> How is it that you cannot see guns as a 'problem' and instead insist
>> on clinging to the irrelevant notion that the gun doesn't shoot itself?
>
>Because I'm not a religious fundi who believes that despite all
>evidence to the contrary, firearms are some magical, malevolent
>force that causes otherwise normal people to commit crimes.
No one has written what you claim is the stance being written. Meanwhile,
though, I suggest that by your own interpretation of the words 'religious
fundi', you are most definitely a 'religious fundi' in your
worship/interpretation of the second amendment. What is it that you think
the Second Amendment actually says that would preclude fire arm registration
or firearm training?
>Your belief in this insanity wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except
>that like all religious fundies, you insist that everyone must adopt your
>illogical beliefs no matter how bat-shit crazy they are and if they refuse,
>the government should kick down their doors and force them to kneel
>at the alter.
You were looking at the reflection in your monitor when you wrote that,
correct?
>> Your argument is as silly as claiming that cars don't drive themselves,
>> so drunk driving should not be illegal.
>
>Your philosophy on the other hand, is that Budweiser and Ford are
>responsible for drunk driving and as some people will drive drunk,
>(due to the magical powers of BudLite and Taurus station wagons)
>cars should be banned.
No, my stance is that people should have logical limits placed upon their
drinking/driving such as: driver training/certification, age limits, and
blood alcohol limits. Those laws should not only apply to the individual,
but to the seller of the product such that they do not allow someone to buy
alcohol illegally, consume alcohol at a bar to an unsafe excess, buy a new
car and drive it off the lot without a license/insurance...and etc... all
laws that most normal citizens find acceptable to modern times.
>> > That it's not a national problem, yes.
>>
>> Then why do you insist that gun laws across the nation shoud be
>> equally non-existent?
>
>Are you seriously suggesting the Bill of Rights should NOT apply
>to all Americans?!
I'm suggesting that your interpretation of it need not apply.
>Perhaps you'd be cool with only Black-Americans being denied
>the right to keep and bear arms, maybe some kinda 3/5 ratio?�
That Bill of Rights did not even apply to most blacks as they were slaves.
Do you really want to argue that no laws should ever change in this country
over time?
>> > So we're to believe that perfectly normal and well adjusted people
>> > will blow their brains out, simply by being in the presence of a
>> > firearm?
>>
>> No one said that, Ed.
>
>"Many people DO kill themselves simply because they have a firearm"
>-- Obveeus --
Without the firearm, they are much less likely to have succeeded in their
attempt. What part of that do you not understand?
>> > Disregarding the fact that firearm accidents have gone down 80%
>> > since 1930,
>>
>> I suggest to you that the accidents going down is the result of better
>> firearm education.
>
>Education promoted by the NRA.
Education 'promoted' by the government. Education 'promoted' by capitalism.
The NRA is certainly not alone in promoting educated gun use.
>> Maybe you should not fight against the idea that gun owners should
>> be educated in how to use the guns.
>
>They should not be FORCED by the government.
Yes, actually, they should.
>Or are you suggesting that the free exercise of our natural human
>rights should be dependent on the whims of some crooked political
>apparatchik?
There is nothing 'crooked' about asking that people owning/shooting/cleaning
guns know how do it properly, just as we require training/testing in
automobile use.
>Would you be willing to submit to a mandatory computer competency
>class before being allowed to exercise your 1st Amendment rights on Usenet?
The 1st Amendment does not aply to usenet, but getting rid of the
incompetant would be a blessing. As I recall, back in school, you did have
to take some basic skills tests and sign a promise of proper use before
being set free on the internet. I am pretty sure that internet providers
still require users to make a similar promise not to use the connection for
criminal activities or improper conduct. People that do not use the
internet properly can even have their access to it denied, just as criminals
have their guns taken away even though nothing in the 2nd Amendment (your
interpretation of it) suggests that it is ok to do so.
>> > Sometimes, shit happens.
>>
>> Simple fact, though: without the gun in the home, that shit would not
>> happen.
>
>WTF kinda statement is that; "If wishes were fishes"?
Then the kids that find daddy's gun and blow their head off (because daddy
was an idiot with respect to gun safety) would still be alive.
> Without alcohol, people wouldn't drive drunk. Lets ban booze!
...or maybe just have some common sense regulations on booze...and then deal
with the remaining consequences.
>> > Note the part that reads; _justifiable_ homicide.
>>
>> I know exactly what we are talking about...and from another thread in
>> recent
>> days it is quite clear that many of the gun nuts think that having a rock
>> thrown
>> at them justifies them killing someone with their gun.
>
>Was it a case of justifiable homicide?
No, but the gun apologists will certainly claim that it is ok to shoot
foreigners in other countries if they throw a rock at you.
>If not, why do you believe that the natural human right of all
>Americans
>to keep and bear arms, should be dependent on the actions of this one
>individual?
You response here is non-sensical. The shooter was a member of the
government, not simply a citizen, and no one claimed anything about a gun
ban based upon the actions in that case. All that was pointed out was that
people can interpret 'justifiable homicide' very differently to suit their
needs.
>> > Ah, personal insults. Inevitable when debating an anti-gunner as the
>> > anti-gun position is logically indefensible.
>>
>> You are the one that thinks that it would be uncostitutional to deny me
>> a nuclear weapon since the government has nuclear weapons.
>
>Still waiting for a quote.
Feel free to offer up a quote here and now about exactly what weapons are
allowed or not allowed to all citizens under the 2nd Amendment. I don't
fele like rummaging around usenet archives trying to find where you claimed
that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed all citizens the rights to the same
weapons that the government could have.
>> > When the foundation of your philosophy is ascribing malicious intent
>> > to inanimate objects, you've nowhere to go but down.
>>
>> You are the one claiming that Detroit is full of evil and that the people
>> with the guns there should be allowed to kill each other off without any
>> of the rest of us thinking that those murders matter.
>
>I'm saying that our freedoms are not dependent on the actions of a
>tiny segment of the population who behave in an uncivilized way.
...and yet you objected to the simple idea of killing off everyone in
Detroit...or even putting a big wall around it so that the nuts couldn't get
out to the rest of the country. It seems that the only freedom you want to
give the rest of the population is the freedom to worry that the nuts are
going to move out of Detriot and contaminate other places...a real world
situation that is occuring every year.
>> We already worked out how the lower population density makes it harder
>> to kill people, right?
>
>Macomb County and the City of Detroit have approximately the same
>population in approximately the same area and residents of both have
>the same access to firearms and are required to abide by the same
>state and federal firearm regulations.
Does 'same access' mean 'same number of guns are owned/used'? Otherwise,
you are comparing apples to oranges...and either way I am still unclear on
why you think that it matters whether or not the mass killings are spread
out equally or not. It seems that, either way, you don;t want any gun laws
to effect anyone...the safe folks or the hardened criminals.
>Yet Detroit averages 400 murders per year (more then all of Canada)
>while Macomb has only a handful (and most of those are Detroiters
>shooting other Detroiters).
>
>Where's your god now, Moses?
The 2nd Amendment God is sitting in his hovel clutching his gun, preparing
for the day when he will shoot the evil government that tried to take it
from him...or maybe just shoot that neighbor with the loud car stereo.
>> > Again, firearms are inanimate objects and do not cause crime.
>>
>> Thus, no one should live in fear merely becaues their neighbor is waving
>> a gun and screaming 'tell those kids to shut up while playing in the back
>> yard or else'.
>
>Your irrational fear of inanimate objects does not abridge my natural
>human right to keep and bear arms.
>
>Plenty of laws on the books addressing reckless firearm use, why
>should I be punished because your neighbor is a jackass?
Which of those laws are allowed by the 2nd Amendment? Shouldn't you be
campaigning to get gun ownership back into the hands of every prisoner?
Otherwise, denying them a gun is just the first step on a evil slippery
slope until the Commies take over.
>> > Indeed, but then I've had this debate with many other anti-gun
>> > fundamentalists and like their religious fundi brethren, no amount
>> > of facts or simple common sense will cause them to abandon their
>> > "god".
>>
>> I have had this conversation with you before and have seen no evidence
>> that you offer facts or common sense.
>Except that I have provided numerous cites and it is you, who have
>failed to back up your claims and insist that we all simply accept
>what you say based on "faith" alone.
You offer a fact (gun violence isn't equal everywhere) and then apply no
common sense to it (so therefore there should be absolutely no registration,
education, etc... restrictions put on gun ownership).
>> > Guns cause crime, crime is a nation wide problem, people commit
>> > suicide just by being in the presence of a gun, etc. but you're not
>> > anti-gun�
>>
>> Your lack of reading comprehension noted.
>
>Your refusal to stand by your claims is noted.
Your lack of reading comprehension noted.
>> > You're God dammed right, 10,000 years of human history shows
>> > what happens when people are denied their human right to keep
>> > and bear arms.
>>
>> Not only do you that gun laws should be equal everywhere (even in those
>> few places where you claim all crime is isolated), but you also think
>> that
>> all gun laws throughout time should be equal becasue civilization has not
>> changed?
>
>Human nature being what is, I'm not willing to bet my freedoms and
>life on the promise of a politician.
Your belief that your gun is the only thing offering you your freedoms is
quaint...and scary.
>> > the same people who (quite rightly) railed about the Patriot Act
>> > expanding
>> > the government's power to tap phones, for some reason have no problem
>> > with this same government disarming them.
>>
>> Suggesting that people have to register their firearms (just like a car)
>> or
>> receive education in how to use them safely (just like a car) is not
>> advocating
>> that the gun be pryed from your cold dead hand.
>
>You can trust the government, they promise not to stick it all the way
>in�
Your fantasizing about where to hide your gun is not relevant to this
discussion.
>> > The NRA was conceived in 1871 as a firearms education organization
>> > and this continues to be its primary purpose today.
>>
>> That is funny...so, the NRA's official stance is that no one should be
>> allowed to own a gun until they are educated in its safe use?
>The NRA's stance, like mine and other non-fundies, is that people are
>responsible for their own actions and the government should not impose
>open-ended qualifications to exercise our human rights.
Therefore, the NRA does not believe that gun owners should be educated.
They simply don't think that the education should be banned, since it
directly promotes income into their pocketbook.
>> > In fact it is the anti-gun fundies who, like their religious fundie
>> > buddies
>> > looking to ban the teaching of evolution, who oppose any education
>> > and flipped their shit when the NRA offered to provide free firearm
>> > safety materials for public schools.
>>
>> Why are you advocating that our already overburdenned educational
>> ssystem take on the tastk of teaching people how to use guns as well?
>
>The program and materials were offered free of charge with no strings
>attached, the schools could choose to use them or not as they saw fit.
Should the schools let in all the other salesman that want to pitch their
product? Which actual education subjects should be dropped from the
curriculum in favor of these infomercials?
>The hope being they'd find time to slip it in, between chapters on the
>historical importance of MTV and Madonna�
Every kid in history class learns far more about guns and their use than the
learn about pop culture.
>> > Why shouldn't people have to pay for classes in gun safety?
>
>Why should be people be forced by the government to pay to exercise
>their natural human rights?
No different than their 'right' to drive a car. Again, you focus only on
the antiquity of when a document was written...like the religious fundis
that insist that the world is only 5,000 or so year old.
>What's next on your list of "improvements", a poll tax?
You do realize that your taxes already go to paying for the voting system,
right?
>> > That's correct. Firearm registration does nothing to prevent crime,
>> > while it can and has been used by governments to seize firearms
>> > owned by law abiding citizens.
>>
>> You are 100% wrong. Preventing known criminals from buying guns
>> does reduce crime.
>
>Except registration doesn't prevent a criminal from acquiring a
>firearm or using that firearm in a crime
True. The person could still obtain the gun illegally. Passing laws
against criminal activity does not prevent all crime. However, if a person
were caught buying/carrying a gun illegally, they could have it taken away
and or get themselves incarcerated BEFORE they had the chance to use that
gun in a crime. This is a very common sense preventative measure, just as
we do with cars.
>Criminals, by their very nature, aren't legally buying firearms from
>the corner sporting goods store and are unaffected by these regulations,
>which are only obeyed by the law abiding.
True...the criminals just buy their guns off the street from 'law abiding'
gun fundi's that routinely sell off parts of their gun collection as they
buy more.
>> If this country made it a crime for the gun nuts such as yourself to buy
>> and sell weapons unregistered through the newspapers, swapmeets,
>> and out the back doors of their lairs,
>
>You should see the new carpet I got in my kick-ass gun nut lair!
I already saw pictures of the wear path you put in it from all your pacing.
>But beyond a tiny number of the tiny number of the 250,000,000+
>firearms floating around the country, most firearms used in crimes
>have been stolen from their legal owners by the very same criminals
>who you claim will suddenly obey stricter firearms laws.
When I sell off a huge quantity of my guns I make sure to report them
stolen, too, because I just saw what kind of nut I sold them too...and
because the insurance company will pay me a second time.
>> crime could be reduced even more becasue the criminals would no
>> longer have unimpeded access to such weapons.
>
>Like in the UK? Where ALL handguns are banned (even for the UK
>olympic shooting team) yet criminals still get them and still commit
>crimes with them.
What is the rate of gun crime in the UK compared with the USA? Hint: proof
that unimpeded access to guns does affect gun crime rates.
>In fact the UK has the highest violent crime rate in Europe, far
>higher per capita then the U.S.
Not for crimes involving guns.
>> Why should guns be less restricted than cars?
>
>Because it is our natural human right to keep and bear arms because
>governments cannot be trusted.
Why is the right to own a gun 'a natural human right' and the right to own a
car not?
>> Only a total idiot believes that every citizen should have the right
>> to own their own nuclear weapon.
>
>Oh, who is suggesting that?
You did when you claimed that the 2nd Amendment gave citizens the right to
own whatever weapon the government owned. If you are now backing away from
that, then feel free to outline which 'guns' do not apply to the 2nd
Amendment. So that we can see just how much you want to violate that 2nd
Amendment.
>> Your 'logic' makes no sense at all. You admit that 40% of the gun
>> murders
>> exists in the rest of the state, yet you think those murders are 'not a
>> problem'?
>
>Michigan - 9,969,727 people = 40% of the murders
>Detroit --------951,270 people = 60% of the murders
>
>But as I've already pointed out, most of the remaining 40% happen
>in the same crime ridden, minority populated inner cities of Flint,
>etc.
So, by your definition, gun crimes are not a problem because any place where
a gun crime occurs doesn't count as part of this country?
>> How many murders have to occur in your neighborhood before you
>> consider yourself part of the nation?
>
>Irrelevant, firearms do cause crime and my rights are not dependent
>on the actions of a tiny segment of the population.
That is true of all other crime as well (by your definition).
>> > That's the issue I'm most concerned about, as all our rights and
>> > freedoms hinge on our natural, human right to keep and bear arms.
>>
>> More propaganda from outdated thinking.
>
>So freedom is an outdated concept? Well, that's not surprising
>coming from you.
Freedom being something that exists only in the hands of a gun holder is an
outdated concept.
Thanatos
<2640c8a8-945a-4f96...@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > Obveeus
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > >
> > > But feel free to present evidence supporting your contention that
> > > crime is equally distributed across the U.S.
> >
> > I did not say that crime was equally distributed, Ed. What I said is
> > that you would have to be very naive to believe that most people
> > have never been a victim of crime during their life.
>
> If most Americans have been victims of crime, then crime must be
> more or less equally distributed across the U.S.
>
> Except everybody (including you) knows this isn't the case and that
> every city has perennially "bad areas" where average people know
> not to go, as that's where the crime happens.
Indeed, that's why the news goes apeshit on the rare occasion when
serious crime happens other than in those narrowly-construed
geographical limits.
A double homicide in Southeast DC? Thirty seconds on the local news. A
double homicide in Potomac, MD? The entire newscast.
> > > Whatever their situation, it was not caused by firearms. D.C.
> > > has the strictest firearm laws in the U.S. yet crime there is
> > > as bad or worse then Detroit.
> >
> > D.C. has a horrible problem with crime. There would be much less
> > problem there if the guns were gone.
>
> D.C. = strictest gun control = massive murder rate.
>
> The facts are in direct opposition to your statement, either you are
> woefully misinformed or you are out right lying and I know you aren't
> stupidŠ
Yep. As has been well-documented, the DC murder-rate skyrocketed only
*after* guns were outlawed.
> > Your argument is as silly as claiming that cars don't drive
> > themselves, so drunk driving should not be illegal.
Ummm... no. The proper analogy would be that he believes cars shouldn't
be banned because a tiny percentage of people misuse them by driving
drunk.
> > Why are you advocating that our already overburdenned educational
> > system take on the tastk of teaching people how to use guns as well?
>
> The program and materials were offered free of charge with no strings
> attached, the schools could choose to use them or not as they saw fit.
>
> The hope being they'd find time to slip it in, between chapters on the
> historical importance of MTV and MadonnaŠ
Or dragging the kids all the way to Arizona from California to protest
the unfair treatment of illegal aliens...
http://www.alipac.us/article5347.html
Jose Lara, a social studies teacher in the Los Angeles
Unified School District, took students on an overnight
"freedom ride" to Phoenix to protest what he called the
"racist and outrageous" new immigration law in Arizona.
He is seen above holding a sign in Spanish that reads,
'Listen Obama.'
Standing in front of a wall-to-wall mural featuring a who's
who of revolutionaries, including Ho Chi Minh, Fidel
Castro and Che Guevara, and boldly displaying the motto
Patria o Muerte, Venceremos!!! (Fatherland or Death, We
Shall Overcome!!!), a group of teachers, students, parents
and community activists in the Los Angeles Unified School
District gathered last month for an unusual field trip
to Arizona, to protest that state's controversial immigration
law.
Lara teaches at the Unified School District's Santee
Education Complex with Ron Gochez, another social studies
teacher who came under fire last month after he was identified
making incendiary remarks in a widely circulated YouTube
video that shows him speaking at a 2007 rally for La Raza,
a revolutionary group calling for Mexican revolt inside the
United States.
In that video, Gochez referred to Americans as "frail,
racist, white people, and to California as "stolen,
occupied Mexico." The video's posting led to a groundswell
of anger and a flood of calls for Gochez's firing, but a
school district investigation found him fit to continue
teaching history to public school students.
Our educational system is so "overburdened" that they can't make use of
free NRA materials to educate kids on proper gun safety, but it sure
seems to have plenty of time and resources to truck them around the
country and use them as political pawns for the liberal cause du jour,
huh?
> > > That's correct. Firearm registration does nothing to prevent crime,
> > > while it can and has been used by governments to seize firearms
> > > owned by law abiding citizens.
> >
> > You are 100% wrong. Preventing known criminals from buying guns
> > does reduce crime.
It also allows the government to know which citizens own guns when they
want to confiscate them-- usually when those guns are most needed by the
citizens to protect themselves. See what happened in Louisiana after
Katrina.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
> >The 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans and cannot be denied
> >because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
>
> Except, of course, you are limiting the concept of the 2nd Amendment
> to your particular interpretation of it.
Well, his and the Supreme Court's.
> it is only by interpretation that you think it applies to every
> citizen in the country,
It's only by interpretation that women have a right to have an abortion.
It's only by interpretation that the Commerce Clause has been held to
allow the federal government to regulate things like education, housing
and health care. Funny how the Left never has a problem with
"interpretation" until the subject turns to the 2nd Amendment.
There's also a helluva lot more evidence that the Framers intended gun
ownership to be an individual right than there is that they intended for
women to be able to purposefully end their pregnancies or that they
intended the Commerce Clause to give Congress virtually unlimited power.
> ...and then there is the simple fact that the Constitution was
> designed to evolve with the times, not be set in archaic stone.
Yes, that's why they included the amendment process. If you want to
"evolve away" the right to bear arms, that's the proper way to do it.
> >> > That it's not a national problem, yes.
> >>
> >> Then why do you insist that gun laws across the nation shoud be
> >> equally non-existent?
> >
> >Are you seriously suggesting the Bill of Rights should NOT apply
> >to all Americans?!
>
> I'm suggesting that your interpretation of it need not apply.
Well, considering that his interpretation also happens to be the Supreme
Court's, you then are logically asserting that the Court's rulings on
fundamental freedoms should apply to some citizens but not others.
> > Perhaps you'd be cool with only Black-Americans being denied
> > the right to keep and bear arms, maybe some kinda 3/5 ratio?
>
> That Bill of Rights did not even apply to most blacks as they were
> slaves. Do you really want to argue that no laws should ever change
> in this country over time?
Of course not. But when it was realized that that part of the
Constitution was wrong and needed to be changed, they didn't do it (as
they do today) by legislative fiat, they didn't pretend it doesn't exist
(as the 10th Amendment is virtually ignored today) and they didn't do it
by judicial decree. They changed that part of the Constitution properly
by amending it. Hence we have the 13th and 14th Amendments.
> > Would you be willing to submit to a mandatory computer competency
> > class before being allowed to exercise your 1st Amendment rights
> > on Usenet?
>
> The 1st Amendment does not aply to usenet,
Actually it does, inasmuch as Usenet is used by Americans within
America. The government couldn't legally decide to start censoring it or
banning it without violating the 1st Amendment.
> but getting rid of the incompetant would be a blessing.
I'm sure it would. Until someone with the power to do so declared *you*
incompetent because they didn't like what you said and banned you from
it.
(And how ironic is that you misspell "incompetent" even as you're waxing
approvingly over the idea of keeping such people off Usenet?)
> Then the kids that find daddy's gun and blow their head off (because
> daddy was an idiot with respect to gun safety) would still be alive.
And yet you'd prefer those kids not be exposed to free gun safety
lessons in school, which might prevent such a tragedy, because...?
> but the gun apologists will certainly claim that it is ok to shoot
> foreigners in other countries if they throw a rock at you.
Well, considering that the actual *military* of that foreign country
routinely crosses into this one and fires on both our citizens and our
law enforcement while protecting illegal drug shipments for the cartels,
I think your outrage is somewhat disproportionately placed.
> Therefore, the NRA does not believe that gun owners should be educated.
Funny, then, that they offer dozens of different gun safety and
education courses.
> Should the schools let in all the other salesman that want to pitch
> their product? Which actual education subjects should be dropped
> from the curriculum in favor of these infomercials?
How about the ones where they take kids all over the country to use them
as props in furthering the personal political agendas of the teachers
and administration?
I'm sure if we cut that out, we could find time to teach kids where the
safety is on a pistol.
And it's funny that you don't have a problem when other industries
provide educational materials to children in school. Schools all over
the country use propaganda put out by the MPAA and the RIAA about the
evils of file-sharing and half-truths about copyright. Condom companies
provide safe-sex materials to schools (as well as the condoms they hand
out). Where's your outrage about that?
> > > > Why shouldn't people have to pay for classes in gun safety?
> >
> > Why should be people be forced by the government to pay to exercise
> > their natural human rights?
>
> No different than their 'right' to drive a car.
Where in the Constitution is a right to drive a car listed?
> >What's next on your list of "improvements", a poll tax?
>
> You do realize that your taxes already go to paying for the
> voting system, right?
I'm not sure you understand what a poll tax actually is in this context.
> > > > That's correct. Firearm registration does nothing to prevent
> > > > crime, while it can and has been used by governments to seize
> > > > firearms owned by law abiding citizens.
> >>
> >> You are 100% wrong. Preventing known criminals from buying guns
> >> does reduce crime.
> >
> >Except registration doesn't prevent a criminal from acquiring a
> >firearm or using that firearm in a crime
>
> True. The person could still obtain the gun illegally. Passing laws
> against criminal activity does not prevent all crime. However, if
> a person were caught buying/carrying a gun illegally, they could
> have it taken away and or get themselves incarcerated BEFORE they
> had the chance to use that gun in a crime. This is a very common
> sense preventative measure, just as we do with cars.
No matter how you spin it, the states with liberal concealed carry laws
(and open carry laws) have far lower incidences of violent crime (to
include gun crime) than states with strict gun prohibition.
> True...the criminals just buy their guns off the street from 'law
> abiding' gun fundi's that routinely sell off parts of their gun
> collection as they buy more.
You need to stop allowing Hollywood to shape your view of the world.
> >Because it is our natural human right to keep and bear arms because
> >governments cannot be trusted.
>
> Why is the right to own a gun 'a natural human right' and the right
> to own a car not?
Whether it's natural or not, only one of them is listed in the Bill of
Rights.
Jim
fossil fuels that, oil spills this, Iraq/Obama/mortgage meltdown that.
Now all we need for *real* nostalgia is a good old-fashioned abortion
food-fight.
Let me start the ball rolling by pissing off *both* sides: it ought to
be OK during the first trimester, but otherwise not except if medically
necessary. Discuss. >:)
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-B2B097...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <hv8miq$rdp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
>
>> >The 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans and cannot be denied
>> >because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
>>
>> Except, of course, you are limiting the concept of the 2nd Amendment
>> to your particular interpretation of it.
>
> Well, his and the Supreme Court's.
When did the Supreme Court rule that gun registration violated the 2nd
Amendment?
When did the Supreme Court rule that a madatory gun education class violated
the 2nd Amendment?
When did the Supreme Court rule that banning individuals from owning weapons
like rocket launchers, balistic missles, or nuclear weapons was a violation
of the 2nd Amendment?
>> it is only by interpretation that you think it applies to every
>> citizen in the country,
>
> It's only by interpretation that women have a right to have an abortion.
Non-responsive silliness from Thantos..always setting up straw men and
dodging the true discussion...next up, he will claim that some how I dodged
the question because I chose to ignore this pointless sidetrack attempt.
> It's only by interpretation that the Commerce Clause has been held to
> allow the federal government to regulate things like education, housing
> and health care. Funny how the Left never has a problem with
> "interpretation" until the subject turns to the 2nd Amendment.
Non-responsive silliness from Thantos..always setting up straw men and
dodging the true discussion...next up, he will claim that some how I dodged
the question because I chose to ignore this pointless sidetrack attempt.
> There's also a helluva lot more evidence that the Framers intended gun
> ownership to be an individual right than there is that they intended for
> women to be able to purposefully end their pregnancies or that they
> intended the Commerce Clause to give Congress virtually unlimited power.
Non-responsive silliness from Thantos..always setting up straw men and
dodging the true discussion...next up, he will claim that some how I dodged
the question because I chose to ignore this pointless sidetrack attempt.
>> ...and then there is the simple fact that the Constitution was
>> designed to evolve with the times, not be set in archaic stone.
>
> Yes, that's why they included the amendment process. If you want to
> "evolve away" the right to bear arms, that's the proper way to do it.
Agreed.
>> >> > That it's not a national problem, yes.
>> >>
>> >> Then why do you insist that gun laws across the nation shoud be
>> >> equally non-existent?
>> >
>> >Are you seriously suggesting the Bill of Rights should NOT apply
>> >to all Americans?!
>>
>> I'm suggesting that your interpretation of it need not apply.
>
> Well, considering that his interpretation also happens to be the Supreme
> Court's, you then are logically asserting that the Court's rulings on
> fundamental freedoms should apply to some citizens but not others.
The Supreme Court decided that it was ok to deny insane people and
prisoners...and even people on certain types of probation from owning guns.
So, yes, the Supreme Court most definitely does rule that some freedoms of
the 2nd Amendment specifically apply to some citizens, but not others.
>> > Perhaps you'd be cool with only Black-Americans being denied
>> > the right to keep and bear arms, maybe some kinda 3/5 ratio?
>>
>> That Bill of Rights did not even apply to most blacks as they were
>> slaves. Do you really want to argue that no laws should ever change
>> in this country over time?
>
> Of course not. But when it was realized that that part of the
> Constitution was wrong and needed to be changed, they didn't do it (as
> they do today) by legislative fiat, they didn't pretend it doesn't exist
> (as the 10th Amendment is virtually ignored today) and they didn't do it
> by judicial decree. They changed that part of the Constitution properly
> by amending it. Hence we have the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Not sure what your argument is here as I have said nothing to suggest
otherwise. Of course, it all hinges on Ed/you/other 'religious fundis'
interpretting the 2nd Amendment as an unlimited unrestricted right of every
citizen to own/carry/use any weapon that they wish. Taken on the other
extreme, one might suggest that the 2nd Amendment might *ONLY* give
official militia types the right to have a weapon at all.
>> > Would you be willing to submit to a mandatory computer competency
>> > class before being allowed to exercise your 1st Amendment rights
>> > on Usenet?
>>
>> The 1st Amendment does not aply to usenet,
>
> Actually it does, inasmuch as Usenet is used by Americans within
> America.
Usenet is a global entity, not something owned/controlled by the USA. It is
nice of you to change the premise so that you can try and make the argument
more valid, but the simple fact is, the first Amendment does not apply to
usenet.
> The government couldn't legally decide to start censoring it or
> banning it without violating the 1st Amendment.
...and yet child pronography, for example...
>> but getting rid of the incompetant would be a blessing.
>
> I'm sure it would. Until someone with the power to do so declared *you*
> incompetent because they didn't like what you said and banned you from
> it.
>
> (And how ironic is that you misspell "incompetent" even as you're waxing
> approvingly over the idea of keeping such people off Usenet?)
The first sign of someone undeserving of respect on usenet is that they toss
out a serious usenet spelling flame.
>> Then the kids that find daddy's gun and blow their head off (because
>> daddy was an idiot with respect to gun safety) would still be alive.
>
> And yet you'd prefer those kids not be exposed to free gun safety
> lessons in school, which might prevent such a tragedy, because...?
I only questioned why that education/training shoyuld take place at school
rathe rthan on the gun users' dime/time.
>> but the gun apologists will certainly claim that it is ok to shoot
>> foreigners in other countries if they throw a rock at you.
>
> Well, considering that the actual *military* of that foreign country
> routinely crosses into this one and fires on both our citizens and our
> law enforcement while protecting illegal drug shipments for the cartels,
> I think your outrage is somewhat disproportionately placed.
Non-responsive silliness from Thantos..always setting up straw men and
dodging the true discussion...next up, he will claim that some how I dodged
the question because I chose to ignore this pointless sidetrack attempt.
What the Mexican police do has no bearing on wherher or not it is ok for US
law enforcement to shoot children in Mexico for throwing rocks.
>> Therefore, the NRA does not believe that gun owners should be educated.
>
> Funny, then, that they offer dozens of different gun safety and
> education courses.
All designed to line their own pockets, as already explained. The NRA is
not an altruistic entity.
>> Should the schools let in all the other salesman that want to pitch
>> their product? Which actual education subjects should be dropped
>> from the curriculum in favor of these infomercials?
>
> How about the ones where they take kids all over the country to use them
> as props in furthering the personal political agendas of the teachers
> and administration?
'They' don't do that. The fact that you have one teacher in one school that
apparently did it (and no explanation of whether the school or parents
actually paid for it) does not make it 'what schools do with their
time/resources.
> I'm sure if we cut that out, we could find time to teach kids where the
> safety is on a pistol.
>
> And it's funny that you don't have a problem when other industries
> provide educational materials to children in school. Schools all over
> the country use propaganda put out by the MPAA and the RIAA about the
> evils of file-sharing and half-truths about copyright.
Not sure why you think that is 'taught' in schools. Are you simply whining
because school kids are told that they aren;t allowed to use school
resources for illegal purposes? In any case, yet another straw man side
track from Thantos...
> Condom companies
> provide safe-sex materials to schools (as well as the condoms they hand
> out). Where's your outrage about that?
Yet another straw man side track from Thantos...Sex education is tauight in
schools. Complaining about the materials being provided makes as much sense
as complaining that Bic provides pens to some schools. This has nothing to
do with the NRA trying to create a curriculum to serve itself and its
members.
>> > > > Why shouldn't people have to pay for classes in gun safety?
>> >
>> > Why should be people be forced by the government to pay to exercise
>> > their natural human rights?
>>
>> No different than their 'right' to drive a car.
>
> Where in the Constitution is a right to drive a car listed?
As explained, the Constitution was written at a specific point in time, with
some clearly dated limitations as aresult...which is why the laws of this
country were designed to evolve, not be set in that era...and no, the 2nd
Amendment does not state that no registration of guns should be
allowed/required.
>> >What's next on your list of "improvements", a poll tax?
>>
>> You do realize that your taxes already go to paying for the
>> voting system, right?
>
> I'm not sure you understand what a poll tax actually is in this context.
What part of the response did you not understand?
>> > > > That's correct. Firearm registration does nothing to prevent
>> > > > crime, while it can and has been used by governments to seize
>> > > > firearms owned by law abiding citizens.
>> >>
>> >> You are 100% wrong. Preventing known criminals from buying guns
>> >> does reduce crime.
>> >
>> >Except registration doesn't prevent a criminal from acquiring a
>> >firearm or using that firearm in a crime
>>
>> True. The person could still obtain the gun illegally. Passing laws
>> against criminal activity does not prevent all crime. However, if
>> a person were caught buying/carrying a gun illegally, they could
>> have it taken away and or get themselves incarcerated BEFORE they
>> had the chance to use that gun in a crime. This is a very common
>> sense preventative measure, just as we do with cars.
>
> No matter how you spin it, the states with liberal concealed carry laws
> (and open carry laws) have far lower incidences of violent crime (to
> include gun crime) than states with strict gun prohibition.
Chicken and egg...and I object to the continual change of reference away
from gun crime and into the broader 'violent crime' label.
>> True...the criminals just buy their guns off the street from 'law
>> abiding' gun fundi's that routinely sell off parts of their gun
>> collection as they buy more.
>
> You need to stop allowing Hollywood to shape your view of the world.
What has Hollywood got to do with this? Another straw man side track from
Thantos. Ed claimed that by default criminals don't get guns through legal
means (like buying them). That simply isn't the truth.
>> >Because it is our natural human right to keep and bear arms because
>> >governments cannot be trusted.
>>
>> Why is the right to own a gun 'a natural human right' and the right
>> to own a car not?
>
> Whether it's natural or not, only one of them is listed in the Bill of
> Rights.
As long as you decide to interpret the Bill of Rights to mean that everyone
can have any gun that exists (from cap gun to nuclear weapon) without being
required to register it, be educated in its use, or be restricted in where
they can carry it. Of course, that isn't actually written in the 2nd
Amendment any more than the freedom to drive a car without registration is.
So, a certain biased interpretation is required in order to claim that the
2nd Amendment states what you wish were written there.
Jim
>> Funny, then, that they offer dozens of different gun safety and
>> education courses.
> All designed to line their own pockets, as already explained. The NRA is
> not an altruistic entity.
BZZZT! Wrong!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association
"The National Rifle Association of America, or NRA, is an American
non-partisan, non-profit (501(c)(4)) organization..."
^^^^^^^^^^
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-B2B097...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <hv8miq$rdp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> >> >The 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans and cannot be denied
> >> >because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
> >>
> >> Except, of course, you are limiting the concept of the 2nd Amendment
> >> to your particular interpretation of it.
> >
> > Well, his and the Supreme Court's.
>
> When did the Supreme Court rule that gun registration violated the 2nd
> Amendment?
Stasiak said the freedoms of the 2nd Amendment cannot be denied because
of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population. You responded that
those freedoms were only his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, an
opinion which is clearly also shared by the Court.
> >> it is only by interpretation that you think it applies to every
> >> citizen in the country,
> >
> > It's only by interpretation that women have a right to have an
> > abortion.
>
> Non-responsive silliness from Thantos.
No, it's actually directly on point. You denigrated Stasiak's position
as being the result of mere interpretation, as if that makes it somehow
suspect or less-than. Pointing out other "mere" interpretations to which
you don't object is logical, completely responsive, and on point.
> always setting up straw men
It's apparent that your definition of "straw man" is not the same as
that of the rest of the English-speaking world.
> > There's also a helluva lot more evidence that the Framers
> > intended gun ownership to be an individual right than there is
> > that they intended for women to be able to purposefully end their
> > pregnancies or that they intended the Commerce Clause to give
> > Congress virtually unlimited power.
>
> Non-responsive silliness from Thantos.
No, it's actually directly on point. Comparing the evidentiary strength
of this particular interpretation with those to which you don't object
is logical, completely responsive, and on point.
> he will claim that some how I dodged the question because I chose
> to ignore this pointless sidetrack attempt.
Why bother? It's obvious that you just don't have any real way of
defending yourself against the inexorable illogic of your own position.
> >> ...and then there is the simple fact that the Constitution was
> >> designed to evolve with the times, not be set in archaic stone.
> >
> > Yes, that's why they included the amendment process. If you want to
> > "evolve away" the right to bear arms, that's the proper way to do it.
>
> Agreed.
Good luck with that.
> >> > Perhaps you'd be cool with only Black-Americans being denied
> >> > the right to keep and bear arms, maybe some kinda 3/5 ratio?
> >>
> >> That Bill of Rights did not even apply to most blacks as they were
> >> slaves. Do you really want to argue that no laws should ever change
> >> in this country over time?
> >
> > Of course not. But when it was realized that that part of the
> > Constitution was wrong and needed to be changed, they didn't
> > do it (as they do today) by legislative fiat, they didn't pretend
> > it doesn't exist (as the 10th Amendment is virtually ignored
> > today) and they didn't do it by judicial decree. They changed
> > that part of the Constitution properly by amending it. Hence we
> > have the 13th and 14th Amendments.
>
> Not sure what your argument is here as I have said nothing to suggest
> otherwise.
You heavily implied it by quoting the old canard of the "evolving" and
"living" document. That's uniquely the rhetoric of those for whom the
amendment process is nothing but an inconvenient roadblock to their
agenda and can therefore be easily dispensed with.
> Of course, it all hinges on Ed/you/other 'religious fundis'
> interpretting the 2nd Amendment as an unlimited unrestricted
> right of every citizen to own/carry/use any weapon that they
> wish.
Dude, I don't need the 2nd Amendment to carry a gun. I can carry one
anywhere I like regardless of state and local laws. I hardly need to be
religiously obsessed with the 2nd Amendment and its various
interpretations.
I just enjoy exploring the sheer illogic of the gun-grabbers' position
with them whenever it crops up. It makes for an entertaining diversion.
> Taken on the other extreme, one might suggest that the 2nd Amendment
> might *ONLY* give official militia types the right to have a weapon
> at all.
Good thing the Supreme Court disagrees, then, huh?
> >> > Would you be willing to submit to a mandatory computer competency
> >> > class before being allowed to exercise your 1st Amendment rights
> >> > on Usenet?
> >>
> >> The 1st Amendment does not aply to usenet,
> >
> > Actually it does, inasmuch as Usenet is used by Americans within
> > America.
>
> Usenet is a global entity, not something owned/controlled by the USA.
The American government could order it blocked from American servers,
the same way Turkey has banned YouTube access within its borders,
despite the web being a "global entity". I'm sure those with a
high-level of technical proficiency could figure out ways around such a
block, but the average person would find themselves cut off.
To do such a thing would be a gross violation of the 1st Amendment on
the part of the government. So yes, the 1st Amendment does apply to
Usenet.
> It is nice of you to change the premise so that you can try and make
> the argument more valid, but the simple fact is, the first Amendment
> does not apply to usenet.
It does for Americans.
Put it another way: if you were to bad-mouth Sarah Palin in this
newsgroup tonight and tomorrow morning the FBI showed up and placed you
under arrest for seditious speech, what would be your defense when you
appeared in court?
> > The government couldn't legally decide to start censoring it or
> > banning it without violating the 1st Amendment.
>
> ...and yet child pronography, for example...
Irrelevant. Child porn is classified as obscenity and per the Supreme
Court obscenity isn't protected speech in any form; not on Usenet, not
in Polaroids, not in email, not on videotape, nothing. Usenet has
nothing to do with it.
However, I do find it interesting that whenever I bring up non-gun
examples in this discussion, I get a copy-paste rant about straw men.
Yet it seems to be okay for you to suddenly pull child porn into this
discussion out of nowhere...
Double standard much? Maybe I should have just changed the name and
copy-pasted your own response back to you. It might have been fun
watching the logical tap dance it would take for you to try and justify
that.
> >> but getting rid of the incompetant would be a blessing.
> >
> > I'm sure it would. Until someone with the power to do so
> > declared *you* incompetent because they didn't like what you
> > said and banned you from it.
> >
> > (And how ironic is that you misspell "incompetent" even as
> > you're waxing approvingly over the idea of keeping such people
> > off Usenet?)
>
> The first sign of someone undeserving of respect on usenet is that
> they toss out a serious usenet spelling flame.
That's hardly a spelling flame. It was a perfect example of how your own
elitism could easily be turned against you and bite you in the ass.
> >> Then the kids that find daddy's gun and blow their head off
> >> (because daddy was an idiot with respect to gun safety) would
> >> still be alive.
> >
> > And yet you'd prefer those kids not be exposed to free gun safety
> > lessons in school, which might prevent such a tragedy, because...?
>
> I only questioned why that education/training shoyuld take place
> at school rathe rthan on the gun users' dime/time.
And that's more important than saving those little cherubs' lives in
your example?
> >> but the gun apologists will certainly claim that it is ok to shoot
> >> foreigners in other countries if they throw a rock at you.
> >
> > Well, considering that the actual *military* of that foreign country
> > routinely crosses into this one and fires on both our citizens and our
> > law enforcement while protecting illegal drug shipments for the cartels,
> > I think your outrage is somewhat disproportionately placed.
>
> Non-responsive silliness from Thantos..always setting up straw men
You were the one who brought it up. Not surprising that you're afraid to
defend it, though.
> What the Mexican police do has no bearing on wherher or not it is
> ok for US law enforcement to shoot children in Mexico for throwing
> rocks.
I didn't say it did. But it does have bearing on how selective your
outrage regarding border transgressions seems to be.
> >> Therefore, the NRA does not believe that gun owners should be
> >> educated.
> >
> > Funny, then, that they offer dozens of different gun safety and
> > education courses.
>
> All designed to line their own pockets, as already explained.
Who cares whose pockets are lined so long as those who need to be
educated are educated?
The only way your complaint has merit is if you're also claiming that
the NRA programs deliver faulty information. Is that your contention?
> The NRA is not an altruistic entity.
So? Who said it has to be altruistic?
> > And it's funny that you don't have a problem when other industries
> > provide educational materials to children in school. Schools all over
> > the country use propaganda put out by the MPAA and the RIAA about the
> > evils of file-sharing and half-truths about copyright.
>
> Not sure why you think that is 'taught' in schools.
Because it is. My niece's school had a big assembly on it. She brought
home all of the slick propaganda they passed out (paid for by the MPAA
and RIAA) before they were shown a video on copyright "piracy" and how
any copying of any music is "theft". Of course they never mentioned the
doctrine of Fair Use, which is part of the actual copyright statute.
They never mentioned how the Supreme Court has ruled that copyright
infringement isn't stealing and isn't theft. They never mentioned
anything that doesn't serve their industry's purposes.
> In any case, yet another straw man side
> track from Thantos...
So let me get this straight: you complain that an industry shouldn't be
allowed to pimp its products and propaganda in the schools and when I
provide examples of other industries doing just that with no apparent
complaints from you about it... that's a straw man?
Really?
You really need to read up on what does and does not constitute a straw
man, because you apparently seem to think "straw man" = "anything that
proves me wrong or undermines my argument".
> > Condom companies provide safe-sex materials to schools (as well
> > as the condoms they hand out). Where's your outrage about that?
>
> Yet another straw man side track from Thantos...Sex education is
> tauight in schools.
So according to you, if gun safety was taught in schools, it would
appropriate for the NRA to supply the materials?
But then you say we can't teach gun safety, because then the NRA might
supply the materials.
That sure is some circular logic you got there.
> >> No different than their 'right' to drive a car.
> >
> > Where in the Constitution is a right to drive a car listed?
>
> As explained, the Constitution was written at a specific point
> in time, with some clearly dated limitations as aresult...which
> is why the laws of this country were designed to evolve, not be
> set in that era...
Well, until the Constitution is "evolved" by being properly amended to
include the right to drive a car, it ain't in there. As it stands now,
under the laws of all 50 states, driving is specifically deemed to be a
revokable privilege, not a right, and neither the federal legislature,
nor the federal courts have ever said otherwise.
> >> >What's next on your list of "improvements", a poll tax?
> >>
> >> You do realize that your taxes already go to paying for the
> >> voting system, right?
> >
> > I'm not sure you understand what a poll tax actually is in this
> > context.
>
> What part of the response did you not understand?
No part. I understood it all perfectly. I merely commented that it was
apparent that *you* don't understand what a poll tax is in this context.
> > No matter how you spin it, the states with liberal concealed
> > carry laws (and open carry laws) have far lower incidences of
> > violent crime (to include gun crime) than states with strict
> > gun prohibition.
>
> Chicken and egg...
?!?!?! Well, hell. How can one possibly assail such iron-clad logic?
> and I object to the continual change of reference away
> from gun crime and into the broader 'violent crime' label.
Then you're hallucinating because I specifically included gun crime in
my response.
> >> True...the criminals just buy their guns off the street from 'law
> >> abiding' gun fundi's that routinely sell off parts of their gun
> >> collection as they buy more.
> >
> > You need to stop allowing Hollywood to shape your view of the world.
>
> What has Hollywood got to do with this?
Your little scenarios are so ridiculous that they seem like scenes from
bad B-movies. I just assumed you were getting them from Hollywood, but
if you're just making them up in your head, I'm not sure that paints you
in any better light.
> >> >Because it is our natural human right to keep and bear arms because
> >> >governments cannot be trusted.
> >>
> >> Why is the right to own a gun 'a natural human right' and the right
> >> to own a car not?
> >
> > Whether it's natural or not, only one of them is listed in the Bill of
> > Rights.
>
> As long as you decide to interpret the Bill of Rights to mean that
> everyone can have any gun that exists (from cap gun to nuclear weapon)
A nuclear weapon is not a gun. Of course since you don't know what a
straw man is, why would I be surprised that you think bombs are guns?
AZ Nomad
>In article <hv9d56$gpq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:atropos-B2B097...@news.giganews.com...
>> > In article <hv8miq$rdp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> >The 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans and cannot be denied
>> >> >because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
>> >>
>> >> Except, of course, you are limiting the concept of the 2nd Amendment
>> >> to your particular interpretation of it.
>> >
>> > Well, his and the Supreme Court's.
>>
>> When did the Supreme Court rule that gun registration violated the 2nd
>> Amendment?
>Stasiak said the freedoms of the 2nd Amendment cannot be denied because
>of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population. You responded that
>those freedoms were only his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, an
>opinion which is clearly also shared by the Court.
Non sequitir. You're ignoreing the phrase "well regulated"
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> When did the Supreme Court rule that gun registration violated the 2nd
>> Amendment?
>
> Stasiak said the freedoms of the 2nd Amendment cannot be denied because
> of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population. You responded that
> those freedoms were only his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, an
> opinion which is clearly also shared by the Court.
So, I ask again: where did the Supreme Court rule that gun registration
violated the 2nd Amendment?
>> Non-responsive silliness from Thantos.
>> always setting up straw men
I left this in because it addresses the rest of what you replied with.
Thanatos
AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
> Non sequitir.
You and Obveeus should get along well. He doesn't seem to know what a
straw man is and you don't know what a non sequitur is. A non sequitur
is not an erroneous comment. It's a comment which, due to its lack of
relevance to what it follows, seems absurd to the point of being
confusing. In other words, basically an abrupt change of subject.
What I wrote was hardly a change of subject.
> You're ignoreing the phrase "well regulated"
Which applies to the militia. The Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment
not only describes the militia, but that it also guarantees an
individual right to possess firearms as well.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >> When did the Supreme Court rule that gun registration violated
> >> the 2nd Amendment?
> >
> > Stasiak said the freedoms of the 2nd Amendment cannot be denied
> > because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
> > You responded that those freedoms were only his interpretation
> > of the 2nd Amendment, an opinion which is clearly also shared
> > by the Court.
>
> So, I ask again: where did the Supreme Court rule that gun
> registration violated the 2nd Amendment?
You can ask it until you're blue in the face but, to coin your own
phrase, it's nothing but non-responsive silliness, since registration is
not what Stasiak was addressing at that point.
> >> Non-responsive silliness from Thantos.
> >> always setting up straw men
>
> I left this in because it addresses the rest of what you replied
> with.
So basically you got nothin'.
Figures.
Obveeus
> In article <hvab86$v4c$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >> When did the Supreme Court rule that gun registration violated
>> >> the 2nd Amendment?
>> >
>> > Stasiak said the freedoms of the 2nd Amendment cannot be denied
>> > because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
>> > You responded that those freedoms were only his interpretation
>> > of the 2nd Amendment, an opinion which is clearly also shared
>> > by the Court.
>>
>> So, I ask again: where did the Supreme Court rule that gun
>> registration violated the 2nd Amendment?
>
> You can ask it until you're blue in the face but, to coin your own
> phrase, it's nothing but non-responsive silliness, since registration is
> not what Stasiak was addressing at that point.
So, you reluctantly admit that the 2nd Amendment does not make any claim
that the militia's right to bear arms is contingent on them not having to
register weapons, not having to recieve gun education, etc....all things
that you 'religious fundis' (as Ed puts it) continuously claim are
violations of the 2nd Amendment.
>> >> Non-responsive silliness from Thantos.
>> >> always setting up straw men
>>
>> I left this in because it addresses the rest of what you replied
>> with.
>
> So basically you got nothin'.
More precisely, you have nothing but strawmen not worth addressing.
Obveeus
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>> Non sequitir.
>
> You and Obveeus should get along well. He doesn't seem to know what a
> straw man is and you don't know what a non sequitur is.
Both of us seem to be able to recognize when you are trying to change the
slant of the subject to something else in an effort to avoid simply
conceding when someone else is correct.
>> You're ignoreing the phrase "well regulated"
>
> Which applies to the militia. The Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment
> not only describes the militia, but that it also guarantees an
> individual right to possess firearms as well.
So, now the guy that is continually whining about how the 2nd Amendment is a
basic right and that the court system should not be allowed to interpret it
or legislate it is claiming that the court does exercise that right..and you
are defending the court's position as being meaningful? You can't have it
both way, Thantos. If it is fair that the court decides that gun ownership
is a right, but that the right can be given up if a person is deemed insane
or a criminal...then the court also has authority to decide that laws
enacted to force gun registration or gun education are within the scope of
the 2nd Amendment.
David Johnston
>In article <hv8miq$rdp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
>
>> >The 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans and cannot be denied
>> >because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
>>
>> Except, of course, you are limiting the concept of the 2nd Amendment
>> to your particular interpretation of it.
>
>Well, his and the Supreme Court's.
>
>> it is only by interpretation that you think it applies to every
>> citizen in the country,
>
>It's only by interpretation that women have a right to have an abortion.
>
>It's only by interpretation that the Commerce Clause has been held to
>allow the federal government to regulate things like education, housing
>and health care. Funny how the Left never has a problem with
>"interpretation" until the subject turns to the 2nd Amendment.
>
It is of course natural that people only have a problem with the
interpretations they disagree with.
Ed Stasiak
> > Thanatos
> >
> > You can ask it until you're blue in the face but, to coin your own
> > phrase, it's nothing but non-responsive silliness, since registration
> > is not what Stasiak was addressing at that point.
>
> So, you reluctantly admit that the 2nd Amendment does not make
> any claim that the militia's right to bear arms is contingent on them
> not having to register weapons, not having to recieve gun education,
> etc....all things that you 'religious fundis' (as Ed puts it) continuously
> claim are violations of the 2nd Amendment.
Your problem Obveeus, is that you see individuals as ultimately
servants
of the State, just as a religionist fundi sees individuals as servants
of God.
Because of this, our natural human rights are not as something
inherent
to the individual that no one can ever take away but something that
the
benevolent State has granted to us in its infinite wisdom.
But it is the state which exists to serve Individuals and any
interpretation
of our natural human rights must always weigh towards freedom for the
Individual.
Obveeus
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>> Obveeus
>> So, you reluctantly admit that the 2nd Amendment does not make
>> any claim that the militia's right to bear arms is contingent on them
>> not having to register weapons, not having to recieve gun education,
>> etc....all things that you 'religious fundis' (as Ed puts it)
>> continuously
>> claim are violations of the 2nd Amendment.
>
> Your problem Obveeus, is that you see individuals as ultimately
> servants of the State,
Nope. I see the State as being there to serve the individual's
needs...including the safety of that individual. I believe that the safety
level would rise if people had limits set on the type of weapons they could
own, requirements to register their guns, and required training/testing to
be educated in their use. Many, if not the vast majority of people feel the
same way despite your attempt to paint everything to the opposite extreme.
>just as a religionist fundi sees individuals as servants of God.
It has already been established that the 'religious fundi' definition you
have created applies to you, specifically, in your devotion to your
interpretted version of the 2nd Amendment God.
> But it is the state which exists to serve Individuals and any
> interpretation of our natural human rights must always weigh
> towards freedom for the Individual.
An individual's freedom/ability to own a gun is not in any way being taken
away if they are required to register the gun or take a training class in
how to use it. On the other hand, the Supreme court has already put limits
of who can own guns (preventing prisoners from having them, for example), so
you probably should be speaking out against that violation of your 2nd
Amendment God.
Thanatos
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:atropos-5ABC01...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <hvab86$v4c$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> >> When did the Supreme Court rule that gun registration violated
> >> >> the 2nd Amendment?
> >> >
> >> > Stasiak said the freedoms of the 2nd Amendment cannot be denied
> >> > because of the behavior of a tiny segment of the population.
> >> > You responded that those freedoms were only his interpretation
> >> > of the 2nd Amendment, an opinion which is clearly also shared
> >> > by the Court.
> >>
> >> So, I ask again: where did the Supreme Court rule that gun
> >> registration violated the 2nd Amendment?
> >
> > You can ask it until you're blue in the face but, to coin your own
> > phrase, it's nothing but non-responsive silliness, since registration is
> > not what Stasiak was addressing at that point.
>
> So, you reluctantly admit that the 2nd Amendment does not make any claim
> that the militia's right to bear arms is contingent on them not having to
> register weapons,
No, I quite clearly said that registration is not what Stasiak was
addressing at that point. Are those words too big for you to understand?
> >> >> Non-responsive silliness from Thantos.
> >> >> always setting up straw men
> >>
> >> I left this in because it addresses the rest of what you replied
> >> with.
> >
> > So basically you got nothin'.
>
> More precisely, you have nothing but strawmen not worth addressing.
Yep, you got nothin'.