Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- writerdog on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
Open thread 9/12
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Sept. 12, 2007 at 1:07 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
575 Comments
Lets see… If simply having guns causes more gun deaths do the numbers add up?
Do more guns really = more gun death?
Quick little study I did tonight, these are the CDC numbers of gun deaths from 1981-2004:
Date Deaths Population Rate
2004- 29,569 293,656,842 10.07
2003- 30,136 290,850,005 10.36
2002- 30,242 287,984,799 10.50
2001- 29,573 285,107,923 10.37
2000- 28,663 281,421,906 10.19
1999- 28,874 279,040,181 10.35
1998- 30,708 275,854,116 11.13
1997- 32,436 272,646,932 11.90
1996- 34,040 269,394,291 12.64
1995- 35,957 266,278,403 13.50
1994- 38,505 263,125,826 14.63
1993- 39,595 259,918,595 15.23
1992- 37,776 256,514,231 14.73
1991- 38,317 252,980,942 15.15
1990- 37,155 249,464,396 14.89
1989- 34,776 246,819,195 14.09
1988- 33,989 244,499,040 13.90
1987- 32,895 242,289,046 13.58
1986- 33,373 240,133,048 13.90
1985- 31,566 237,924,038 13.27
1984- 31,331 235,825,040 13.29
1983- 31,099 233,792,237 13.301982- 32,957 231,664,211 14.23
1981- 34,050 229,465,316 14.84
Looks like the rate per 100,000 is leveling off around 10 per.
Either way, the rate has not been going up.
Now, what about gun ownership? If more guns really = more death then we should have seen a decline in gun ownership and guns…
Just a couple of surveys I found and they are much more conservative than some of the NRA claims on gun ownership mind you.
In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 millionfirearms
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txthttp://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/issueareas/victims/Victims_pdf/1997_Cook_Ludwig.pdf
Well, lets see what happened in 2004!
In 2004:
…we estimated that 57 million adults owned 283 million firearms
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15
Interesting…
The NRA claims that nearly 4.5 million more guns are owned every year in America.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=120
They base this off of the sales rate the ATF tracks here:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm
So with guns owned going up, the number of people owning guns is going up…
why aren’t those guns killing more people like the gun control crowd keeps telling us?
You would think that as our population keeps going up, the number of gun owners keeps going up, and the number of guns owned keeps going up we should see a steady trend of gun deaths going up to…
If you believe the gun control crowd that more guns = more gun deaths.
Perhaps, and this is only speculation on my part, the reason we have so many gun deaths compared to the rest of the industrialized world is the same reason we have more violence and serial killers too.
There are many studies on the violence we have in this country compared to otehrs.
Assualts, Murder, Battery, Rape, Serial Killings, you name the violent crime and we have more of it.
This is not good mind you, it is bad. We need to find a way to curb the violence and address this problem.
However, the first step is recognizing the problem and to stop blaming tools like guns for causing it.
If we are so worried about accidents in the home and children shooting each other on accident then lets do the same thing that the left wants us to do with problems like teen pregnancy and STD’s.
Teach the children!
Why are we so afraid of teaching our children gun safety?
When children are taught the proper safety and handling of guns they learn to respect them not point them at each other.
They would know what to do if faced with a gun.
I have taught many adults firearms safety, handling, and basic marksmanship who had never even touched a gun.
They had no idea how to hold it or how it operated.
Some even believed that a gun would just go off.
Once people are taught how a gun actually operates they soon see how safe and reliable a tool they really are.
Guns do not kill people!
People use a gun to kill people.
Guns are safe, fun, and tools you can use to protect yourself and your family when confronted with all those violent people out there.
Back to “sowhat.com” that Hank Price has been accused of using. Sorry, but I uncover that he MAY as well be covering for his sonny, Nathan.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-910.html#comment-82259487
I reccommend you read something written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs – Dave GrossmanBy LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of “On Killing.”
http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
(Excerpt)…Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”
Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door…
Not to break you heart Roo-Ster, but I posted that at my fathers work the other day…
So, did Hank misrepresent himself for the sake of the boy? Because Hank used the URL on a later time, i.e., the next day:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-911.html#comment-82321447
If so, why BOTH Hank Price and the sonny uses the same URL, and that the sonny is the first instance the URL showed up?
Roo-ster,
No he did not. He simply was still posting from his computer at work.
Wow, mystery solved.
Perhaps Hank didn’t know that sonny was putting up porn-related URL at work, and must apologize for something he didn’t do, I wonder.
Gee, I wasnt even aware that anybody was arguing that if we have more guns, we will have more gun deaths… I guess one could make that argument… but I am not sure why…
I thought the basic argument is that there is a very high rate of deaths by firearms among children ages 19 and under…
If guns really dont kill people, then I guess cars driven by drunks dont really kill people either…
So, I guess we shouldnt limit the use of cars by drunks… or have mandatory registration of cars…
That should solve the problem…
Funny, when I watched an autopsy of a man who had been shot to death, I didnt see any hands, or fingers inside that corpse…
But, I DID see about five big slugs from a 45 Cal. pistol…
And the cause of death wasnt listed as death by lethal human… Cause of death was listed as death by a 45Cal. gun…
I guess the Med. Examiner thought that a GUN killed him –
Oh well, I guess all that matters is that the guy who used the gun was just exercising his right to bear arms…
darned headaches… gotta go back to bed now… Ouch!!!
I had my hours switched this week to cover somebody on vacation and I have discovered that, while I can switch from 1st to 2nd shift in one day, my body cannot quite make the switch so fast. So I still wake at 0600 and I still get sleepy at 11PM. I was dead to the world yesterday. And to think there are folks that do this often!
Oh well, I guess all that matters is that the guy who used the gun was just exercising his right to bear arms…
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 04:20 AM
Chas your argument is totally baseless and makes no sense. I’ll let you claim the headache made you do it.
If you came upon a handgun laying on a table in a room with yourself and another man present. As long as the gun remains on the table neither would be injured. When you or someone you had driven crazy with your illogic picked up the gun and fired it at the other party and the person shot then died – what/who killed the person on the floor?
Why I think it was the man who picked up the inantimate object (the gun) and shot the other person. He didn’t have to leave his fingers in the corpse to be quilty of the murder. That is probably why you don’t see guns being charged with crimes.
By the way under what circumstances were you invited to watch an autopsy of a shooting victim?
I was trapped in the car for several hours yesterday afternoon. Ended up on Fox Radio. O’Riely (sp?) was up first. Found it kind of funny that a lot of folks were calling in with Ron Paulish views. O’Riely would mute them or hang up on them and then try to make them look stupid. The funny part was that he didn’t have the balls to have a conversation with them. Well, he is a pointless shill anyway.
Then there was the Hanity (sp?) ‘freedom concert’[sic]. He was at 6 flags in New York/New Jersey. Had a ton of guests there. Rudy got on and rode his 9/11 prize pony for all she was worth. What was shocking was the realization that it was a total hate fest. Now had they been “hatin on” al-qaeda or OBL, bully. Yesterday was a day to remember those that sacrificed their lives to save others and those that had their lives stolen from them by the hijackers. Instead, the crew was “hatin on” democrats. 100% blood lust for trashing lefties at every opportunity. How disgusting to politicize the anniversary of 9/11 and trash the other party.
The most disturbing was Newt Gingrich. He started talking about how Ronnie Reagan sold detonating natural gas line, threw a third party, to the former Soviet Union. At some point, we detonated the line. The explosion was so massive; the US thought the USSR started a nuclear war.
**************************************PLEASE READ THIS IF NOTHING ELSE**************************************Newt advocated (damn near begged) for a private entity to sabotage Iran’s main refinery. Advocated an American commit a terrorist act against a sovereign nation. WTF?
ARE the Neo Cons the war mongering party of hate? When will conservatives take back the GOP?
Nathan, you said. “This is not good mind you, it is bad. We need to find a way to curb the violence and address this problem.
However, the first step is recognizing the problem and to stop blaming tools like guns for causing it.”
Yup, exactly. Treat the disease not the symptom.
I think its negligible or abusive parenting and leaving the t.v. to baby sit the kids, which is a recipe to grow anybody into an unstable person. Especially how t.v. in American has glorified violence ever since its early beginnings. Adults may no better, but kids don’t, and I think that is a major problem.
There have been studies that watching mindless t.v. shows, reinforce infantile thought processes. Producing a drug like effect with chemical in the brain.
OMG, 300 plus posts on yesterday’s open, and the only good post I found was this:
“Maybe getting rid of religion is the first step towards man “evolution” in learning how to get along.
Posted by: Mary Caruso | September 11, 2007 at 07:36 PM
Heh. You folks prove every night that until ALL religions are treated like the cults they are, there will be NO peace in the world.
My god can beat up your god?
heheheheheheheheheheheheh…….
I dont think it’s the opiate of the masses. I think it’s the CRACK COCAINE of the masses.
Gee, I wasnt even aware that anybody was arguing that if we have more guns, we will have more gun deaths… I guess one could make that argument… but I am not sure why… Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 04:20 AM
**Chas, you conveniently missed Mary’s post.
I know that the availablity of guns in this country is directly related to the high number of gun deaths.OK, now I AM done.
Posted by: Mary Caruso | September 11, 2007 at 11:24 PM
**Nathan, great job on pulling up the stats last night. (I had to hit the sack.)
Amazing, first the gun banners make outrageous claims – spreading their gun ban theories with phony numbers.
Then when proven wrong, they ‘forget’ that they even asked the question.
More Guns = Less Crime = Less Murders
More lies from gun banners like Chas:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-911.html#comment-82408253
The truth:
Chas, you are adding the TOTAL into the TOTAL.
The TOTAL is 2937. Two Thousand Nine-Hundred and Thirty Seven ‘children’ 19 and younger were killed with firearms in 2001. The 2937 INCLUDES 928 SUICIDES.
You are either STUPID or you are LYING. Which is it?
And yes, Mary did say that there were 5,000.
The National Center for Health Statistics says that in 1994, 5,740 children 19 and younger were killed with hand guns… That is 16 per day… also that 64 others per day were wounded with handguns… You can look that one up… I posted it last nite…
…and right on cue, max continues last night’s food fight.
Chas, if you dont learn to walk on by these fools, you are going to join them in scroll over territory. It’s obvious they just like to yank your chain.
Mary did NOT say that if we have MORE guns, we will have more gun deaths…
She said “the availability of guns in this country is directly related to the number of gun deaths.”
There IS a difference…
God, guns and gays. It never fails…
I know KFG… sometimes I like to yank back… I have buried far too many young people killed with guns (most accidental) to not respond to some of this crapola…
Let’s see the statistics for gun deaths/injuries form registered guns vs unregistered guns.
Anyone?
Oh gee, KFG, lets leave God and gays out of it for one day…
That would be an interesting stat, Sol… Dont know where to even look for that one… I can only tell you that the man who’s autopsy I witnessed, was shot with an obviously un-registered 45Cal hand gun… the serial number was filed off of it…
God loves gays and wants them all to have guns. Nuff said.
Chas,
The point being, if you outlaw guns, the ‘bad guys’ will still have guns. They we be emboldened because the likelyhood of their victim having a gun is reduced.
“I dont think it’s the opiate of the masses. I think it’s the CRACK COCAINE of the masses.”-ksfarmgrrl
You have revealed your Marxist identity.
ksfarmgrrl,Are you proposing that the US eliminate religion inside its borders?
Criticism of religion = Marxism?
Hehe, thanks, rfl!
Sometimes the jokes write themselves. . .
P.S. Yes, I’m aware that’s a Marx quote.
I could quote Nixon too, but that wouldn’t make a conservative.
Get a clue Rage. Your ignorance is the only joke here.
ksfarmgrrl quoted Marx by saying “Religion is the opium of the masses”
http://www.awitness.org/news/november_2001/opiate_religion_marx.html
Nathan’s statistics simply show that crime is going down in our country.
Stephen Levitt in his book “Freakonomics” clearly showed that this reduction in violent crime caused most by Roe v Wade.
You make abortion safe and legal for poor women (remember, middle class women could ALWAYS get an abortion, even when it was “illegal”), and the number of unwanted children born to poor families goes down.
Those are the kids most likely to grow up and commit crimes.
Levitt found that safe, legal and cheap abortion reduced crime more than any other factor including cap punishment, prisons, mandatory sentences, more police etc. etc.
What’s this about Hank/Nathan posting porn links?
Inquiring minds want to know . . .
Guns God and gays weren’t enough for ole Capn. He had to drop in the ‘a’ bomb. WTG Capn, a quad-fecta.
Mary did NOT say that if we have MORE guns, we will have more gun deaths…
She said “the availability of guns in this country is directly related to the number of gun deaths.”
There IS a difference…
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 09:39 AM
An increasing number of guns in America does NOT equate to more availability of guns?
Ok.
So we have more guns and less gun deaths, and a declining RATE of gun deaths.
Mary is never wrong.
I’m not particularly interested in getting into an fruitless argument with the gun nuts, but, if you’re seeking to show how beneficial and benign firearms are, comparing U.S.-to-U.S. gun death statistics tells us, well, pretty much nothing.
Quad-fecta! Hehe, I like it, Sol.
So, following Capn’s logic, we need to increase the number of abortions to further reduce crime.
In fact, if we kill off 10 or 20 million older Americans, we would reduce crime even more!
Killing babies saves lives!
Max, the point is that what you are implying is NOT what Mary said… Try to stay on point here… please??
The National Center for Health Statistics says that in 1994, 5,740 children 19 and younger were killed with hand guns… That is 16 per day… also that 64 others per day were wounded with handguns… You can look that one up… I posted it last nite…
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 09:36 AM
OR you could post a link if your STORY is true. I couldn’t find your posted link of your 13 year old data.
Chas you have a twisted brain if you think:
“the availability of guns in this country is directly related to the number of gun deaths.”
is not contradicted by:
“So we have more guns and less gun deaths, and a declining RATE of gun deaths.” as supported by Nathan’s posted stats above.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00026182.htm
Homicides of Persons Aged less than or equal to 18 Years — Fulton County, Georgia, 1988-1992
Homicide is a major cause of death among persons aged less than or equal to 18 years in the United States; among black males aged 15-24 years, homicide is the leading cause of death (1).
Of the 141 homicides, 110 (78%) resulted from the use of firearms. Firearms accounted for 98 (92%) of the 107 homicides among adolescents aged 13-18 years, compared with six (75%) of the eight deaths among children aged 7-12 years, five (33%) of the 15 deaths among children aged 1-6 years, and one (9%) of 11 deaths among infants.
The total, 5,874, was the total of the numbers that were posted upthread… I didnt make them up… As for the 5,740, that comes from the article quoted in my post above… 365 X 16…
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 09:32 AM
** OK, The answer is you are Stupid.
Can you add?
All ——-2937Accident—-182Suicide—–928Murder—–1797Unknown——30
182+928+1797+30 = 2937
Ok Capn, how about the other 4,999 counties in the USA? You have stats for those too?
Anything after the 1992 data you offerred?
Nah, Max.
I just posted to irritate you.
To quote Commander Cod-Piece, “Mission accomplished.”
Aw heck, Capn, you don’t irritate me. I thought we bonded a long time ago!
Heheheheh. As Rage said, sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
Can you wingnuts not read? I disagreed with Marx. I think it is far WORSE than what he said.
And rfl? I be satisfied if we just moved away from the theocracy we have now…
I’ve already said I dont care what you do in your churches. You can dance the hokey pokey, sacrifice small animals, or handle snakes (wait, that one’s true!) for all I care.
Just dont force your delusions and weird practices on me. What you christianists do to each other doesnt matter.
Gee thank you farmgirl. Glad to hear you support the right to practice religion in the USA.
I don’t care what you do either, as long as it doesn’t interfere with my rights.
Thanks for answering Max. Are you rfl? Do you own a dog named tippy?
hehehehehhe!
“I disagreed with Marx. I think it is far WORSE than what he said.”-ksfarmgrrl
So you are even WORSE than a Marxist. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser
Olbermann’s Win A Surprise Even Inside MSNBC
[Olbermann beats Bill "Loofah Phone Sex" O'Reilly in the younger viewer demographic]
“Phil Griffin knew it would happen, he just didn’t think it would happen this quickly. On Friday night, MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann was the top-rated cable news show in the 25-54 demo. That means Olbermann beat his cable rival, FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor and its host Bill O’Reilly. That’s a first.
“The real insight I had was over the summer,” said Griffin, the NBC News senior VP who manages the Today show as well as MSNBC. Griffin tells TVNewser, Olbermann “maintained his core audience, so when the mass viewers came back after Labor Day…it’s just surprising it happened so quickly.”
***** Showing once again that if you’re a Bush-style CONservative, it sucks to be you . . .
KSgrrl– The best thing about Max? He lives in Iowa . . .
rfl?I guess that stands for real focking looser.
Oh, geez, KFG, rfl just called you a Worsethanmarxist!
Hehe!
Oil sets new highs. I’m looking for a market downturn in the very near future. Finally recouped losses from the last one. It’s tough to make any $ under bush economy, like pulling teeth.
OK Max… I see what I did… It was late… sorry!! Check out the CapN’s figures for Atlanta… I think they give a more accurate picture than I did…
I commend you, Nathan, for looking at data, a practice I don’t see you engaging in much. I know you did not say this, but posters following your data implied that there was a cause and effect relationship with more guns being privately owned and the death rate per 100,000 going down.
Remember: correlation does not equal causation and as the Capn American indicated there could be any number of single and multiplicative causes at work here. These seem to be consistent but relatively small reductions in this trend. I am assuming that the consistency in the trend would suggest that something is happening here, though I will confess that trend data analysis is not my stongest suit.
Hee hee hee. So how does having a different opinion than Marx make me a Marxist? Only in the land of wingnuttia…
I’ve looked at a couple of articles showing a corelation between Abortions and Crimes.
The downward trend in gun deaths and gun death rates coincides also corelates to the increase in concealed carry permits issued as most states passed concealed carry laws in the 1990’s.
The Lott & Mustard study from the 1990’s showed this corelation in decreased crime as concealed carry laws were passed.
The latest book by John Lott:
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Lawsby John R. Lott
Let’s play the “Is it reasonable to assume that KFG is a Marxist” game!!
Reasons to believe that KFG is either a Marxist or something worse than a Marxist:
1. She Makes a Marxist quote2. She makes it clear that she believes that Marx did not go far enough in what he said.
Reasons to believe that KFG is something less then Marxist.(blank)
the score is 2-0 in favour of KFG being a Marxist.
Its okay to be a Marxist. just trying to figure out what you believe that’s all.
Great job Snarky Boy!!!
You learned how to make a post!
Its so great when the little ones use their little minds to try and do something Big in this grown up world.
Your next assignment is to demonstrate to all of us that you have an education above that of a 4th grader.
But just remember, we are all so proud of you!
Hee hee hee. So how does having a different opinion than Marx make me a Marxist? Only in the land of wingnuttia…Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | September 12, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Actually, I think the guy said it made you _worse_ than a Marxist.
And I doubt he has a clue what he means, other than: yer supposed to bide his hick clue, to conform to the Red State Christ-as-a-leader-of-lemmings code and meet yer cliffdivin’ “future” with a smile on yer face!
Repent now ya sinner or the rapture’ll leave ya behind! Or, worse than that, you’ll be lower than Marx shit!
(but you know that, sorry)
Ahem. LOL. Ya gotta love Kansas.
Signed,Snarky Boy Wannabe
1. Is sharing some viewpoints or ideals with another person bad?
2. Does the answer to number 1 depend on who the person is?
3. Does pointing out that someone’s viewpoint was also held by a persona non grata make the viewpoint any less/more valuable?
“1. Is sharing some viewpoints or ideals with another person bad?”
Well of course not. Or else we would never permit ourselve to agree with anything.
“2. Does the answer to number 1 depend on who the person is?”Absolutely
3. Does pointing out that someone’s viewpoint was also held by a persona non grata make the viewpoint any less/more valuable?
It is completely valuable. It indicates the source of one’s world view if the quote is made by a person who’s theories were put into action to framing the government of countries around the world. And in each of those countries, the end result is that freedom become a scarce commodity.
From each according to his/her ability… To each according to his/her need…
That is a most interesting statement… It has often been attributed to Marx, but is actually a lot older than Marx… Marx merely borrowed it, and somewhat mis-understood it…
Some specific references:
Acts 2:43-47; Acts 4:32-35
Apparently Marx was making at least a cursory reference to these two sections of the N.T.
As nearly as I remember, when Marx says that “religion is the opiate of the peoples” he is not necessarily making a derogatory comment… but rather making an observation, that religion(any religion) gives some kind of solidarity to the believers of that religion(any religion)…
Followers of Marx’s Das Capital, and other works, grossly misinterpreted his “religion” statements, as well as his “communal” statements, and ran amok with them, to form Totalitarian forms of government control…
Just an historical observation…
Acts – Chapter 5 – seems to show how this “communal” concept was shown to be a mistake, by showing a cae of greed and corruption among one married couple among the new followers (Acts 5:1ff)
rfl,your views on 1 and 2 seem to be somewhat conflicting.
http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/press/books/chapter_1/evaluatinggunpolicy.pdf
John Lott is a fraud:
However, a pathbreaking article by John Lott and David Mustard in 1997 and a subsequent book by Lott have made the case that opportunistic crime should fall for everyone as criminals ponder whether they will be shot or otherwise thwarted by a potential victim or bystander carryinga concealed weapon.
Scholars have lined up on both sides of this debate. For example, Frank Zimring,Gordon Hawkins, Jens Ludwig, Dan Nagin, Mark Duggan, and othershave been highly critical of the evidence marshaled by Lott and Mustard.
At the same time, criminologist James Q. Wilson calls Lott’s book “the mostscientific study ever done of these matters, using facts from 1977 through 1996and controlling for just about every conceivable factor that might affect the criminaluse of guns.” Wilson gives a ringing endorsement to Lott’s thesis.
****
Lott and Mustard emphasize that few holders of gun permits are found to have committed murder, but they fail to recognize that the number of murders canrise from the passage of shall-issue laws, even if no permit holder ever commits a crime. First, knowing that members of the public are armed may encourage criminals to carry guns and use them more quickly, resulting in more felony murders.
Second, as already mentioned, the massive theft of guns each year means that anything that increases the number of guns in America will likely increase theflow of guns into the hands of criminals, who may use them to commit murders.
Notably, the typical gun permit holder is a middle-aged Republican white male,which is a group at relatively low risk of violent criminal victimization with orwithout gun ownership, so it is not clear whether substantial crime reduction benefits are likely to occur by arming this group further.
*****
If there is to be the type of substitution away from violentcrime that Lott predicts, one would expect that the new law would induce potential robbers to avoid confronting victims and shift to more stealthy propertycrime; yet in the first row of table 8-1, we see no evidence of any dampening effect on robbery.
Lott’s regressions incorrectly identify the passage date of fourjurisdictions that adopted shall-issue laws, which make the laws look more effectivethan they are.18 The corrected numbers are presented in line 2 of table 8-1,which shows that the shall-issue laws reduce crime in a statistically significant wayin only three of the nine categories (murder, rape, and robbery).
This article concludes by showing that Lott’s statistical models contradict themselves, that the statistical methodology itself is not sound and that when the real numbers are run, the results are statistically insignificant.
Further, the author points out that the lower crime trend was occuring BEFORE concealed carry laws were enacted.
So there you have it: bad science leading to a foregone conclusion that is embraced by the gun-nuts because it’s exactly what they want to hear.
Big surprise, huh?
I attribute the increase in today’s violence to the AMC Gremlin and Chrysler “K” cars.
There are also widely known correlation factors to be considered of “big hair” and “perms” of the 1980s are no longer in style. Due to the increasingly aging population which can no longer sport said coiffures, a low boil anger has been brewing for more than two decades resenting the fact that these hair styles went out of vogue.
Middle Americans do have one saving grace though. That is, that the style of wearing gloves with the fingertips cut off have transformed into stylish driving gloves which are eagerly purchased today.
However, much to the American Public’s chagrin, some fads of the 1980s have transitioned secretly into our way of life. Playing “frogger” on the downtown streets of Wichita and in Shopping Mall parking lots has been a favorite past time. There are some modifications that include one-fingered salutes and random mace spraying.
Excuse me, I’m late for my break dancing lessons, but first must stop off and get me a funky cold Medina.
NOT!
:)
“Always wrong” Kansas writes, “I attribute the increase in today’s violence . . . ”
The crime rate continues to go down since the early 90’s.
It’s humor Capn, get that broomstick out of your *** and smile for a change.
That was pretty good Kansas
Funky cold medina, lmaoNow I gotta go see if I gots some ton loc on the ol ipod.
hee hee hee hee. Keep spinning it rfl, keep spinning it. In case you havent noticed, you are regarded as ridiculous on this one.
And as for correlation and causation, isnt that why we Flying Spaghetti Monster folks don Pirate garb?
heheheheheheheheheheh……..
Oh and for Rage and Pedant, notice that if one agrees with ONE Marx statment, one must therefor agree with them all and thus embrace both socialism and communism?
Note to self: buy rfl and max logic primers for Holiday.
Uh oh, KFG I almost forgot… My sacrificial sauce for the FSM is about to boil over!!! LOL
Later all!!
Keep back flipping KFG, just keep back flipping…
hee hee hee heheheh! Still laughing….
So.. I guess there are NO capitalists who abhor organized religion as much as I do?
All athiests = Marxists?
rofl, rofl, rofl….
“Can you wingnuts not read? I disagreed with Marx. I think it is far WORSE than what he said.”
-ksfarmgrrl
“notice that if one agrees with ONE Marx statment, one must therefor agree with them all and thus embrace both socialism and communism?”
-ksfarmgrrl
So which is it? Do you agree or disagree wigh Karl Marx?
You could have said you agreed with him from the start but now you peg yourself a corner where only illogical backflipping and name calling will save you.
I said if “one” agrees, not that I agree.
Give it up rfl. Hey, do YOU own a dog named tippy?
hehehehehhehehehehehehehhe!
…and to end the risk of a food fight and 300 posts of “f you, no F YOU” with rfl, I’m going to work outside.
which of the marx brothers was karl? The one with the funny hair or the caterpillar mustache?
Okay I fold, I had fun today.
KFG,
What would happen to your belief in the FSM?????
:)
Chas,
More guns is almost the same thing as more availability of guns.
What do you think 4.5 million more guns a year means IF NOT more availability of guns?
Either way, you can clearly see from the data that as the number of guns and gun owners continues to increase in this country the amount of gun deaths is leveling off and definately not increasing.
Guns? Let the big boys play with their big toys, if it makes them feel good.
It’s a non-issue.
Definitely.
Lets throw in another hot topic too:
CONCEALED CARRY
It was the WE EDITORS rhetoric and also many of the gun control crowds here too that we would see blood in the streets.
Lets look at some of the most common arguments:
-Drunks in bars shooting each other.
Has not happened.
-Drivers getting upset and shooting each other.
Has not happened.
-Two concealed carry permit holders shooting each other in confusion.
Has not happened.
-Police shooting a conceald carry permit holder.
Has not happened.
-Concealed carry permit holders acting like police.
Has not happened.
-Concealed carry permit holders accidently shooting innocent bystanders.
Has not happened.
-Concealed carry permit holders accidently shooting themselves or others at all.
Has not happened.
The list goes on.
How many of these “blood in the streets” arguments did the Eagle and many of you here use and continue to use which have not happened?
Why are we so scared of honest law abiding people having the means and ability to defend themselves?
WS Clark,
If it is a non-issue why was it on the agenda of several Democrats as soon as they took the Congress?
They have already tried to re-introduce the ban on Assault weapons which would be even more stringent than the previous one.
You might say it is a non-issue, but your parties elected leaders say other wise.
Last week, the Federal and State Affairs Interim Committee of the Kansas State Legislature heard testimony regarding late term abortion. Not surprisingly, anti-choice activists were given substantially more time to testify. While pro-choice conferees were allotted under 3 hours, the anti-choice conferees dominated with nearly 9 hours of testimony.
While given limited time, ProKanDo representatives and other pro-choice experts gave compelling testimony while presenting honest and objective evidence.
The opposition, in sharp contrast, paraded a team of anti-choice activists including Jenn Giroux, founder and president of Women Influencing the Nation, an anti-choice organization which operates http://www.chargetiller.com and financed the now infamous video of Dr. Paul McHugh. Other conferees included Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, and representatives from Kansans for Life and National Right to Life.
While these particular hearings may have simply been an effort to score political points with the lives of women, the reality is that anti-choice legislators want to roll back and gut reproductive rights in the state of Kansas. In fact, the Chairman of the committee, Rep. Arlen Siegfreid openly stated his anti-choice bias during the hearings.
Gun control isn’t a “non-issue” for the people of Washington DC right now.
They had a monumental ruling in their favor to be allowed to once again own handguns and Washington DC is appealing the decision.
“You might say it is a non-issue, but your parties elected leaders say other wise.”
Contrary to the Republican-mindset, Democrats can think for themselves and EVEN disagree with some of the Party.
We don’t need to visit the Rush O’Hannity website for directions.
Besides, Nathan, when the new Democratic President takes office in January 2009, the first thing on his or her agenda will be to get us out of the mess in Iraq that Bush got us into.
I think gun control will be WAAAAAAY down the list of priorities.
Lets look at the list of laws that this Congress introduced when the Democrats came to power:
-Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 (H.R. 96)
-Domestic Violence Victim Protection Act (H.R. 203)
-Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 256)
-Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 1022)
-Foreign Felon Gun Prohibition Act of 2007 (H.R.1168)
-Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007(H.R.1859)
-The Anti-Gun Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.77)
Those are only at the National level.
Do you want to see the list of laws the Democrats try to pass and do pass in states like California, Maryland, West Virginia, and other Democratic held states?
There may be more pressing issues, but the Democrats always have time for more gun control.
“but the Democrats always have time for more gun control.”
Nonsense. That doesn’t even warrant a response.
Get real, the big, bad Democrats are NOT going to take your toys away.
HR 1022, no time to post details now, but this would effectively ban most firearms today.
It would also give the Attorney General the right to take guns away from anyone.
Think the Democrats don’t want to take your guns? Read HR 1022 and see for yourself.
WS Clark,
You keep saying that and I keep posting more gun control laws proposed by the Democrats.
California issued gun confiscation letters to citizens in 1998:
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer1.gif
“…anti-choice legislators…”
“…reproductive rights…”
Dear P_mom,
Are you so brainwashed by the rhetoric of the left-wing looneys that you can’t see how absurd these ridiculous ‘catch phrases’ are!
Just wondering,
Hank
The Democrats might not be able to take our guns away that we have now, but they for sure want to stop us from getting any more.
Do I really need to keep listing all the laws the Democrats try to pass and do pass in some of the more liberal states?
WS Clark,
You can keep saying it is a non-issue all you want, but the liberals don’t think so.
If it is such a non-issue, tell it to these guys:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/
http://www.vpc.org/
http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/
http://www.millionmommarch.org/
They still think gun control is an issue.
HR 1022…………..
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
I read the bill as a reintroduction of the assault rifle ban – I did not see anything to indicate that the Attorney General could take guns from anyone, nor did I see anything that would “effectively ban most firearms.”
Perhaps one of the “gunners” could enlighten me – not your opinion but the paragraph of the bill that provides those options.
The paragraph regarding the AG only mentioned that the AG could determine if a particular gun violated the law.
“A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”
Anyway, this bill is far from becoming law.
“They still think gun control is an issue.”
And there are Right Wing organizations that want to completely ban abortion, even in cases of rape or incest and others that want to ban gay sex acts.
What’s your point?
God, Guns & Gays, not necessarilly in that order.
WS Clark,
Just like it was far from becoming law in 1994?
Just like the Democrats fought is expiration in 2004?
Keep on pretending like the Democrats don’t care about guns when they do WS Clark.
Keep on pretending…
WS Clarik,
The point is that I am not trying to tell you that Republicans don’t care about abortion….
Piolitical Mom,
Why is it so hard for you to even recognize what it is your opposition actually calls themselves and believes?
“Keep on pretending like the Democrats don’t care about guns when they do WS Clark.”
Some do – granted – what’s your point?
As I mentioned, some Republicans want to ban all abortion, all contraceptions and all gay sex acts.
It ain’t going to happen.
As for the Assault Weapon Ban?
I could care less, but what are you going to do with a hundred round clip in an automatic rifle?
If you need a hundred round clip for hunting, you shouldn’t be hunting.
“The point is that I am not trying to tell you that Republicans don’t care about abortion….”
Please don’t write in double negatives – it makes my head hurt.
I am not. . .
Republicans don’t care. . .
It isn’t a double negative Clark. If you want to correct grammer you might try t upgrade your knowledge to the 4th grade level.
Hank
You might take a Tylenol, it ain’t the double negatives making your head hurt.
Hank
Hank, that’s exactly what they stand for. Anti-choice…anti-woman…and anti-reproductive freedom.
Picture Janet Reno with the ability to determine which guns are suitable for sporting purposes or NOT. This gives the Attorney General the authority to ban any gun he or she chooses to ban.
Get the picture Clark? Your Democrats are the ones pushing the gun ban.
Sponsor:Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]
February 13, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.’.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022&page-command=print
I am not coninced that anybody needs a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round clip for hunting anything but two legged creatures called humans…
I am also not convinced that anybody needs a stock pile of assorted high caliber hand guns, for any other reason than killing humans…
I really question the purpose when somebody says they need all of their fire power for “protection” Cause it sounds a whole lot like they need protection from the government… instead of, as the 2nd Amendment states, for the purposes of a well-regulated militia…
Are there any elephants in Kansas for hunting with high power weapons??? Or buffalo??? Cant hunt birds with high powered rifles… But, you can sit in the top of some building and pick off people…
I just dont buy the idea that gun owners need their weapons for hunting and for protection…
Maybe somebody could convince me??
WS Clark,
My guns are not for hunting. Hunting was not the only purpose nor the main one for the 2nd Amendment either.
Yet another Democrat myth that guns are for hunting…
Nathan, do you think it’s perfectly ok if someone comes into your home unwanted, and beats you to the point where you can’t work for 9 months, or kills your wife, or steals thousands from you…to defend yourself and possibly shoot them to death?
I also have a real hard time with the argument that gun owners need their high powered weaponry for shooting targets… I mean, are you shooting at a target a half mile away??? And I dont know of but one person who ever used a rifle to shoot clay pigeons… and he only did it cause he was bored with a shotgun… he was GOOD….
Libs have always been gun grabbers, it’s in their nature as collectivists. Libs have been destroying our nation for decades so they have reason to fear a population of decent weel armed citizens.
Gul Dukat, are you per chance a FREEMASON??????????
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27860.html
by Peter Green
Genocide Against WesternersSeptember 10, 2007 01:19 PM EST
The current debate raging all over the U.S. and Western Europe is not really about immigration; it’s about the third-world invasion and occupation of the West.
These invaders attempt to disarm their opposition by calling them “racists.” But mind you, the very charge of “racism” was largely invented by NeoMarxists, of the Frankfurt School, as a way to undermine Western Civilization. Realizing that they could not win on class alone, these NeoMarxists decided to popularize the charge of “racism” as a Trojan horse to destroy the West from within.
Of course, non-Westerners can use whatever pejoratives they desire to describe Western man, and Westerners are supposed to bend over backwards to accommodate anyone from the Third World. And now, this modus operandi has seeped into the popular culture, and even non-Marxists use this method to cripple the West.
A few quick searches on Google led me to these quotes by advocates of the third-world invasion of the West:
“We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we’re a new Mestizo nation.”
“Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes…”
“We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”
– Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza
“And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.”
- African Studies professor, Dr. Kamau Kambon
“Blond hair and blue eyes are a biological defect.”
“The white race is a disease, and the only cure is a bullet. The rule of whites is history. Soon they will be our serfs. It’s now the Age of the Brown Man.”
- Hindu nationalist, Ramesh Sharma
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Make no mistake about it we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”
- Jewish Studies professor, Dr Noel Ignatiev
As the above quotes demonstrate, it is acceptable for the invaders to attack Western man, but he is not allowed to reciprocate. He is defenseless, watching his native land become a third-world wasteland.
Even sadder, many liberals and neocons have facilitated this invasion by supporting the left-wing notion of a “proposition nation,” a creation of Enlightenment leftists. According to such utopian thinking, only ideas matter; as long as one believes in the “right ideas,” he can and should be a citizen.
Although cultural Marxists have tried to extirpate it from Western man’s memory, there remains the ancient, conservative notion of a nation, one rooted in ancestry, kith and kin, and genophilia. As the Latin ‘nascere’ implies the very notion of a ‘nation’ suggests link by blood. It is this understanding that we desperately need in this dark hour.
As Jean Raspail, author of the conservative classic Camp of the Saints indicated, we are under attack. We can stand our ground and defend our own, or watch the West become a third-world sewer.
Peter Green is a paleoconservative and lives in New Hampshire.
Political Mom,
You are for killing babies then.
Baby killer.
it sounds a whole lot like they need protection from the government Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 03:28 PM
That’s EXACTLY the intent of the writers of the Constitution Chas. Read some history, check out the Federalist papers.
And Power over the People is exactly what the Democrats want. Their Socialist agenda demands complete control.
Gun Control is not the objective, People Control IS the objective.
Just what part of “well regulated” do gun nuts not understand?
Chas,
The pupose of the 2nd Amendment was not for all weapons to be for a well regulated militia.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was mainly for two reasons:
1. Individuals have an right to self defense
2. To protect against tyranny.
Keep in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written and what the people needed to secure their freedom…. guns.
You might not see the need or have the desire for high powered rifles, but myself and many others enjoy the sport and competition of shooting and collecting them.
I don’t neccisarrily like motorcycles either, but am I saying no one should be allowed to own them because I don’t see the need for one? No.
Why are you liberals so scared of law abiding honest citizens owning assault rifles?
FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUN
I am not coninced that anybody needs a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round clip for hunting anything but two legged creatures called humans Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 03:28 PM
Fortunately Chas, it’s not up to YOU to decide what anyone needs. The Government is also not authorized to determine what I need, what you need, or what anyone needs.
There’s:
1) A God given (or for those who don’t think their is a God – Natural Born) Right to defend your life.
2) There’s the 2nd Amendment right to be armed.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Well gee, you get Nathan and his interpretation of the bible and the constitution as whatever part he deems fits according to his belief rather than what it really says. Go figure.
Nathan, you didn’t answer my question.
Answer it please.
My goodness, the infamous O’Hannity twist… guns into motorcycles… Is that the best you have??? As I said before, what could you possibly be competing for with a high powered rifle??? Best shot at a half mile??? Geez….
And yes, the 2nd amendment is assuming protection for home and family… and for hunting…. and as was asked… What part of “well regulated” do you not understand??? it is in the first THREE words of the amendment!!
Max… The Federalist Papers are NOT part of the law of the USA… They were discarded in favor of the Constitution… YOU best read YOUR history… I put no foundation or credence in the Federalist Papers which were considered Radical when they were written!!!
Political Mom
“Nathan, do you think it’s perfectly ok if someone comes into your home unwanted, and beats you to the point where you can’t work for 9 months, or kills your wife, or steals thousands from you…to defend yourself and possibly shoot them to death?”
If I understand your question…
You are asking me if I think it is ok to shoot someone in self defense?
Yes.
My goodness, the infamous O’Hannity twist… guns into motorcycles… Is that the best you have??? As I said before, what could you possibly be competing for with a high powered rifle??? Best shot at a half mile??? Geez….
And yes, the 2nd amendment is assuming protection for home and family… and for hunting…. and as was asked… What part of “well regulated” do you not understand??? it is in the first THREE words of the amendment!!
Max… The Federalist Papers are NOT part of the law of the USA… They were discarded in favor of the Constitution… YOU best read YOUR history… I put no foundation or credence in the Federalist Papers which were considered Radical when they were written!!!
sorry about the double post… it did a glitch on me… :-(
Nathan, do you think it’s perfectly ok if someone comes into your home unwanted, and beats you to the point where you can’t work for 9 months, or kills your wife, or steals thousands from you…to defend yourself and possibly shoot them to death?
Posted by: political_mom | September 12, 2007 at 03:30 PM
Here’s an answer Mom:
I would use the best tool for self defense that is available and affordable to the average citizen – a gun.
1. Get your gun first.
2. Dial 911 if you have time, otherwise, should first and dial 911 later.
Cops take 10 to 30 minutes to get there.
Pmom, how would you STOP someone from breaking into your home and doing to you what you described above? Or maybe you don’t.
Chas,
The Well regulated pertains to the militia, not general firearms ownership.
Basic sentence structure…
Poor “Nathan” wrote:
“The pupose of the 2nd Amendment was not for all weapons to be for a well regulated militia.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was mainly for two reasons:
1. Individuals have an right to self defense
2. To protect against tyranny…”
===
Funny how the Founding Fathers were so stupid they didn’t mention the “right to self defense” or “to protect against tyranny” in the 2nd Amendment; only the need for a well regulated militia.
Damn. If only the Founding Fathers had been as smart as “Nathan.”
This thread is exposing us to the brilliance and omnicience of “Nathan,” whose opinions on WEBlog clearly express what God Himself would say if He’d just think through the problem.
Gee Max… now some of you all are starting to sound like a bunch of wacko seditionists…. traitors even… we have a military now days to keep us from government tyranny… Our militia no longer have to provide their own guns… which at the time of the 2nd amendment, werent terribly high powered… more like cap and ball, or maybe flintlock…
Who controls the military?
The Government.
Gee Max… now some of you all are starting to sound like a bunch of wacko seditionists…. traitors even
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 03:46 PM
Where?
Here is a good video from Penn and Teller:
Gun Control is Bullshi$
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2807602702866411553
“It isn’t a double negative Clark. If you want to correct grammer you might try t upgrade your knowledge to the 4th grade level.”
Well……………..
“The point is that I am not trying to tell you that Republicans don’t care about abortion….”
Both “not” and “don’t” are negatives, therefore the sentence used a double negative.
And GRAMMAR is spelled with an “A.”
You should not criticize someones education in a sentence with misspelled words, Mr. Price.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Lets look at sentence structure shall we?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, <<<<<=== COMMA
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“we have a military now days to keep us from government tyranny…
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 03:46 PM”
The colonists in the 1700’s also had the British military to protect them.
“You should not criticize someones education in a sentence with misspelled words, Mr. Price.
Posted by: WSClark | September 12, 2007 at 03:51 PM”
LMAO, how very true
“Why are you liberals so scared of law abiding honest citizens owning assault rifles?”
I could care less if you owned an Abrams tank, Nathan – just don’t bug me with it.
Chas,
Wacko traitors…
Kind of like our founding fathers were to Great Britain?
Actually Nathan, you are experiencing a bsic flaw in your grammatical understanding….
Read it again>>>>
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
– Second Amendment –
“The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ”civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ”comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, ”when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, ”[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.’”7
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
Chas,
Gee chas, the founding fathers didn’t envision the internet, radio, TV or a multitude of other tools we use today either…
So I guess they should not protected by the 1st Amendment?
And just what does that COMMA indicate Professor Nathan??? It indicates that the clause that follows is directly related to the FIRST clause, or the initial, or causitive clause of the statement…
FOR THE PURPOSE of a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It is a PURPOSE clause….
D.C. Handgun Ban Reversed By Federal Court2-1 Ruling Says 2nd Amendment Is “Not Limited To Militia Service”; Case Could Reach Supreme Court
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/09/national/main2554309.shtml
Chas,
We can post legal precidents all day long.
The point is what was the clear intent of our founding fathers?
If you do any real research on the subject you find that the 2nd Amendment wa written for 2 main reasons:
1. Self Defense2. Protect against tyranny.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.—James Madison
Nathan, in case you missed it, that case IS in the Supreme Court now… The ruling has not yet been made… perhaps because the Court doesnt re-open until October 1, 2007 – First Monday in October
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Max… The Federalist Papers are NOT part of the law of the USA… They were discarded in favor of the Constitution… YOU best read YOUR history… I put no foundation or credence in the Federalist Papers which were considered Radical when they were written!!!
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 03:42 PM
Ok, Chas, I hope GMC, Vaughn or another legal expert jumps in, but it is proper for the Supreme Court to review the Intention of the Writers IF there is any question as to the meaning of the language of the Constitution.
How do they do this? They research History and review Federalist papers and other documents describing the creation of this great nation.
“Black’s law dictionary distinguishes ‘implied’ from ‘express’ as follows: ‘where the intention with respect to the subject matter is not manifested by explicit and direct words, but is gathered by implication or necessary deduction from the circumstances, the general language or the conduct of the parties.”
And there is nothing unclear about:
2nd Amendment
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Nathan, it is amazing how the 2nd amendment doesnt mention EITHER of those two matters… Especially not the Tyranny…. It assumes the right of individual protection… because of other pertinent articles, and the 4th Amendment…
So Chas,
Tell us once again if you think the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms or not?
Last time you said you were not saying it didn’t, but today you are spending a bunch of time arguing against it…
Max, read the SCOTUS clip I quoted above… it was a fairly significant 2nd Amendment case…
Chas,
The 1st Amendment didn’t say anything about seperation of church and state either.
But it is still what many of you will call an implied meaning no less.
No Nathan, I am not… I clearly stated several times that the 2nd amendment assumes the right to protection and for providing food… (bearing arms of a certain purpose)
The question here is one about banning certain weapons… NOT strictly about the 2nd Amendment..
I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”George MasonCo-author of the Second Amendmentduring Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”Richard Henry Leewriting in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”Zachariah JohnsonElliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”
“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”Philadelphia Federal GazetteJune 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2Article on the Bill of Rights
No, Nathan… It is NOT an implied meaning in the 1st Amendment… It is quite specific… CONGRESS SHALLMAKENO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION… (establishment — as in an eating establishment, or clothing establishment… here defined an ESTABLISHMENT of Religion) Government shall make no laws governing Religion…
That is pretty darned specific!!
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”Samuel Adamsquoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”George WashingtonFirst President of the United States
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”Thomas Paine
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”Richard Henry LeeAmerican Statesman, 1788
“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”Patrick HenryAmerican Patriot
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”Patrick HenryAmerican Patriot
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “Thomas Jeffersonletter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”Alexander HamiltonThe Federalist Papers at 184-8
Jefferson coined the term “wall of separation” which is exactly what the 1st amendment states
Chas,
Why are you scared of honest law abiding citizens having high powered rifles?
Apparently you are not grasping something very fundamental here… THE ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC DID NOT HAVE GUNS TO GIVE TO EVERY SOLDIER IN THE EVENT OF A NEED… Therefore, everybody needed to have their OWN…. It was for National Security… They didnt want to worry about another attack by England, or anybody else… including Indian attacks…
Max… The Federalist Papers are NOT part of the law of the USA… They were discarded in favor of the Constitution… YOU best read YOUR history… I put no foundation or credence in the Federalist Papers which were considered Radical when they were written!!!
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Now all of a sudden:
Jefferson coined the term “wall of separation” which is exactly what the 1st amendment states
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 04:11 PM
Y’all missed the 3rd Comma.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Scared?? nonsense… I am just saying it is of NO LOGICAL NECESSITY for a citizen to own a high powered rifle… It is only meant for one thing… to KILL PEOPLE!! You can do that just fine with a .22Cal… or a .243Cal… or a shotgun…
Hold on a minute; the Federalist Papers were written to gain ratification of the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights or other amendments. To discern “legislative intent” (Max, I think this is what you were saying) on the meaning of the Second Amendment, SCOTUS would, if it so chooses, refer to the records of the House and Senate debates over the adoption of the amendment (and the others contained within the first ten) for this purpose.
I understand that D.C. has filed an appeal to SCOTUS on subject case, but as SCOTUS is currently in recess, it has not determined whether it will take the appeal, such order to issue once SCOUTS begins its new term in October.
OK, who left the quote machine on?
NATHAN?!?!?!?!?!?!
Chas,
I don’t read anything like that in the 2nd Amendment… about
“THE ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC DID NOT HAVE GUNS TO GIVE TO EVERY SOLDIER IN THE EVENT OF A NEED…”
I thought you just said:
“Nathan, it is amazing how the 2nd amendment doesnt mention EITHER of those two matters… ”
It doesn’t mention anything you are saying either…
Chas,
It is of no “LOGICAL NECESSITY” to own:
-Swimming pools in your back yard-Jet ski’s-motorcycles
And they all kill people every year.
Lets git rid of those too!
Oh for Christ’s sake, let’s concentrate on the War on Iraq, terrorism, the economy, education and Social Security.
Who gives a damn about guns besides a few radicals on the fringe of BOTH parties?
Jeez.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Nathan, there is NO ARGUMENT possible for you to make that the Army of the Republic provided weapons to the soldiers… Comeon, get REAL for a change… You are just challenging me for the sheer hell of it…
Besides, I didnt SAY the 2nd Amendment said such a thing… That is your porous brain inventing things that arent typed to begin with…
‘Arctic ice loss is “stunning” — total loss possible by 2030, scientists warn’http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/04/arctic-ice-loss-is-stunning-total-loss-possible-by-2030-scientists-warn/“A synthesis report in August 2005 by twenty-one leading climate scientists, supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Arctic Systems Science Program, noted that a summer ice-free Arctic Ocean is “A STATE NOT WITNESSED FOR AT LEAST A MILLION YEARS” and added—–http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf
The change appears to be driven largely by feedback-enhanced global climate warming, and there seem to be few, if any, processes or feedbacks within the Arctic system that are capable of altering the trajectory toward this “super interglacial” state.
—–We continue to underestimate crucial amplifying feedbacks that threaten much more serious global warming impacts much sooner than anticipated.”
‘Will polar bears go extinct by 2030? — Part II’http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/11/will-polar-bears-go-extinct-by-2030-part-ii/
Now youre just being stupid Nathan… Cant you stay focused, or what??? This isnt about jet skis, or swimming pools, or motorcycles(you already tried that one before) STAY FOCUSED!! I realize it might be difficult… But do try???
Nathan, I’m glad you agree that sometimes for a woman, and abortion is self defense. Self defense from unwanted emotional, physical, and financial injury.
Read what I wrote…
do you think it’s perfectly ok if someone comes into your home unwanted, and beats you to the point where you can’t work for 9 months, or kills your wife, or steals thousands from you…to defend yourself and possibly shoot them to death?”
Uh oh… Check and Mate!!
Chas,
Don’t make an argument if you don’t want it taken to it’s logical extreme then.
More people are killed on jet ski’s and motorcycles than by high powered rifles.
I am going to my corner and watch this one… ohh boy… I can see it now…
I was wrong. Just 2 comma’s in the 2nd Amendment.
Here’s several pages of discussion, from a much more educated source, about commas and the 2nd Amendment and sentence structure and all.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
Don’t forget though, that the US Supreme Court ruled that Private Land can now be taken for Private Use, even though the 5th Amendment reads:
AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Political Mom,
I didn’t agree with you at all.
I clearly said that I support self defense.
I didnt say ANYTHING about anybody being killed by a high powered rifle… I said the high powered rifle has only ONE purpose… to kill people…
That sort of leaves out jet skis, and swimming pools, and motorcycles… So, your idiotic blabbering about such things is nothing close to a logical conclusion…
You support YOUR right to self defense, to kill a full living breathing human being if they take something from you. But you don’t support the right of a woman to defend her financial, emotional, and sometimes physical well being from an unwanted pregnancy.
Hypocrite.
Chas,
If it only has a purpose to kill people then why is it that millions of people including myself simply enjoy precision marksmanship with them at competitions?
The only thing my friends and I do with them is show them off, clean them, shoot them at competitions, and have fun.
Shooting is a sport we enjoy.
Marksmanship is a sport we enjoy.
So far jet ski’s are killing more people than my high powered rifles or anyone elses are.
Game on: Harry Reid is going to block the nomination of Ted Olson.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004171.php
Goinna be fun. I can’t wait to break some Wingnut noses over this fight.
George Bush can go to hell. He doesn’t get another one of his partisan hacks as Attorney General.
from an unwanted pregnancy.
Hypocrite.
Posted by: political_mom | September 12, 2007 at 04:29 PM
I didn’t invite the home invader into my home. How’d that baby get in there?????
Dear Chas,
I’m seriously considering getting a large caliber sniper rifle for no other reason than to make Nathan jealous and have a good time with.
How about which one is the best shot at one mile?
What do you do for fun Chas.? Oh, nevermind, you post innane crap on the BLOGs.
If I was on a sabbatical I’d go to Europe, or Australia, or. . .
Hank
Political Mom,
I don’t think having an abortion is self defense.
That is where the comparison ends.
I don’t support killing people to protect my financial and emotional well being.
There is not a law that condones my using deadly force to do so either.
Could you imagine the headlines if I shot someone because they hurt my feelings? You gun control people would have a field day with that!
Only in the most rare pregnancies where the womans life is in danger do I support abortions.
If it comes down to the life of the mother or her unborn child then the decision is best left to her.
When there is no threat to her life or serious bodily harm there is no need for an abortion.
You can try to twist this around, but that is all you are doing.
I am no Hypocrite. If you can’t refrain from constantly turning this into a name calling contest then why bother?
Unwanted pregnancies aren’t invited either, are they?
Or are you one of those Sol who believe sex is only for procreation, and any other time, it’s punishment?
You just said, you supported shooting someone who came into your home to rob you of thousands. And you said you supported shooting someone who threatened to kill your wife.
Financial, and emotional.
Why is Arctic sea ice so important?http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_faq.html
“Arctic sea ice keeps the polar regions cool and helps moderate global climate. Sea ice has a bright surface, so 80 percent of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space.
As sea ice melts in the summer, it exposes the dark ocean surface. Instead of reflecting 80 percent of the sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90 percent of the sunlight. The oceans heat up, and Arctic temperatures rise further.
A small temperature increase at the poles leads to still greater warming over time, making the poles the most sensitive regions to climate change on Earth.
According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and summer sea ice extent in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consisistent with observations of a warming Arctic.
The loss of sea ice also has the potential to accelerate global warming trends and to change climate patterns.”
For more information about the importance of sea ice, including its importance for global ocean circulation, people, and animals, see All About Sea Ice: Environment.” http://nsidc.org/seaice/environment/index.html
For women, it IS self defense in some cases. That is the whole reason why a woman gets an abortion in the first place. To protect something of hers… her reputation, her financial wellbeing, her livelihood, her job, her marriage, her life, her emotional well being.
You can’t see the comparison at all because you’re biased and you’re not a woman.
No,
I said:
“You are asking me if I think it is ok to shoot someone in self defense?
Yes.”
I don’t agree with your definition of self defense in this case nor does the law.
You’re wrong. The law supports a woman’s right to choose abortion. It may not say for self defense, but that’s the reason.
You support YOUR right to self defense, to kill a full living breathing human being if they take something from you. But you don’t support the right of a woman to defend her financial, emotional, and sometimes physical well being from an unwanted pregnancy.
Hypocrite.
Posted by: political_mom | September 12, 2007 at 04:29 PM
Pmom, you said:
“do you think it’s perfectly ok if someone comes into your home unwanted, and beats you to the point where you can’t work for 9 months, or kills your wife, or steals thousands from you…to defend yourself and possibly shoot them to death?”
BEATS YOU and KILLS YOUR WIFE, clearly are threats to the life of the person and the wife. Lethal force is allowed to defend your life.
Abortion is rarely required to save the life of the mother.
Political Mom,
You have this ability to completely refuse to engage in an honest discussion.
You have to call those who you disagree with names.
You have to try to twist there words and then call them a Hypocrite.
You then try to accuse them of supporting something they do not.
Are you ready to have a real discussion yet?
How about we start with the basics.
What does your side support and why and what does my side support and why.
When we can get you past the basics then lets move on.
For women, it IS self defense in some cases. That is the whole reason why a woman gets an abortion in the first place. To protect something of hers… her reputation, her financial wellbeing, her livelihood, her job, her marriage, her life, her emotional well being.
You can’t see the comparison at all because you’re biased and you’re not a woman.
Posted by: political_mom | September 12, 2007 at 04:40 PM
SO, it would be okay for me to shoot someone in self defense of my “reputation, financial wellbeing, livelihood, job, marriage, life, emotional well being.” ???
“from an unwanted pregnancy.
Hypocrite.”
Posted by: political_mom | September 12, 2007 at 04:29 PM
I didn’t invite the home invader into my home. How’d that baby get in there?????
Political Mom,
I don’t believe anything in Roe V wade is about self defense.
It is about the aleged right a woman has over her body.
Or are you one of those Sol who believe sex is only for procreation, and any other time, it’s punishment?
Posted by: political_mom | September 12, 2007 at 04:36 PM
It’s only punishment for your man, political mom!
I wouldn’t even touch you with a 10 ft pole, and I’m hard up!
Are you ready Political Mom to begin?
You side calls themselves:
Pro-Choice.
See how easy that was? I can actually say it… Pro Choice.
Now my side calls themselves Pro-Life.
Can you say it? Lets see you try. It is real easy.
Pro-Life.
Not anti-choice, not anti-reproductive rights….
Pro-Life.
“Or are you one of those Sol who believe sex is only for procreation, and any other time, it’s punishment?”
Posted by: political_mom | September 12, 2007 at 04:36 PM
Missed that one. Sex = punishment? Are you for real?
RESPONSIBLE SEX !!!!
Use a condom. Take the pill. Use jelly. Use the sponge. Use whatever it takes.
Only a shrill, hysterical liberal female would equate aboting an unborn child with blowing away a would be robber or rapist. Such people should not be allowed to vote.
Here is my challange:
How many people die each year because of high powered rifles in America?
Is that number more than kids who drown in swimming pools?
Is that number more than people killed on jet ski’s?
Is that number more than people killed on motorcycles?
Now tell me why you are so concrened about myself and millions of other people who enjoy shooting high powered rifles?
Dad,
If you want to really make me jealous this is what you would buy:
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=39
I think it costs just over 4,000.
If it is too much, you could get this one too:
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=18
About 2,000.
Hey Dad,
Will you adopt me?
I’d settle for a Springfield XD 45.
Chas,
If you are so concerned about high powered rifles I bet this one would really make you wet your pants!
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_XM109,,00.html
THE WS CLARK NOTIFICATION:
-THE COMMENT “MAKE YOU WET YOUR PANTS” WAS IN NO WAY INTENDED AS A THREAT.
-THE COMMENT “MAKE YOU WET YOUR PANTS” WAS MADE ONLY IN JEST BECAUSE OF YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GUNS WOULD SEEM TO PREDISPOSE YOU TO IRRATIONAL FEAR CAUSING YOU TO WET YOUR PANTS.
I won’t call your side pro-life, because there isn’t anything pro-life about you guys. Mary may actually be pro-life. But you, you’re out there killing people. Pro-life of the fetus or even a group of cells, not pro-life of the mother or the child after being born. You want that fetus to have more rights than does the woman herself.
It is self defense for her. You can pretend that it’s not, but you’re not being honest about it.You don’t know that the intruder was really a threat to your life. You supported killing him even if he only laid you up for 9 months. If he kills your wife…he’s hurting you. She’ll be dead and she won’t know any different. It’s not your body, it’s hers you are defending because she’s valuable to you.
Sol, birth control fails sometimes, usually because it wasn’t used correctly. If I invite a salesman into my home, and he attacks me, am I still not entitled to defend myself?
Political Mom,
I tired. If you are so unreasonable that you can’t even call those you disagree with by the proper name then there is no hope for you.
How do you expect to have a rational discussion when you can’t even get past the term I call myself?
You know Nathan, that XM109 could make you some money.
Lotsa folk like me would pay per round just to have some fun! That thing looks hot!
I knew a racing mechanic who wanted to save a couple of the muscle cars from the 60’s, and charge people just to go for a ride.
Same concept.
Political Mom,
I’ll give you a second chance.
Lets see if you can even get what we believe right.
Why does the pro-life side oppose abortion?
It is not a trick question. It doesn’t require a lengthy answer. It is short and to the point.
Can you even answer that question?
This is your second chance, don’t waste it.
Max,
The rounds probably would cost like 15 dollars a piece.
I would have to charge 25 dollars per shot… I don’t see many people wanting to pay up that price.
I give up… Nathan cant seem to tell me WHY he needs a high powered rifle to use in competition…
Hank, the remark about a sniper rifle wasnt even cute… Sounds very cold-blooded actually… Anybody knows a Sniper Rifle is designed for ONE purpose… to KILL people…
And dont give me any more crap about jet skis, and motorcycles… Becaues that isnt the subject….
If you cant compete with lower caliber rifles, and shotguns… and maybe even handguns… then you sure as hell dont need High Powered MURDER weapons…
Thats what I see as the lunacy of it all…
Yes, Nathan, I have said many times that you would use a weapon to defend yourself, and for hunting, like the Court decision cited above stated… So, dont come back with that tired old crap either….
If you insist on having High Powered MURDER weapons then by all means, go enjoy yourselves… But when the government says NO, I would hope you will lawfully turn them in, or else disable the weapons for just “show” status…(take out the firing pins)
Nuff Said….
Cosmos,
Just to get you riled up…
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
“Only in the most rare pregnancies where the womans life is in danger do I support abortions.
If it comes down to the life of the mother or her unborn child then the decision is best left to her.
When there is no threat to her life or serious bodily harm there is no need for an abortion.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 04:36 PM
So… if Nathan was a married woman, and a criminal killed “her” husband and children, then kidnapped and raped “her” for few weeks, and made “her” pregnant — “Nathan” would NOT have an abortion.”She” would give birth to the murderer/rapist’s baby, 9 months later.
I wish the world could read your post Pmom. It says so much about how sick you baby killers truly are.
To call a pro-life person a killer is an obscene and perverted twist on reality.
To call abortion a defense of the mother from an attacking killer fetus is delusional and psychotic.———————————-
I won’t call your side pro-life, because there isn’t anything pro-life about you guys. Mary may actually be pro-life. But you, you’re out there killing people. Pro-life of the fetus or even a group of cells, not pro-life of the mother or the child after being born. You want that fetus to have more rights than does the woman herself.
It is self defense for her. You can pretend that it’s not, but you’re not being honest about it.You don’t know that the intruder was really a threat to your life. You supported killing him even if he only laid you up for 9 months. If he kills your wife…he’s hurting you. She’ll be dead and she won’t know any different. It’s not your body, it’s hers you are defending because she’s valuable to you.
Sol, birth control fails sometimes, usually because it wasn’t used correctly. If I invite a salesman into my home, and he attacks me, am I still not entitled to defend myself?
Posted by: political_mom | September 12, 2007 at 05:02 PM
Chas,
Where is the logic in your beliefs?
“If you cant compete with lower caliber rifles, and shotguns… and maybe even handguns… then you sure as hell dont need High Powered MURDER weapons…”
Most murders are committed with hand guns chas.
So where is the sense in calling my high powered rifle a murder weapon in one sentence and saying it is ok for me to have my hand gun in the next?
Cosmos,
As traumitizing as it would be, I would like to think I would stick to my beliefs and say yes I would have that child.
I don’t know why you call yourself pro=life. I know it’s because you THINK it’s about killing babies.
I think it’s about controlling women like fundies like to do.
How can you even call yourself pro-life when you advocate taking lives in other situations? You justify taking life in war, in self defense. So you admit there are times when you’re not pro-life. I agree that sometimes it’s ok.
If anything, you should call yourself anti-abortion.
Political Mom,Baby killer.Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 03:30 PM
You side calls themselves:Pro-Choice.See how easy that was? I can actually say it… Pro Choice.Now my side calls themselves Pro-Life.Not anti-choice, not anti-reproductive rights….Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 04:47 PM
How do you expect to have a rational discussion when you can’t even get past the term I call myself?Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 05:05 PM
Political Mom,Baby killer.Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 03:30 PM
I can see clearly that we are only having discussions if the discussion meets with Nathan’s definition of the discussion…
Chas,
Seriously look at the numbers of homicides with weapons.
Nearly all homicides and suicides are with hand guns.
can you even tell me how many people are killed with high powered rifles every year chas?
When you can tell me how many people are killed with high powered rifles every year and how many people legally own high powered rifles then I want to see you justify calling them murder weapons.
“-THE COMMENT “MAKE YOU WET YOUR PANTS” WAS MADE ONLY IN JEST BECAUSE OF YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GUNS WOULD SEEM TO PREDISPOSE YOU TO IRRATIONAL FEAR CAUSING YOU TO WET YOUR PANTS.”
I have no fear of guns at all, rational or otherwise, idiot.
There is nothing on this Earth that I am afraid of, you moron.
And I haven’t wet my pants since I was three.
But I won’t take my seven year old granddaughter to a social event when someone threatens to bring a gun to make “liberals wet their pants.”
It was meant to be a SOCIAL EVENT, not a confrontation over guns and gun owners. As I have frequently posted, I am a former and future gun owner.
Guns do not frighten me – idiots with guns are people I choose not to associate with for any reason.
Therefore, I would not attend a SOCIAL EVENT with you.
Nathan, you are just an asshole.
No socially redeeming value – and you call yourself a Christian.
What a hypocrite.
Tom,
I said what I did to make a point…
I have consistenly tried to refrain from the absurdity of calling each other names and have asked for political mom to do the same.
it is ok for me to have my hand gun in the next?
Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 05:16 PM
======================
Ummm cause I know there are specific competitions for hand guns of certain sizes… and I know a number of folks who use hand guns for hunting small game…
And YES I know that hand guns are used to KILL others… ane so are rifles…. or have you missed all the sniper news of the past few years???
Besides, High Powered rifles have only ONE PURPOSE… KILLING…
So, once again, Nathan, your argument is mootly circular!!
If you insist on having High Powered MURDER weapons then by all means, go enjoy yourselves… But when the government says NO, I would hope you will lawfully turn them in, or else disable the weapons for just “show” status…(take out the firing pins)
Nuff Said….
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 05:13 PM
HOPE? You HOPE gun owners will voluntarily give up their right to self-defense!?! Think again.
The day Government soldiers start going door-to-door to confiscate guns, will be the start of bloodiest war in the history of the United States.
Of the 100 million+ gun owners, there will be a few million of us who will defend our freedom to the death.
Chas, you ready to blow away 10+ million Americans?
2 million soldiers might be able to take out 20 million Americans, but their will be many dead soldiers too. And I would bet, most of the US Soldiers will not kill the American people.
Bill Clinton and Janet Reno gave those orders. Hillary will too.
Please dont get too dizzy from too much spinning, either… LOL
Political Mom,
One of the first steps to having a discussion is at least being able to understand what it is the other side thinks.
You can’t even do that.
How do you expect to have any kind of serious discusion when you don’t even know what it is those you are arguing against think?
As far as calling ourselves Pro-Life goes, it is simply a term for our belief on abortion. It is not meant to be an all encompasing absolute term in every situation.
Is the term Pro-choice any different?
Do you support choice in EVERYTHING?
Of course not. It too is simple a term used by your side to describe your stance on abortion.
Understanding that is the least you could try to do before you move onto actually having a discussion on abortion…
It’s such an easy decision when you know it’ll never happen to you. Considering how much you hate those who threaten to harm you, I have a hard time believing that you’d be ok with loaning your body to birth that person’s child especially after all that person did to you. Put more thought into it.
Women go through so much just to be pregnant. It isn’t just a little fat on the tummy. Mentally and emotionally and physically taxing. If there are complications, it can ruin any plans. If those complications turn deadly, and they do more than you realize, her life is at risk. I had no idea I’d become septic after giving birth to my son. Was my life in danger, you bet. With my daughter, my life was in danger because of her delivery. Shoulder dystocia, a true emergency. Luckily I had medical intervention in both cases. I still have effects on my body from both of them.
How pro-life are you nathan? Are you donating blood? What part of your body are you donating for the cause of life?
Well, I’m outta here… time to fix dinner… Dont know what I am fixing yet, but time to fix dinner…
Later all!!!
No, because many on the ‘pro-life’ side are against the death penalty, are against suicide, against war. And they claim being prolife too.
Chas,
Hand guns are used to kill more people than Rifles yet you say rifles are murder weapons…
High powered rifles are used more in hunting than hand guns yet you say hand guns have a purpose in hunting…
People use high powered rifles in competition shooting all the time just like hand guns, yet you say only hand guns are?
You say high powered rifles are only for killing… and this makes them different from hand guns how?
You make absolutely no sense.
Nathan, I will only say this once… so cogitate on it very closely…
PRO-CHOICE ALWAYS INCLUDES PRO-LIFE…
PRO-LIFE NEVER INCLUDES CHOICE…
REFERENCE TO HAND GUNS — READ UP THREAD A WAYS… YOU WILL SEE WHAT I SAID, IF YOU READ IT AT ALL…
“2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance.”
Posted by Nathan.
The #1 deniers (very false) argument.
(emphasis added)”http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
However, a crucial finding was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level.
This led them to conclude “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has NOT shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode MUST have another source.”
You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun CAN’T be causing global warming. Ironically, it’s the sun’s CLOSE correlation with Earth’s temperature that PROVES it has little to do with the last 30 years of global warming.”
Graph and more details at link.
Political Mom,
If you took the time to understand the reason why people are Pro-Life you would be able to answer your own questions…
There is one fundamental difference between Pro-Life people and Pro-choice people which is the KEY to understanding everything else they think and believe.
If you can’t even understand that, then how can you try to have a conversation about abortion?
Ok Nathan, you must have blown right by this earlier post>>>
Ummm cause I know there are specific competitions for hand guns of certain sizes… and I know a number of folks who use hand guns for hunting small game…
And YES I know that hand guns are used to KILL others… ane so are rifles…. or have you missed all the sniper news of the past few years???
====================
In fact, in my younger years I used to hunt rabbit with a 22 revolver… did fairly good with it too…
Speaking of guns boy. . .
Did you fix the safety on my 1911 yet?
Hank
Max… your threats to inflict bodily harm on the U.S. Military, enforcing a Law of the Land, makes you sound like one scary dude… As I said before a Seditionist… I hope Bush doesnt monitor Blogs!!
Chas,
Once again, high powered rifles are used for sport shooting and fun.
I enjoy shooting then. They are not murder weapons.
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/highpower.asp
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/nmc.html
http://www272.pair.com/stevewag/matches/highpower/highpower.html
http://www.carifle.com/
I can post you a hundred links to organizations who shoot competitively with high powered rifles.
You are wrong. You can simply never admit to it.
By the way, Nathan, would you expect me to attend a social event with my granddaughter if someone stated that they were going to bring their “pit bull” to make the liberals wet their pants?
I think not.
Oh, and there is no freakin’ way my DAUGHTER would have allowed me to take my granddaughter to such an event under the “threat” you issued.
BTW – How was the picnic? How many attended?
Mr. Price, have you figured out what a “double negative” is yet?
How about spelling “GRAMMAR?”
I suppose if I wanted to waste my time on Google, I could probably post dozens of articles that say High Powered Rifles are only designed with the purpose of Killing… But I have to feed my wife now… So, I dont have the time… And my patience with your absurdity is running thin…
Please Nathan, why don’t you just come out and tell us what it is that is key to understanding ‘pro-life’.
I’m waiting.
Chas,
Answer my questions:
How many people are killed with high powered rifles every year?
What percentage of hunting is done with high powered rifles each year?
How many hand guns kill people each year?
What percentage of hunting is done with hand guns?
When you can tell me those numbers, then you can try to sit there with a straight face and say high powered rifles are only murder weapons yet hand guns are ok…
Nathan, it isnt about who is wrong or who is right… I’m not wrong… I dont think you are either, probably… I JUST DONT LIKE HIGH POWERED WEAPONS IN THE HANDS OF ORDINARY PEOPLE… THERE IS SIMPLY NO NEED FOR IT…
HIGH POWERED WEAPONS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF KILLING PEOPLE!!!
I mean, geez, chickens are for the purpose of laying eggs and providing meat… But some idiots fight them as well… as in competition… I sure dont like that either!!
Chas,
ALMOST EVERY GUN IS DESIGNED WITH THE PURPOSE OF KILLING
DUH
“Bill Clinton and Janet Reno gave those orders. Hillary will too.”
I missed that, Max. When did Janet Reno and Bill Clinton order US soldiers to go door-to-door and confiscate firearms?
Chas, when a Government becomes an oppressive tyranny, and starts invading the homes of the People, then Revolution WILL happen.
You lambs may sit by and watch, or you may be loaded onto trains. Just shut-up and do what you are told.
There’s military in my family Chas, and none of them will point the gun at the American people. I doubt most other soldiers will either.
Look what happened with 4 dead in Ohio. Public outrage.
What will the public do when there are 4,000 or 40,000 dead in Ohio?
Political Mom,Baby killer.Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 03:30 PM
I have consistenly tried to refrain from the absurdity of calling each other names
Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Okay, Nathan. If you say so.
:::eyeroll:::
Political Mom,
I already told you that having a converstion with someone who refuses to even address what I call myself correctly is pointless.
Clark,
Waco, TX. 1993. 82 killed by the FBI and ATF.
Ordered by Janet Reno.
Reno reported directly to Bill Clinton.
“As traumitizing as it would be, I would like to think I would stick to my beliefs and say yes I would have that child.”
Posted by Nathan.
Maybe it’s twins, triplets, etc…
Are you going to tell all those children that their “father” murdered your husband and other children, then kidnapped and raped you?
FBI/ATF are Federal Agents.
If/When guns are banned, there won’t be enough Federal Agents to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.
American troops will have to be used against Americans.
“Waco, TX. 1993. 82 killed by the FBI and ATF.”
Bullshit.
The siege of the compound was started by the George H W Bush administration and they had a legitimate warrant for the arrest of David Koresh.
Koresh chose to barricade himself and his followers in the compound and he started the fires that killed. Koresh raped children as young as ten as part of his “crusade.” He also had many, many opportunities to surrender and address the charges through legitimate means.
The arrest warrant was issued under the REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION.
So when did Clinton or Reno order soldiers to go door-to-door and confiscate firearms?
Chas,
Why don’t you make this simple on everyone.
What guns do you think individuals have a right to own?
You support the DC gun ban in one thread…
You oppose high powered rifles in this thread and say hand guns are ok…
I dont think you have ever said if you think the 2nd amendment gives an individual the right to bear arms…
You are arguing here that it only applied to militias…
So what is it chas? Instead of simply taking a contradictory stance on everything, what do you support?
WS,
Didn’t Ruby Ridge happen on Bush’s watch, too?
Political Mom,Baby killer.Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 03:30 PM
I have consistenly tried to refrain from the absurdity of calling each other namesPosted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Instead of simply taking a contradictory stance on everything…Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 05:49 PM
No contradictions there, nope. None at all. No sirreee!
Cosmos,
At some point I would be honest and tell my child what really happened.
At least the child would be alive instead of dead…
Why should another wrong of killing the unborn child solve anything?
All you little scenarios deal with the feelings of the mother… what about the life of the child?
August 1992, Tom. It’s funny how the Comedian Rush Limbaugh tries to blame that one on Clinton, too.
Like the Governor of Arkansas could order the FBI to attack a cabin in Idaho………………..
Lim-bought tried to blame Ruby Ridge on CLINTON??
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That’s almost as good as when Sam Brownback blames unwed mothers on gay marriage. (really, he does. He has charts & a PowerPoint & everything)
Tom,
I have already said I did it to make a point and since then have tried to engage in a serious discussion.
I have already said:
“You side calls themselves:
Pro-Choice.
See how easy that was? I can actually say it… Pro Choice.”
Yet you keep posting the same thing over and over again…
Are you really that daft Tom?
Nathan,
Perhaps in the alternate universe you inhabit one begins a serious discussion by calling your opponents “baby killers.” However, in the real universe the rest of us live in, that’s generally considered rude.
I have consistenly tried to refrain from the absurdity of calling each other namesPosted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Are you really that daft Tom?Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Heh.
Tom,
You test my patience and I fail.
Congratulations.
Nathan,
It should have been an easy test. Your words, nothing more.
Tom,
Is there anything I can say which would explain or make ok what I said earlier about Political Mom being called a baby killer?
I have already said twice it was to make a point.
So is there any reasoning with you or not?
Why, exactly, is it that the same people who embrace the most egregarious abuses of gov’t power are also the same ones who have this persistent hallucinated phobia of “banning guns’?
If the federal government ever reaches the point of banning the private ownership of guns, that will certainly be the LAST step in consolidating the regime’s power. And it will be because people like yourselves continually ceded open-ended authority to the government in the first place.
Is there anything I can say which would explain or make ok what I said earlier about Political Mom being called a baby killer?Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 06:01 PM
Nathan,
Actually, yes. You can sincerely apologize to PMom for what you said. You can make sure you apologize in a way that does not include some snarky, “you made me do it” insult hidden inside the language of your apology. No one here advocates the “killing” of “babies,” and you and your comrades’ constant use of the “baby killer!” insult is old, tiresome, rude, and inappropriate.
Rage,
It is not a hallucinated phobia.
Did you miss all the gun laws I already linked to?
The Democrats consistently try to pass more and more restricitve laws on gun ownership.
Especially in the more liberal states like California.
Oh, and you can refrain from hurling the “baby killer!” insult around in the future.
But I’m not holding my breath.
Tom,
You make my point for me. Thank you.
I apologize for the comment. It was not meant to be rude or offensive. It was to make a point.
Just as you are:
tired of our “constant use of the “baby killer!” insult is old, tiresome, rude, and inappropriate.”
I too am tired of the Pro-choice crowds constant use of saying we are trying to control women, take away their reporductive rights or that we somehow are anti-choice.
Which is exactly why I have been trying to get Political Mom to address this very same point.
Chas,
I strap on a pistol everyday as part of my job so I know how valuable guns are as a tool. I also own assualt rifles and I will use them if any government tries to come and take ‘em from me. Body armor would be no match for some of my “toys”.
I think that our gun laws should be even more liberal, like in Switzerland and Spain. I those countries law abiding citizens can own fully automatic weapons with no restrictions on magazine capacity.
I hope you are not one of those government sanction clergy who will be bleating ROMANS 13 to intice folks to give in to tyranny?
PS: Our Founding Fathers were seditionists engaged in treason against the established government of the time, the British Crown. You would have made a wonderful TORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And there you go. You couldn’t make an apology without blaming someone else for your bad behavior. It’s ALWAYS someone else’s fault with you.
I’m glad I didn’t hold my breath. Five minutes for this ex-smoker is way too long.
Rage,
Why is it that so many of you sit there and act innocent and pretend like no one is trying to take away our guns when I have spent the past 100 posts arguing with Chas and others on how they don’t think the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns and Chas doesn’t want us having high powered rifles.
Are you serious?
Last night Mary was telling us how bad guns are and how she doesn’t like them.
I can name several groups who would like nothing more than to see all guns made illegal.
Tom,
I didn’t blame anyone. I explained why I said it, which is important.
I see you refuse to be reasonable.
“Cosmos,
Just to get you riled up…
… found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age .”
Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 05:14 PM
What you’ve PROVEN is that you did NOT read and/or understand my post that answered YOUR question.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-97.html#comment-81994263
” “The Earth has been warming before man began pumping out CO2?”
Posted by Nathan.
True, (also cooling) and thank you for the 3rd most popular skeptic arguement.http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=22 “——Nathan, you seem unable to understand facts, and keep repeating the same false talking points, like a child’s talking doll.
Gun confiscation was a reality in this country in the not to distant past. Of course, when libs say they are not interested in grabbing guns I just assume they are lying, just as they lie about immigration and most everything else.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
Defenseless On the BayouNew Orleans gun confiscation is foolish and illegal
David B. Kopel | September 10, 2005
In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. “No one is allowed to be armed. We’re going to take all the guns,” says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.
Last week, thousands of New Orleanians huddled in the Superdome and the Convention Center got a taste of anarcho-tyranny. Everyone entering those buildings was searched for firearms. So for a few days, they lived in a small world without guns. As in other such worlds, the weaker soon became the prey of the stronger. Tuesday’s New Orleans Times-Picayune reported some of the grim results, as an Arkansas National Guardsman showed the reporter dozens of bodies rotting in a non-functional freezer.
In the rest of the city, some police officers abandoned their posts, while others joined the looting spree. For several days, the ones who stayed on the job did not act to stop the looting that was going on right in front of them. To the extent that any homes or businesses were saved, the saviors were the many good citizens of New Orleans who defended their families, homes, and businesses with their own firearms.
These people were operating within their legal rights. The law authorizes citizen’s arrests for any felony, and in the past (in the 1964 case McKellar v. Mason), a Louisiana court held that shooting a property thief in the spine was a legitimate citizen’s arrest.
The aftermath of the hurricane has featured prominent stories of citizens legitimately defending lives and property. New Orleans lies on the north side of the Mississippi River, and the city of Algiers is on the south. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors in one part of Algiers had formed a militia. After a car-jacking and an attack on a home by looters, the neighborhood recognized the need for a common defense; they shared firearms, took turns on patrol, and guarded the elderly. Although the initial looting had resulted in a gun battle, once the patrols began, the militia never had to fire a shot. Likewise, the Garden District of New Orleans, one of the city’s top tourist attractions, was protected by armed residents.
The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas ought to be thanked for helping to save some of their city after Mayor Nagin, incoherent and weeping, had fled to Baton Rouge. Yet instead these citizens are being victimized by a new round of home invasions and looting, these ones government-organized, for the purpose of firearms confiscation……
Senator Dianne Feinstein:
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes”, February 5, 1995
“I can name several groups who would like nothing more than to see all guns made illegal.”
Okie-dokie. I can see some point where firearms laws could be used as an overall means of government oppression (that’s not happening now, no matter how you grease that slope!).
So I’ll make a deal with you, Nathan. You start giving a damn about the OTHER 9 amendments, and I’ll join the NRA!
Cosmos,
I posted a link which said there are scientists who have published peer reviewed material which goes against the “concensus.”
All you do is reference your same site on skeptics arguments.
My point is that there are credible peer reviewed scientists who disagree with the concensus.
A point you seem unwilling to concede to without calling them all liars or hacks.
Rage,
You either care about the 2nd Amendment or you don’t.
My stance on the Bill of Rights shouldn’t be a factor in whether or not you care.
Of course I care, Nathan!
I just don’t believe that regulations on firearms per se violate it. Maybe SOME do, but the absolutist “no regulations” position has no textual or historical support (yes, I read your litany of quotes, none of which contradict what I’m saying!).
In fact, I’m far more concerned about what is done with gun-owner databases, which raise pretty obvious First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendment issues.
You should be too.
Nathan,
You posted a press release trying to sell a book based on two falsehoods.
FACTS:1) Past natural climate changes do NOT prevent, or explain, the current rapid human-caused warming.
2) The rapid global warming during the last 30 years does NOT correlate to solar activity.
See the graph and links at,http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
Measurements of solar activity.Other studies on solar influence on climate.
If OPEC follows the trend and starts demanding petro-Euros, we’re really going to be screwed!
U.S. dollar losing luster as reserve currencyWed Sep 12, 2007 4:54PM EDTEmail | Print | Digg | Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (0) [-] Text [+]
Market News
Stocks near flat | Video
Dollar hits low vs euro as rate outlooks diverge | Video
McDonald’s raises annual dividend by 50 percent
More Business & Investing News… Featured Broker sponsored linkFree $50,000 Practice Account.WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) – The U.S. dollar’s dominant position as the world’s reserve currency is gradually diminishing as the euro becomes increasingly popular, the International Monetary Fund said on Wednesday.
According to data reported to the IMF by industrial and developing countries, the trend toward the euro is specially evident among the developing, or nonindustrial, nations.
“Nonindustrial countries hold some 30 percent of their reserve assets in euros and 60 percent in in dollars (as of December 2006), compared with 19 percent and 70 percent, respectively, six years ago,” the IMF said.
The dollar was at a record low against the euro on Wednesday amid concern about the U.S. economy’s strength and a growing feeling that U.S. official interest rates will fall.
Developed countries also are adding euro holdings.
“Industrial countries’ use of the euro has risen to 21 percent from 17 percent in December 2000, while their dollar holdings have remained fairly steady at 72 percent compared with nearly 73 percent six years earlier,” the IMF said.
The balance of their holdings are in other currencies like the Japanese yen or the British pound.
STILL WAITING for what the key to ‘pro-life’ is, as determined by Nathan.
I’ll bet it’s as convoluted as what consitutes a Christian…as determined by Nathan.
Nathan, I dont know what to say to you… It doesnt matter what I say, you twist it to come out the way you want it to… I have never said that I am against ownership of guns… I would like to see rigid controls of hand guns… That is true… And I ALSO said I have seen numerous people take part in competitions with hand guns, hunt with handguns, and even that I have hunted rabbits with a 22 revolver…
NOW THEN…. Suppose you tell ME where I have said anything like you keep claiming I said???
SEE bottom line… Just because I say I have seen handguns used for competitions, and I have seen handguns used to hunt small game, and have hunted small game with a 22 revolver… THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT AS OF TODAY, I WOULD BE AGAINST A BAN ON HANDGUNS… OR AT LEAST EXTREMELY RIGID CONTROLS….
AND MAX… You are either drunk, or just plain an idiot… How DARE you say you would go against the government on a law banning guns…. There is NO SUCH law now, nor do I suspect there will be… There may well be certain bans on certain typese of weapons… as there should be… But the government is never going to ban GUNS… Not Clinton, or anybody else!!!
Jonas, you are as big an idiot as Max… and even more so if you are a cop… YOU of all people should know of the dangers of hand guns run amok… YOU of ALL people on here (if you arent lying of course) which somehow I think you are… YOU of all people who put on a gun when you go to work (I assume a cop of some sort) You should know the dangers involved — But, you say basically the same thing as Max… you gonna get all huffy, and fight off the official soldiers of the United States of America… And You call yourself a patriotic American??? Just another Reich Wing Traitor!!! An enemy combatant… How about Bush reserve you space ath the Gitmo Hilton??? Sounds like thats where you belong!!
Chas had to leave this morning and didn’t see the answer to a question I asked you. How did you happen to witness an autopsy on a gunshot victim with 5 45 bullets in his stomach?
Just wondering.
One more post on another theme:
PRO-CHOICE ALWAYS INCLUDES PRO-LIFE
PRO-LIVE NEVER INCLUDES PRO-CHOICE.
I guess thats the way it will continue to be, until we throw some of the more violent Pro-Life people behind bars…
For BREAKING THE LAW OF THE LAND… by attempting to Keep others from making a Choice to do something that IS the law of the land…
I think that pretty much sums it up…
Good Night; Good Luck; God bless; whatever you conceive of God to be!!
Well, Grm, as usual, you got it wrong right off the bat… I never said they were in his stomach… I said he had 5 45 Cal slugs in him…
Secondly, I have frequently been asked to stand in for autopsies over the years… It’s been a few years, but they all stand out in memory… not a great sight to see…
Autopsies arent quite as bad as the Electric Chair, but almost…
BTW, I saw your question earlier… I ignored it…
With all of the name calling going on here tonight Tom I think you are being a tad disingenuous. You know that Nathan was responding to something Pmom said when she brought the abortion debate into a gun right argument.
Pmom I don’t know what Nathan means by pro-life but I can tell you what I mean. Being the baby of a pro-choicer is much more dangerous than being the mother in this circumstance. Check the death rates. The baby almost always dies.
Not saying that on ocassion the mothers life is in danger but many doctors have testified to the fact that abortions are actually more dangerous that allowing the pregancy to go to term.
Don’t want to get into the debate on abortion. We will never change each others minds but can still be civil in our disagreement.
Those on the left have somewhat of a gang mentality tonight in that you all pile on when you see a conservative relatively alone.
I know this is an anathema to those on the left but I really think that on many issues we agree but can’t admit it publically.
Chas how many times a night do you say goodnight and how many times do you really leave?
My question is in what compacity would a spectator be asked to view the autopsy of a victim of a crime unless you were saying that he shot himself 5 times?
I knew you were going to try to pick it apart… Thats why I ignored it before… Just suffice it to say that I have been invited to stand in at numerous autopsies over the years…
And at two executions… NOT a pretty sight…
Chas then I guess you also ignored the question about the 2 men and 1 gun in a room and when the authorities entered the room and found one man dead – would they arrest the man left standing or the gun on the table? After all the gun did kill the victim.
Your argument was that guns kill people. Just wondering.
I will always err on the side of the real living, breathing, feeling woman, who may have other living breathing, feeling children depending on her- over the potential life of the embryo or fetus. Always.
Thats just a totally stupid troll type question, Grm… doesnt deserve an answer…
Chas why would I try to pick it apart? If it happened you would be able to back it up with facts like date and place.
Usually in a criminal investigation the observers at an autopsy are there as potential witnesses if the case goes to trial. This would usually include an area of expertise – wasn’t sure what yours was.
Well, see… thats where you are wrong again — I was there on behalf of family… And that is permissable, if approved by the Coroner… which, obviously it was… As for dates and times, those would be confidential…
The only testimony that matters from an autopsy, is the Medical Examiner… and sometimes, the lead detective… or police chief…
Sling mud when you can’t answer. You are forming a pattern here.
Pmom that is the difference. We pro-lifers see that baby as a baby and not an inantimate piece of tissue. Being in the medical field I don’t have to tell you how early that piece of tissue has a heart beat.
I have never heard a woman tell someone ‘I am going to have a fetus’ but I have sure heard many say
‘I am going to have a baby’. It is all in the perception.
Chas I guess I just wondered how you got invited. Do you get on a list of observers? I might want to do this some time. Do you just get an anonymous phone call tell you where and what time to show up?
Just wondering – sometimes people embellish their tales – of course I’m not saying that about you.
How can you be pro life ksgrm and be pro birth control?
The pill kills babies just like abortion.
Observers of what?? Autopsy, or Execution??
I didn’t turn the discussion last night into a gun right debate, Nathan insisted on it.Max…the study by Lott and Mustard was based on faulty data…you need to look at other sources beyond the gun magazines and NRA for your stats.If conceal and carry really lowered crime and gun deaths, like Lott and Mustartd claimed, then why has the murder rate soared since we passed it here in Kansas? If that were true, all the gansters and criminals who have illegal guns would be intimidated by pistol packin’ good guys and the crime and murder rate would be going down. Right? Gee, I wonder what happened?Studies by reliable researchers (like John Hopkins Research Institute and The Centers for Disease Control) show a connection between the easy availablity of guns and the gun deaths. You only have to look at cities with equal populations to our cities (like London or Tokyo) with stricter gun control laws and compare the rate of gun deaths to us. The numbers would shock you.
Nathan loves to declare that I have an irrational “hate” for guns, but the fact is that what I hate is the death and destruction caused by people with guns who have no conscience or impulse control. Also, my young nephew was killed by another child who managed to get his hands on his grandfather’s gun. I have thought long and hard about my stand on this issue, and I have to speak up for what I believe to be right. You can call me names, insult me, call me a liar, whatever…all that does is say volumes about the kind of person you are, probably the kind of person who has no business owning a gun. I know Nathan personally, and I can honestly say that if every gun owner were as responsible as him, there would be no problem…but the fact is there are a lot of irresponsible, sick, and violent people out there who shouldn’t have them, and that’s why I want to see stricter gun laws.
mary……………………foget about Nathan, he is just another psycho-gunnut-reichwing-wacko-evangelical”christian”.
Another 300+ post open thread. :D
???, you obviously AREN’T in the medical profession…BC pills don’t “kill babies”.
??? you see that is one of those areas where we just aren’t that far apart as I said earlier in this thread. I believe in birth control before conception. I realize that there will be ocassions where hard decisions have to be made because of medical reasons. These are few and far between.
When you actually look at the demographics of who gets abortions it puts the kabosh on the poor women get them story. Kansas has all of the information furnished by abortion providers out on a state site. Eventhough this is incomplete because of the reporting requirements that argument doesn’t hold water.
Tiller didn’t become a multimillionaire because he gives his services away.
It is really an eyeopener to see who is really having abortions. I did it for a thesis I needed for a college course I was taking. It helped me see who we are really enabling here.
Well, Grm, I guess I must have answered your questions… So, I think I will go do somethi8ng else for a while…
wait a sec ksgrm…………………….Isn’t Dr. Tiller providing a service that is actually LEGAL in this country?
Wjy do you persecute a man running a LEGAL business?
Because, we have let them get away with it Apophis…
mary……………………foget about Nathan, he is just another psycho-gunnut-reichwing-wacko-evangelical”christian”.
Posted by: Apophis | September 12, 2007 at 08:02 PM
Apophis this could be why some people think you are a radical and give very little weight to your posts. Name calling does nothing. Nathan feels very strongly about this issue and has the right to make that point.
Some people should practice what they preach… LOL
a “radical”?…………..Thank you!
It’s obvious you reichwingers DO give a lot of weight to my posts because you come out in droves to ATTACK.
What in my characterization of nathan is not actually true?
all I can say ksgrm is “BRING IT ON”……………….you should remember that line, your GOD, chimpbiy layed it out to the entire world.
wait a sec ksgrm…………………….Isn’t Dr. Tiller providing a service that is actually LEGAL in this country?
Wjy do you persecute a man running a LEGAL business?
Posted by: Apophis | September 12, 2007 at 08:09 PM
Did I do that because that was not my intent? He certainly has the right ot run his legal business as he see fit. I also have the right to not see him as the benevolent giver of womens rights.
On this thread the other night a point was made and made again today by Pmom that finances drive the need for abortions with some women. My point was that abortions are not free so they must have some money. Could it be that it is just inconvenient to have this baby at this time?
How many seconds before “crowning” can a fetus be aborted?
How come preemie fetuses grow up to be adults?
If a fetus heads pops out during an abortion, while it is still alive, is it considered murder?
How much of the fetus head is considered to be inside the woman, before there is a violation? Is it a chin sticking out?
How about the all but the forehead?
Why is it called the birth canal during abortions?
Why do they call it abortion, instead of pregnancy termination?
Grm, I hardly think Nathan needs any help tilting at those windmills…
psycho-gunnut-reichwing-wacko-evangelical”christian”.
He isn’t psycho as Mary who knows him just said. He is a gun owner who not only knows how to handle his own weapons but teaches others in the correct way to do this. As for the last characterization of him as an evangelical”Christian” I believe he would be glad that others see that in him. I know I would be.
Maybe because abort and terminate are basically the same word… they both mean to stop or to cease. Very simple solution to that one… :-)
Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum.
The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual.
Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use.”[1]
http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp3300.html
The medical term for the interruption of a pregnancy is abortion. For a miscarriage, it’s called a spontaneous abortion. For the kind of abortion we’re talking about, it’s called an elective or therapeutic abortion.
What in my characterization of nathan is not actually true?
Posted by: Apophis | September 12, 2007 at 08:13 PM
…”psycho and wacko” would be challenged.
“reichwing” is offensive becomes it connotes things associated with Nazis.
Grm, I guess you arent going to answer my question to you??
Now see ??? you’re spreading lies. The IUD does prevent implantation, but the others that’s not how they work.
Chas you are absolutely right – as I said last night Nathan does a very good job of defending his own positions.
I admire that in him. He is a young man who would make any parent proud. He is voluntarily serving his country, he has high moral standards for himself and expects them from others. I have a son much like Nathan. He spent 10 years in the Navy, trained at the Idaho Falls facility that Hank taught at. Maybe they passed in the night at some point. He also is never afraid to state his point. He might have got that from me. That is why I admire Nathan.
So ksgrm, you believe its ok to use BC methods that kill babies or were you not aware that many BC methods do just that?
There are funds available to women who can’t afford an abortion. Those are private donations.
I’m sorry Chas what was the question I missed?
I have something else I am doing on the side.
OK, I guess Grm isnt gong to answer my question from earlier..
I rest my case troll-boy.
You are reich-wing, nathan is reich-wing…………..go figure!
pm
So you are 100 % sure that the pill NEVER causes a fertilised egg to fail to come to term?
Observers of what?? Autopsy, or Execution??
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 07:58 PM
=====================
You asked me how I got to be an observer…. remember??
??? I am not in the medical field but am aware that some birth control methods are different. I would have to defer to Mary on that answer. I will say that my second son was born with the IUD loop I was using for birth control on his head.
He wasn’t planned but I wouldn’t have sent him back for anything.
The Pill doesnt allow the egg to BE fertilized…
So, Governor Sebelius’s husband who is a Republican and sits on the Kansas Appellate Court as a Judge is “reichwing” according to Apophis.
Moat abortions are performed because the prenancies are inconvenient, embarrassing, or simply not wanted. Abortions performed to save a mother’s life, because the baby is malformed, or because they are the result of rape is pretty low, but yet that’s always the rationale used by the pro aborton side to justify abortion on demand.We live in very a selfish society today, and many people will always put their own needs ahead of another’s, even if it means costing that person his/her chance at life. The idea of self sacrifice for another is not even considered an option by many today. That’s too bad, because most people who live life in a selfish way often can’t be happy or content.
So you are 100 % sure that the pill NEVER causes a fertilised egg to fail to come to term?
Posted by: ??? | September 12, 2007 at 08:26 PM
Only if you don’t put enough of them in there to prevent entry.
ba dump bump…variation of an old joke.
I dont remember seeing Apophis saying anything about Republicans being Reich Wingers…
Well you answered me I thought when you said that the families asked you to set in on the many autopsies you attended and as for the executions it is not unusual to be invited to observe one. There are usually lots of empty seats especially on the criminals side.
If you would read the article I linked to, you would find the The Physician’s Desk Reference is the source of the information that many birth control pills do in fact prevent implantation of the FERTILIZED egg.
Apophis calls me a ReichWing and I’m moderate Republican.
I dont remember seeing Apophis saying anything about Republicans being Reich Wingers…
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 08:30 PM
Chas who were you addressing this to. Kansas said that the term Reich Wingers sounds like things associated with Nazis. Is that your problem?
Well, I wasnt invited to an execution because of an empty seat… and that isnt the way it is done… You cant “apply” for a seat… I was invited to one execution by the condemned, which I refused to attend… The other two I was requested to accompany the family of the person who was murdered.
I was addressing that to Kansas, because he made a stupid remark about the Governor’s husband…
The pill doesn’t allow ovulation..there is no egg to fertilize. An IUD prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. The most effective form of BC is the Depo Provera injection..99% effective and again there is no egg. Women even stop having periods, which is a nice side effect
And yes, I know what Reich Wing means…
Chas is correct………..I nEVER stated that all republicans are reichwingers.
I also doubt if the troll is a “moderate”.
So, how do you know Gov. Sebelius’s husband is a republican? Even if he is, who cares? Look at all of the republicans who have seen the light and joined the Democratic party in the last few years.
When I say “reichwing”, I MEAN “reichwing”!
Just another Reich Wing Traitor!!! An enemy combatant… How about Bush reserve you space ath the Gitmo Hilton??? Sounds like thats where you belong!!
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 07:17 PM
Looks to me as it is used as an insult to me. I would say that my description that it connotes association with “Nazis” is accurate.
Of course, calling a Marine a traitor is beyond the pale.
??? not sure where you are going with this. We each have our belief system. I think a responsible person who is old enough to say yes to sex should be old enough to use contraception. I am not judging what that method should be.
I on the flip side do not believe that once that fertilized egg is attached it shouldn’t be destroyed by man/woman. Just my OHO. Nothing more – nothing less.
what, just because a person claims to be marine makes it so they could not foreseeably be a traitor?
Mary you call it selfish, I call it defense. Men don’t have to sacrifice 9 months of their body to have a baby. Did I sacrifice, you bet your ass I did. and it almost destroyed my life financially. Remember all the grief I got for being poor when I was having to stay home with my son? The ‘get a job’ crowd?
Don’t talk to me about sacrifice.
So, how do you know Gov. Sebelius’s husband is a republican? Posted by: Apophis | September 12, 2007 at 08:37 PM
It was in one of Sebelius’s press releases when she ran for Governor.
do not believe = do believe
??? I have an article for you. The first real study of how birth control actually works- instead of guestimates.
http://www.popcouncil.org/publications/popbriefs/pb11(2)_3.html
Gee whiz Kansas, if you thought that was an insult to YOU, then are you now admitting that you are MAx??? ROFLMAO!!!!!!
again troll……….who cares?
do you have a link to that alleged “press release”?
you do know that federal judge positions are actually supposed to be “non-partisan”……………..therefore, your point is without merit
the troll is pegged as another reichwing poster!
Interesting discussion. Got to go. Life calls.
No Chas, it’s an insult to anyone and uncalled for.
Apophis is a purer Leninist and holder of all things sacred to Marxism. He is about as commie as they get.
You sound like my mother in law PMom…”I GAVE MY UP MY LIFE for my kids…whine, whine, whine”I think anything worthwhile always requires sacrifice..I never thought of giving birth and raising my kids as a burden, even when it was hard, I wouldn’t have done anything different.
Apopis, you are a communist!
Geez..almost 400 posts! Nothing like gun control and abortion to get the disscussion flowing!Good night all!
gee trollboy…………………I guess that makes us mortal enemies doesn’t it? YOU are a NAZI through and through………..remember who won the battle of berlin!
Nothing wrong with Marx…
Might have been a few screwy guys that misinterpreted him, but not much wrong with Marx himself…
Yeah well, if you knew how close I had come at one point to cashing out, maybe you’d understand a little more on why I say let the woman decide what’s right for her.
You claim to work with the mentally ill, and bipolar, and you see how hard it is just for them to struggle day in and day out, add stresses and physical on top of it. But hey, everyone should just be able to suck it up, as we all have the same strengths and resources to draw from. Heh.
Kansas, I dont know how YOU of all people, can tell anybody else what is uncalled for in a post… NO WAY!!!
And it seems sort of peculiar that a post I made directed at Jonas or Max or both, would be something you would quote back at me, and say it was an insult to YOU… One never knows who is doing that posting, do one?? LOL
Chas………………………..”Kansas” is the WEBLOG resident troll…………..he posts under soooooo many names
I know Apophis… and it could appear as if he is admitting that he is Jonas Outram
How can you Republicans complain about abortions when polar bears are dying?
No Kansas… and your questions are just plain STUPID…. Like I said, you have NO RIGHT to complain about what anybody calls you!! You just made a list of legal accusations against me, and THAT dear idiot, could be considered Libel….
true that Dummocrat.
I did contribute to the “Space heaters for Polar Bears” fund though.
Wrong Chas, they were all questions.
And besides, how would you know if I have been to Houston??? Or in a Church there??
You told me Chas and you didn’t even know it.
You are just a pubic hair off of being Libelous at this point… I have saved that post… WEBlog knows who you are, even if I dont…
So, you answered the questions with a no, I’m happy now.
Want some more questions?
No… but YOU might get a few… but not from me…
And you see… That’s the good part… You dont know who I am!!
And you arent going to either…
This individual seeks an executive position. He will be available in
January 2009, and is willing to relocate.
RESUME – GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20520
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Law Enforcement:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver’s license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been “lost” and is not available.
Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
College:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn’t find any oil in Texas.
The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry
(including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected Governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father’s appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I’m proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history. My “poorest millionaire,” Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S.
President.
I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against
investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent
investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I
presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
Three times more money was spent on my second inauguration parties than was spent to investigate the disaster of 9/11.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S.
history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I’ve broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations
remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspector’s access to U.S. “prisoners of war” detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one- year
period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade
Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people),
shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear “Tactical Bunker Buster,” a WMD.
I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to
justice. [he is probably dead, anyway...]
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father’s library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.—–
What Ken said. Every lie that he posted about George Bush is true.
Mary,
No comment on my numbers?
They are not from the NRA, except for the 4.5 million more guns are bought a year, which is linked to the ATF.
You have constantly said that simply having more guns = more gun deaths.
I have shown you that the more guns and the more gun owners we keep adding, you do not see any comparable rise in gun deaths.
What do you have to say about that?
What do you think about my explanation that we have a problem with violence in this country, not guns?
Ksgrm,
Thank you for your kind words. I don’t compliment other posters often enough on here, but I find your posts to be well thought our and compasionate.
I have actually been trying to be much nicer in my postings because of you and outlander. I try to keep away from the senseless name calling.
G-D You are just plain full of it… Why dont you tell Kansas all about Houston… He seems to think he knows so darn much…
And I am STILL all in favor of either banning hand guns, OR at least having very rigid rules…
Well, here we go again… Nathan wants somebody else to prove something else, under his narrow definitions of discussion… Time to move on for the night….
Good Night, Good Luck, and God bless; whatever you conceive God to be…..
Nite all!!
Political Mom,
The KEY to understanding the Pro-Life stance is that we believe that the unborn child is a human being worthy of protection.
That is the main thing. It is what drives all of our opinions and attitudes towards abortion.
It has nothing to do with wanting to control women, deny them choice, or trying to oppress women.
When you can finally understand that key thing, then you can move beyond the rhetoric.
Just like I understand that the pro-choice movement doesn’t consider the unborn child a life and thus their decisions and attitudes are reflected on it being a matter of the mothers body and little more.
Don’t get me wrong, there are those who don’t exactly fall into those categories, but that is the FUNDAMENTAL difference between Pro-Life people and Pro-Choice people.
When you can learn to understand that, then you might be able to have a more intellegent discussion beyond the name calling of saying all we want to do is take away womens reproductive rights….
“And I am STILL all in favor of either banning hand guns, OR at least having very rigid rules…”
That’s all very well and good, but I think Kansas was the 49th state to get in on the conceal carry deal. Amazingly, the Eagle did not let that little gem out until CC passed. By the way, where is all the blood in the streets caused by CC? HMMM?
Chas,
As opposed to Chas who will never tell you what he actually thinks, but argue for hours anyway?
As opposed to Chas who when proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt will still continue to go in circles of denying and acting like you are confused….
Last comment >>>>
PRO CHOICE ALWAYS INCLUDES PRO LIFE
PRO LIFE NEVER INCLUDES PRO CHOICE
PRO LIFE HAS A MAIN GOAL OF CONTROLLING A WOMAN’S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, AND MAKING A WOMAN A SLAVE OF HER OWN BODY, BY LIMITING ACCESS TO LEGAL ABORTIONS…
PRO LIFE NEVER INCLUDESE PRO CHOICE
Fleetwood,
I asked that question earlier to no avail.
Chas is against concealed carry for all those reasons I posted earlier and even though they don’t happen it doesn’t matter.
The anti-gun crowd is rooted in pure emotional fear.
“then you might be able to have a more intellegent discussion beyond the name calling”
And who started the name calling his label of “baby killer?”
Wait! That was just to make a point.
My bad.
Carry on.
UNLESS YOU CANNOT READ, NATHAN, I HAVE MADE MY POSITION ON WEAPONS VERY CLEAR… AND IF YOU DENY THAT, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT READ SIMPLE ENGLISH…
SO, DONT EVEN START WITH THAT CRAP AGAIN TONITE… OR TOMORROW… OR THE DAY AFTER THAT…
Chas,
If Pro-Choice ALWAYS includes Pro-Life then why doesn’t the Pro-Choice crowd believe the unborn child is a life worthy of protecting?
Chas,
You made your opinion clear, you simply refuse to back it up with any logic or reason like I have asked continually…
“The anti-gun crowd is rooted in pure emotional fear.”
The left has a lot of that.
Gee, I guess you really cant think in the abstract if you cant understand that concept… But I guess I am not really surprised…
WS Clark,
That was after Political Mom had her post about how we are anti-choice and trying to take away reproductive rights….
Just like your total lack of logic, or reason when it comes to Gay Marriage, Nathan… If its good for you to do it, its good for anybody else!!
So, dont keep whining!!! Your whining is getting OLD!!!
Chas,
Why are you so scared of law abiding citizens having high powered rifles?
Chas,
I have very good points on homosexual marriage.
You might disagree, but at least I have reason beyond simply saying I don’t want it because I am scared…
Good Grief, Nathan, You ARE anti-choice, and you ARE trying to take away eproductive rights… You mean you dont evenknow what being Pro Life means??? It also means disrupting other people’s church services, and vandalizing a man’s LEGAL place of business…
All in the name of Pro Life!!
Thats what your Pro Life movement stands for…
Pro Choice is ALWAYS Pro Life… because THAT is one of the Choices!! Why the hell do you think we call it Pro Choice??? Because we want people to be FREE to legally CHOOSE what they will do!!!
It really isnt all that complicated!!
You will not coerce me into any kind of childish name-calling.
Chas.
YOU BIGOTED LIAR!!! What kind of nuts you got Golf nut??? Golf Balls???Posted by: Chas. | August 25, 2007 at 10:37 PM
YOU ARE A SHAMELESS BIGOT!! AND YOU ARE A BLATANT LIAR, YOU ARE BOTH GOOD CANDIDATES FOR THE HITLER GOON SQUAD!!! THATS ALL YOU ARE GOOD FOR!! Posted by: Chas. | August 25, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Now the idiotPosted by: Chas. | August 25, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Be gone, Devils!!!Posted by: Chas. | August 25, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Holy One, Let my prayers rise before you as incense… And may the Demons of the WE Blog be cast down to the bottom of the Pit!!Posted by: Chas. | August 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM
BTW Kansas… Ahole… IPosted by: Chas. | August 26, 2007 at 12:22 AM
What a bunch of Cripps and losersPosted by: Chas. | August 26, 2007 at 12:30 AM
I want a phaser like they have on Star Trek.
There IS NO REASON to be opposed to gay marriage that is logical!!! Only Illogical Fear!! Just what you accuse me of on Guns, and CC laws…
dangles a banana…
Well, chas can get overboard on the CAPS and the !!!!!, but I think (mostly) he’s not crazy.I’m still waiting for him to show my bigotry? or something he accused me of. Oh, well.
Beware of false prophets and those who claim to be religious leaders in your community. In every community, there are those amongst you, who claim to be godly, or to hold true to God’s ordained Word, but are truly lifeless sinners. Even here you have one in your midst.
Well, Kansas, once again, you show your TRUE COLORS to the entirety of the Blog…. Only posting the parts of the discussions that you DONT LIKE… That takes real guts!!
And BTW, you ARE an Ahole!!
Chas,
Pro-Life people believe that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protecting.
Do Pro-Choice people believe that?
They do not.
That means Pro-Choice is not always Pro-Life.
Most of the people who are Pro-Life do no believe in interfering with anyone illegally. I don’t do that and neither do many others I know.
We have those extreme people on our side who do those things. They do not represent the entire movement.
If they did there would be considerably more people out there causing problems.
Of course you continue with the same old rhetoric.
You are so scared of actually stopping for one minute to understand the Pro-Life movement so instead you keep trying to demonize it.
“There IS NO REASON to be opposed to gay marriage that is logical!!!”
Gay Marriage would be fundamental change. That takes time. Just like the war in Iraq, patience is required.
And everybody join in, the Sock Puppet Parade of the WEBlog has started…. Everybody join in… and Walk On By!!!
“And BTW, you ARE an Ahole!!”
Ah. Just as I said. In one sentence. Caps and !!!. Ain’t it grand?
Chas,
Did you ever find out how many people are killed by swimming pools vs high powered rifles?
I’m waiting….
When Chas walked by did you experience thenauseating, noisome, objectionable, obnoxious, odious, off-putting, pig, pugnacious, repellent, vile and revolting smell of smegma ?
But you’re not interested in the child’s life- you care not about feeding that child, about ensuring the mother can get a job, you’re against equality in pay for women- or at least having it made law.
As the saying goes…if you can’t trust a woman with a choice, how can you trust her with a child?
And BTW, you ARE an Ahole!!
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 10:11 PM
The above was spoken by a true prophet of God, the Holy One. An ordained minister in His Service.
And probably typical of the religious right- eous.
Pro-Life people believe that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protecting.
Do Pro-Choice people believe that?– Posted by Nathan –
Let’s see… I just said more than once, PRO CHOICE ALWAYS INCLUDES PRO LIFE… Did I not say that??? Was there something about that you didnt understand??? Of Course Pro-Choice people can believe that… IF they CHOOSE to believe it…
However, PRO LIFE never ever includes PRO CHOICE!! You just want to control women, and force them to give up their private, personal reproductive rights…
THAT is not CHOICE… It is CONTROL… pure and simple CONTROL!!!
“In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional fatal drownings in the United States, averaging nine people per day.”
This includes all drownings (I suppose) not just swimming pools.9 per day? Time to make a law!
Political Mom,
You didn’t even stop long enough to try to acknowledge the Pro-Life name or their fundamental belief…
You went straight to the rhetoic.
Imagine that.
Chas,
Actually, there are many people on the Pro-Life side who believe that a woman should have the right to choose when it comes to rape or incest.
Practically all the Pro-Life people believe that a woman should have the right to choose when it comes to her life being in genuine danger.
Only very few of the Pro-Life people believe that abortion should be illegal no matter what.
So once again, you are wrong.
Pro-Life people can also be Pro-Choice.
Sock Puppets are marching in full force now… and it aint even midnight yet… oh well,
I am outta here… you guys have fun talking to yourselves…
Nite PMom!! Blessings!!
Because I don’t believe it…not coming from you. When Mary says it, I believe her intentions. But she’s at least honest enough to understand what would happen if women were taken away that right.
She hopes to help women to keep babies who want them, to try to find ways of helping them to do so. Not mandating that they do.
Warboy/gunboy talking about being pro-life….is really downright hypocritical.
Goodnight Chas.
Chas,
Also, you just proved your own statement wrong:
“PRO CHOICE ALWAYS INCLUDES PRO LIFE”
“Of Course Pro-Choice people can believe that… IF they CHOOSE to believe it…”
So if they don’t believe that… then how is Pro-Choice ALWAYS Pro-Life?
Not really Nathan…. You want to make it ILLEGAL, except for a couple of fairly rare excceptions… NO CHOICE THERE…
Because Pro Choice doesnt want to make it illegal to NOT have an abortion… THAT seems to be what you are not understanding…
Why dont you just give up… You cant handle the abstract thinking involved here…
Political Mom,
You don’t even try to have a rational discussion.
It is really pathetic that you can’t even stop for one post to try to be reasonable.
I have done nothing but answer your questions honestly and attempt to reach understanding with you.
Is the only thing you can do is keep posting the same rhetoric and then say you don’t believe me?
Sad.
And BTW, you ARE an Ahole!!Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 10:11 PM
havent twisted the Bible… I just listed a few references… Make of them what you will….
Posted by: Chas. | September 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM
This guy is a nut alright, but not a religious one. His claim to biblical knowledge and profession as a minister of God are false.
He will rot in hell for his sin. But until then, he will have to be content with blogging lies on the WEBLOG Kansas newspapers have provided for him.
Chas,
Is that your new word to cover the fact that you can’t discuss anything?
Just call it abstract thinking?
LOL
Amen Reverend.
Sets, the banana on the back doorstep.
Time for your pills Kansas… you are talking to yourself again!!
Somebody has just absolutely got to say this… Nathan, you are a scrawny little blithering idiot, and the only thing you have to hang on to is your powerful weapons, and your right wing propaganda… I – among many – fell very sorry for you!! Best advice??? GET A LIFE!!!
“Actually, there are many people on the Pro-Life side who believe that a woman should have the right to choose when it comes to rape or incest.”
#1) The “pro-life” label should be changed to “anti-choice”#2) The “pro-choice” label should be changed to “pro-whatever-no-consequences-if-it-feels-good-oops-whatever”
It would take up more room on the card, but, so what.
I am King. Hear me now. You will obey me.
Abortions allowed for 3 months. All you want. You pay for them.After 3 months, too bad. Should have paid attention.
Hey guys, don’t give Chas such a hard time.
He is the better Christian here, according to sources who routinely bad mouth Christianity…
Nite PMom!! Blessings!!
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Blessings? BLESSINGS? Coming from this unemployed adolescent living at the parents house, is really not worth the nine characters and two exclamation points it was typed with.
Blessings? Must be time he turned to porno, or maybe his relative at the WEBLOG who pulls anything written in opposition to this nut. Chas is insane and is not working – just check his log in times. Anyone can see that.
Now put it all together.
His brother works at the WEBLOG.
, you are a scrawny little blithering idiot, Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 10:30 PM
There is no way this “Chas.” person is a minister of ANYthing. Just read it’s posts.
As the above post illustrates, these are NOT the words of anyone who has professional knowledge of the Word of God.
Quite simply, they are the words of a child spoken in anger.
“GET A LIFE!!!”
A popular phrase with the “less than articulate”.
Probably says, “Don’t go there”, too.
What not.
Myh goodness, Kansas, you must have had another senior moment… You forgot to tell your sock puppet that I am at work again… LOL…. Grundy, you refugee from Brigadoon, why dont yo go back to the highland mist and disappear for another 100 years…
You are a lying piece of crap!!
You just have to make it personal, eh, Kansas??? I live in my OWN house… My parents are DEAD… I am gainfully employed… and YOU sir, are not!! YOU sir, live off of government money… except for whatever your little online job is… like maybe sending out emails or something… YOU sir, are a sad and lonely man, and at some levels, I do feel sorry for you… You sir, routinely tell people how you cant do this, and cant do that, because of your disability…
Maybe some feel sorry for you… I just pity you…. I hope you can find some degree of happiness somewhere in your twisted world of lies and deceit…
I am finished with you!! NO MORE of your crap!! It ends right here… right now!!!
American Pie, YOU sir/madam, are lying scum as well!! Go find another sock puppet to play with… Nobody wants you here!!
Mary you call it selfish, I call it defense. Men don’t have to sacrifice 9 months of their body to have a baby. Did I sacrifice, you bet your ass I did. and it almost destroyed my life financially. Remember all the grief I got for being poor when I was having to stay home with my son? The ‘get a job’ crowd?
Don’t talk to me about sacrifice.
Posted by: political_mom | September 12, 2007 at 08:39 PM
My God Pmom, you act like you are the only Mother on the planet. Were you such a pain in the ass to your own Mother too? The answer is obvious.
No Men don’t carry babies. Most people learn the difference between male and female at a young age.
It must be such a priviledge to be able to grow and carry a baby. It’s a gift, a precious gift of life, and you Pmom look at pregnancy as such a bad thing.
I feel sorry for you. I hope you find peace of mind someday.
Nathan, you are a scrawny little blithering idiot,Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Phillip Brownlee: After you read another crying email from your friend CHAS., complaining about everyone “picking on him”, please note that Chas. can certainly dish it out – but cries to you whenever he cannot take it.
“IF” you once again abide by Chas. and remove any post he does not like, please go back and review the posts Chas. has made. The name calling, fowl language, and defomation of character used in Chas. posts would make a sailor blush.
You cannot remove posts he dislikes, without reviewing what the Chas. has posted itself.
I guess the WEBLOG can remove whatever Chas. tells them too, but then, I’d loose all respect for your blog and newspaper.
So now Chas., you speak for EVERYone on this blog?
Since when did that happen?
Nite all!!!
I’ve seen Chas complain about his own posts being reposted, in effect, crying for his own posts to be removed.
I say leave all of it out there, for GOD and everybody to see.
Hope his congregation is reading too.
What, no Good Night, God Bless, Whatever you conceive of God to be?
By the way Chas…
What do you conceive of God to be?
My my, Chas sure is paranoid. He thinks every other poster is me. :D
Good nite everyone, whatever you conceive your poodle to be.
oh and…
God Bless America!
Nathan, every time you ask that idiotic question, you are mocking the very existence of God!!
For all:
Good Night, Good Luck, and God Bless, whatever you conceive of Got to be!!
Chas,
Between you and I, I am the only willing to admit what God I do believe in…
So I wouldn’t be too quick to say who is mocking God.
We all know what God I believe in and it took all night to get you to even say you were a Christian.
The NUTS on this blog.
Some actually attributed the FBI murders in Waco, Texas to President HW Bush.
Bill Clinton became President on Jan 20, 1993.
Waco Massacre of 82 civilians – DATE April 19, 1993.
Chas goes apeshit because I will defend my rights of freedom from attacks from the government.
Chas, you have spewed reams of BS, admitted to one big mistake earlier today, but have not provided any facts to back up your position on banning guns and eliminating the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Mary, your irrational gun-ban stance is also not backed up by any facts at all. Where are your 5,000 dead kids and 25,000 dead adults? Are you seriously gonna count 16,000 suicides in your totals too? And you define an 18 and 19 year old as a kid!
So, without any logical/rational appeal, Chas/Mary go off like 2 year olds about to get their candy stolen.
And you wonder why 2nd Amendment defenders are so aggressive. We’re defending our rights of freedom, all of the Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment. And defending freedom for poor, lazy, ignorant, and irrational Socialists, can sometimes require aggressive language.
Chas/Mary, don’t be offended personally, afterall you attack others with unfounded emotional screams.
Nathan, Littlejohn, and I, and some others have provided many facts, links, quotes and analysis of such, none of which has been refuted.
But Max,
High powered rifles are murder weapons, I don’t like them…
Jesus said: Beware of those who practice their piety before men… for they have received their reward.
And beware of those who stand on the street corners and pray long prayers… for I tell you they have received their reward.
It isnt for me or anybody else to go around asking people if they are Christians or not just to get your jollies, Nathan…
You had been told a dozen different ways what I am, and who I am, and what I believe… YOU ignored it, and kept up your assinine challenge… So, just to SHUT YOU UP(ha ha) I said what your assinine little brain demanded to see in print…
Now just SHUT UP ABOUT MY FAITH!!! And LEAVE ME ALONE!!!
Jesus taught not to wear your religion on your sleeve… Try it sometime… it really works!!
Now, GOOD NIGHT!!!!
And GOD is whatever you conceive God to be!!! GOT IT???
Chas,
Was this a typo?
“GOD is whatever you conceive God to be!!!”
Or did you finally admit to what I have always thought you believed?
It is just a statement to SHUT YOU UP!!! Obviously what you conceive of God to be isnt the same as me, and mine isnt the same as somebody else, etc., etc., so the statement, as much as you cant seem to digest it, is a TRUE Statement…
This says much about the Socialist Liberal Democrats:
Nothing wrong with Marx…
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 08:53 PM
Might have been a few screwy guys that misinterpreted him, but not much wrong with Marx himself…
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 08:54 PM
Short answer… NO Nathan, you are WRONG AGAIN… as usual
Max, are you brain dead too??? How many times do I have to post on here… I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT… I AM A LIBERTARIAN, WITH LEFTIST LEANINGS…
Now do you get it???? So, please stop calling me a freaking Democrat!!!
Chas,
So if someone conceived of God to be nature and didn’t believe in Jesus…
They would be correct accodrding to you?
“GOD is whatever you conceive God to be!!!”
Reminds me of that old Star Trek show where Spock’s brother led them to a planet where an Alien was pretending to be the Vulcan God, then the Earth God, then whatever.
However, the alien bit the dust with some disrupter’s fired by Spock from that Klingon warship.
Chas is a libertarian now?
A libertarian who doesn’t support gun rights????
“Some actually attributed the FBI murders in Waco, Texas to President HW Bush.”
The warrant that Koresh chose to defy was actually issued under the GHWB administration.
That is a fact, Max.
Get over it.
And it was a legitimate warrant.
By the way, Max, why is Koresh, a known child rapist, a hero to the right wing?
Do ya’ like perverts?
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok Kansas, you can go overboard sometimes… but that made my evening right there…
What did I just say Nathan??? For that person, that is what they conceive of God to be…
Is that what I conceive of God to be??? NO….
Is it what YOU conceive of God to be??? NOOO….
But it IS what that person conceives of God to be!!
Now, can you possibly understand that concept???
I would hope so….. but……
So Chas is a Democrat disguised as Libertarian or is that a Libertarian disguised as a Democrat?
Democrats are whatever you conceive Democrats to be!!!
:)
Nathan,
INSTEAD of making false personal attacks on me, WHY don’t you prove that people like Avery and Singer are honest, and scientifically accurate???
You cannot, because they are not!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer
‘Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/
I have posted numerous times that I am a Libertarian, with leftist leanings… I am NOT a Democrat…
Chas is just to the left of moveon.org
GOOD NIGHT!!!
WEBLOG! More threats from Chas!
I am finished with you!! NO MORE of your crap!! It ends right here… right now!!!
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 10:38 PM
In fact, Kansas, it is my belief that in many instances, MoveOn.org moves between the unwise, and the absurd… I have not been a very enthusiastic fan of many of the things they do…
Like many other fringe groups of both left, and right, they make feeble attempts at humor… many times they backfire on them… even if they attempt to convey some truth on some things…
In reality, YES I might be a bit to the left of MoveOn.org…
“And Power over the People is exactly what the Democrats want.”
In case you missed it in the news, a couple of years ago the current administration collected names and information of all registered gun owners across the country.
But you think it’s the Democrats we need to be wary of. Uh-huh.
Be careful boys. Big Brother is watching, and he has you in his scope. ;)
This thread is approaching 500 posts.
Unbelievable. Shaking my head.
Help! if you call that a threat, then you need some fresh oil in your BOT Brain… LOL
Well, Steven Davis, when the Sock Puppets go on parade, you get a whole bunch of worthless posts… and discussions become difficult, if not meaningless…
Come on 500 posts!
Chas,
I am still amazed…
You call yourself a Libertarian but oppose gun ownership on countless levels.
You call yoursefl a Christian, but believe that God is whatever you coneive of him to be.
What next?
Now, I have GOT to get out of here… I have an early morning meeting… I need to plan out my candidacy for Governor in 2012…
:-)
NITE!!
In reality, YES I might be a bit to the left of MoveOn.org…
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 11:25 PM
The first step to recovery is admission of the problem. Way to go Chas! :)
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a defining portion of the statement, not a separate thought or idea. It defines who is part of the security, IOW, how the militia is formed and by whom. Otherwise, there would have been “(comma)and” or a semi-colon.
Chas,
You are a Christian pastor but you admire Marx? I find that perplexing because it was the ideology of Marx that led directly to the murder of 60 million White Christians in the judeo-bolshevik run gulags of the Soviet Union.
180*
“How can you Republicans complain about abortions when polar bears are dying?”
Posted by: Dummocrat | September 12, 2007 at 09:03 PM
“true that Dummocrat.
I did contribute to the “Space heaters for Polar Bears” fund though.”
Posted by: the troll Kansas | September 12, 2007 at 09:04 PM
Typical Republican values… making a stupid joke about the future extinction of a VERY magnificent species.
Perhaps the troll Kansas can make a joke about humans on Earth starving to death, and women being too malnourished to have children?
Nathan, You and I are proof of my statement being true… As I JUST SAID upthread,
What you conceive God to be, and what I conceive God to be, are obviously not on the same page…
Everybody else is entitled to their beliefs the same as we are…
And somehow you find that to be a problem??? HOW???
I am Libertarian… I believe in the least amount of government possible… BUT… that ultimately means that not the government, but common concensus of the PEOPLE is what makes the rules… within the framework of the Constitution… Therefore, to be in favor of banning certain types of weapons, is not out of the scope of a left leaning Libertarian…
Hint: Communal societies have no governmental structure….
My bad cosmos, I should have stated I contributed to the GORACLE neutering fund.
Chas,
There is a difference between being entitled to your beliefs and those beliefs being true or not.
You didn’t say that people are entitled to their beliefs, you said that God is whatever you conceive of him to be… which is something as a Christian I would think you wouldn’t believe.
As a Christian, isn’t Jesus the way to salvation?
So how can that be true at the same time as god being nature and not needing Jesus for salavtion?
Hint: Communal societies have no governmental structure….
Posted by: Chas. | September 12, 2007 at 11:33 PM
The second coming of Jim Jones?
G – D — Try reading… I have said earlier, that Marx has been terribly misinterpreted, and twisted into totalitarian forms of government… But that is NOT Marxism… That is a twisted ideology loosely based on some of what Marx wrote…
Maybe you should try reading Marx, and you might know that…
Kansas… I knew Jim Jones… That was a sick, sad, twisted tragedy… The man went bonkers… Jonestown was in NO WAY a Communal society… It was strictly Totalitarian…
Chas,
Would you agree with this statement (or something similar):
Our paths towards eternity are all spokes on the same wheel. No matter what you believe, we are all headed to the same place.
Nathan, that is nowhere close to what I have said, however it is fairly close to what the folks at B’Hai World faith believe…
Some famous Marx quotes:
Before I speak, I have something important to say.Groucho Marx
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.Groucho Marx
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.Groucho Marx
Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.Groucho Marx
:)
Chas,
There is a difference between being entitled to your beliefs and those beliefs being true or not.
You didn’t say that people are entitled to their beliefs, you said that God is whatever you conceive of him to be… which is something as a Christian I would think you wouldn’t believe.
As a Christian, isn’t Jesus the way to salvation?
So how can that be true at the same time as god being nature and not needing Jesus for salavtion?
NATHAN…
Aren’t you going to defend your opinion, and the Marine Corp honor, and try to refute the five “counterpoints”, and seven other falsehoods here???http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air
From a website funded by the left?
That is not credible.
Well, so long we’re doing comic relief now. . .
“Now you just wait a minute, Mr. Burns! I really need this job! If you want the kind of employee that takes abuse–I’m your man! You can treat me like dirt, and I’ll still kiss your butt and call it ice cream! If you don’t like that–I’ll change!”
“I like this man’s attitude!”From the Simpsons, “I married Marge” (1991)
I am only goiong to say this one more time…
“God bless, whatever you conceive of Got to be…”
Just because you have YOUR set of beliefs, that does not require others to have the SAME beliefs… Unless you are going to insist that YOU are right, and others are wrong…
YOU have your beliefs… I have MY beliefs… Others have theirs…
It is not YOUR job, or MY job, or anybody else’s JOB to attempt to pass judgment on who has the RIGHT set of beliefs…
Many in this world are Nature believers… Thousands if not millions…
Many in this world have NO deity… such as Buddhists…
Many others have multiple deities… such as the Hindu’s…
It is NOT OUR JOB as Christians, or Moslems, or Jews, or anything else, to say who is RIGHT and who isnt… All we can do is be faithful to OUR beliefs… whtever we conceive them to be!!
Now, can you FINALLY get that???
Chas–you DO realize that you’re not REQUIRED To respond to any of this, don’t you?
The sock puppets usually don’t mess with me, because I just laugh at them!
Just a thought. . .
I know Rage… But I am getting just a little bit tired of Nathan and his constant harrassment!!
He has already stuck his foot in his mouth plenty already… by challenging me every day what I mean by my sign off… NOW I am just unloading the whole wagon load of feed….
Chas,
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
So do you believe what Jesus said Chas?
“I did contribute to the “Space heaters for Polar Bears” fund though.”
Posted by: the troll Kansas | September 12, 2007 at 09:04 PM
The troll Kansas believes that the extinction of Polar bears is a joke.http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/
You have got to be either the stupidist person on this Blog, or just plain idiotic… Did you not read what I just said???
And IF NOT…. then just STUFF all your religious bologna somewhere, and sit on it!!
I am finished with you… I dont CARE what YOU believe… Because, in the long run, you are no more right than any body else…
So —-
Good Night, Good Luck, and God bless… whatever you conveive God to be!!! And thats as simple of a Truth as there is!!
Chas
As a Christian, isn’t Jesus the way to salvation?
Good Night Nathan!!
“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
“But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.”
Nathan, some folks in my church believe God is Mother as well as Father… Not all of them, but some of them… Thought you might like to know that —
If those are the things YOU believe, then by all means, be faithful to them… And stop trying to pawn it off onto everybody else!!! It is most offensive to many people!!
Oh, it is printed as Mother/Father God… NOT God and Goddess… that would be a little bit too Wikkan for us… :-)
Chas,
Why do you call yourself a Christian?
OK, Nathan… I have had it with your absurdity… You refuse to deal with anything I post, and just keep on with your idiotic harrassment…. So, You are now a persona non grata as far as I am concerned… Go believe whatever you want… Nobody is challenging you… Try showing the same respect for others… I would think as good American, and a good Marine, you could at least do that!!
“It is about the aleged right a woman has over her body.”
Nathan, would you like to reword that sentence? (And correct the spelling of alleged?) If not, are you saying that woman have no rights where their bodies are concerned?
We have two totally different understandings of Christianity… We are not on the same page…
So, just stop with your nonsense, because I know you can understand that much…
And with that, I am out of here… and please, Nathan, dont try to pick this up again…
I might not be as nice as I am being right now… I do have limits…
Rox,
I don’t consider the unborn child to be the womans body.
I believe it to be a life worthy of protecting.
Thus I believe that the life of the unborn child does indeed trump the convienence of the mother in certain regards.
“If not, are you saying that woman have no rights where their bodies are concerned?”
Rox,
Of course that is what he is saying. Where have you been girl? Nathan’s beliefs are 8th century, much like those of Osama bin Ladin.
Chas,
Why do you call yourself a Christian?
I am not simply trying to be a pest.
If you don’t believe that Jesus is the key to salvation and you think that whatever anyone believes is true, why do you call yourself a Christian?
Traditionally, at least it is the ‘norm’, Christians believe that Christ is the ket to salvation and you must have faith in him.
So, why don’t you and why do you call yourself a Christian?
“From a website funded by the left?
That is not credible.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 12, 2007 at 11:56 PM
The very WEAK “attack the messenger” tactic???
1) Try to prove your opinion that Dr. David Archer “is not credible”.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=163
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/
2) Try to prove that his comments do NOT = credible, peer-reviewed climate science.
3) Try to prove that Avery’s “think tank”(sic) is scientifically accurate, and NOT right-wing funded.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute
You CANNOT, so you will instead slink away, and hide like a coward.
Or, make some more garbage posts, to try to hide your being wrong.
“There is a difference between being entitled to your beliefs and those beliefs being true or not.”
And who determines what is true or not?
Your faith tells you that your beliefs are true. Others’ faiths tell them the same. Neither means one is any truer or even less true than the other.
In your heart, you believe that you are correct. It is the same in the heart of someone who believes nature is the “true God” or whatever belief or faith someone follows. Doesn’t make either right, except to themselves.
If ten people witness an accident, there will be ten versions of what happened. Each of those ten will believe what they saw is true, and it is true…to each of them. The same is true with religion.
I admire your belief and your faith in your conception of who/what God is, but it doesn’t make yours the only conception or even necessarily true to anyone but you.
Now post the definition of faith, please. :)
Cosmos,
I was taking a pafe from your play book.
Why bother discussing the issue when you can simply say that anyone is a liar or hack.
If they are posting on realclimate.org which is linked to funding by various left leaning groups, they must also be biased.
Just like you and Al Gore say about anyone that has ever been linked to ‘big oil’
Rox,
You do understand that there can only be one truth?
Either Jesus is the way or he is not.
I agree, people can (and do) believe whatever they want.
I can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are wrong or that I am right. (faith)
However, Christianity does indeed make the claim that Christ is the way.
Chas doesn’t agree with this, thus I wonder why he calls himself a Christian.
That is the question here.
“I don’t consider the unborn child to be the womans body.”
Nathan, I wasn’t commenting on the unborn child. I was commenting on your statement as it stood. Maybe if you had prefaced it with, “Where abortion is concerned…” or something similar, it wouldn’t have stopped me in my tracks when I read it.
Keep in mind that if not for that woman’s body, the child would have no way to grow and become a viable baby. Basically, it is a parasite, much like mistletoe growing on an oak tree. As far as I know, science has not yet discovered a way to “grow a baby” completely in a test tube or petri dish.
Which is not to say I’m arguing with your belief, only the way you stated it. Believe me, I would do my best to argue anyone out of having an abortion, but in the end, it is not my decision. It is the legal decision of the woman, whose body is providing life in its most basic form, her doctor, and her God, whatever she conceives God to be. ;)
Nathan, you little liar… Find ONE post where I said I disagreed with that!!!
Now you’re down to sleeze!!!
That is just plain WRONG boy!!!
Chas,
Please.
These statements are incompatable:
“GOD is whatever you conceive God to be”
“Jesus Christ is the key to salvation”
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
you shall have no other gods before me.”
You cant just go around this Blog posting what other people believe… Because, YOU DONT KNOW THAT…. And just because I am not on the same page as you are on, YOU have NO RIGHT to say what I belive… THAT you little weasel is the VERY REASON why I WONT tell you what I believe… Because you have only ONE way to look at MANY things… and that ONE WAY is Nathan’s WAY!!
You are proving it again with Rox… and that issue… It is either Nathan’s way, or NO way… I know of some who would ask you what kind of Christianity believes that sort of thing!! I wont ask you that… But MANY would…
SO, I want you to post right here on this Blog, that YOU DONT KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE, and that you take back what you just said about my not believing what you just posted earlier…
And I want it done NOW!!!
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Nathan, other religions make the same claim, that theirs in the one, true way. That doesn’t mean I am denigrating your faith or your religion.
“You do understand that there can only be one truth?”
I understand it’s what you believe. Which is not to say that there isn’t one truth, only that the one truth may be a culmination of many truths coming together to be one. Maybe no one is right. Maybe everyone is right. Your faith tells you yours is. That’s cool, no problem. But is your job to question Chas’s beliefs, which may or may not be very similar to yours?
Chas,
I don’t think so Chas.
You have denied God tonight:
“GOD is whatever you conceive God to be”
Let me hear you say that you have faith in Christ and that you must have faith in him to be saved, then I will take back what I said.
In YOUR mind they might well be incompatible… Just say that, and move on… For MILLLIONS of people it is NOT incompatible!!!
You just hang onto your faith… and let others hang on to theirs… IF YOU CANT DO THAT… just dont say anything at all… because it makes you look dense, and stupid…
I told you once I am a Christian… NOW you want more… After that you will want more… AND YOU ARENT GOING TO GET IT…
LIKE I SAID, YOU ARE NOW A PERSONA NON GRATA TO ME… I DONT CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE…. IF IT MAKES YOU HAPPY, THEN AMEN TO THAT!!
BUT KNOW THIS…. MY FAITH MAKES ME JUST AS HAPPY AS YOUR FAITH MAKES YOU!!!
And that is just something you need to learn to live with!!!
Rox,
If Chas said he was a Muslim, I wouldn’t say one thing to him, unless we were having a religious discussion.
Chas claims to be a Christian. So I am wondering why he claims to be Christian, but rejects the very foundation ( or refuses to acknowledge it ) of what Christianity is.
Of course other religions think they are correct.
And I don’t pester them at all, unless we are having a discussion on it.
“However, Christianity does indeed make the claim that Christ is the way.
Chas doesn’t agree with this, thus I wonder why he calls himself a Christian.”
I respectfully disagree, Nathan. Chas has not said that Christ is not the Way. He said, “…whatever YOU conceive God to be”, not what he does. He’s allowing others to have their beliefs, whether he agrees with them or not, and that does include you.
You are like tallking to a brick WALL!!! you weasel… YOU can come on here and call me a liar because I dont share the same interpretation as you do of Christianity….
What in God’s name gives you that right??? NOTHING gives you that right…
Now, stop badgering me with your insignificant drivel….
MY faith is just as good as YOUR faith…. If you cant get that… go join the Taliban… Cause that is just what you are acting like… An American Taliban… YOUR faith, or NO faith… And dont try to spin out of it, ccause you have said too darn many times tonite!!
If it isnt YOUR faith, then it isnt the RIGHT faith… Boy, you got a LOT of learning to do!!
And I suggest you start it REAL SOON!!!
“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
“But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.”
So Chas, do you confess Jesus before men or don’t you?
“Cosmos,
I was taking a pafe from your play book.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 13, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Nathan, you are big embarassment to all rational, logical humans.
I’ve pointed out that your “messenger” was biased, AND more importantly, that their “message” was NOT credible, peer-reviewed science.
But all that YOU do is falsely attack the “messenger”.
Are you really UNABLE to understand the climate science, actual observations, etc.? Are you really that clueless?
Rox,
Chas said:
“GOD =====>>> IS <<<===== whatever you conceive God to be”
He also said:
“It is NOT OUR JOB as Christians, or Moslems, or Jews, or anything else, to say who is RIGHT and who isnt…”
Chas is unwilling to say Christ is the way to salvation.
I wonder why that is?
I could go ask every Christian I have ever met this question and every one of them without hesitation would say that Christ is the way to salavtion.
Why won’t Chas?
Nathan, even men of the cloth don’t agree on everything. That’s why there are so many denominations in Christianity. Each demonimation worships in their own way, but they all share core beliefs.
We’ll have to save this for another day…unless you’d like to come take care of my 3-year-old grandson and his not quite 3-week-old brother tomorrow. :)
‘Nite…
Are you aware that there are somewhere between 300 – 500 different Christian Denominations in the world???
You act like YOU have the only corner of the market of understanding Christianity… You only got one little teeny tiny piece of the whole picture…
And so do I…. one little teeny tiny piece of the whole picture…
Now, you go your way with your faith, and I will go my way with mine…
Now, there isnt anything left to say… You are a persona non grata to me… as long as you act like you own the rule book on Christianity….
And Good night, Good Luck, and God Bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Nite all!!
Cosmos,
“I’ve pointed out that your “messenger” was biased”
“But all that YOU do is falsely attack the “messenger”.”
LOL
Chas,
There are many denominations, but the one CORE thing we all (well, nearly all) agree on is that Christ is the key to salvation.
The differences in the varying denominations are mostly disagreements on other little things like playing music in church…
Chas,
Why do you deny Jesus before men?
“Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
“But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.”
Well, shoot, that alarm is going to ring way too early, but…
“GOD =====>>> IS <<<===== whatever you conceive God to be”
But that’s true! Even among Christians, each conception is different in some way. That’s not a bad thing. I don’t think Jesus is condemning any of them. Maybe He IS all those things. (Isn’t there a quote about Him being all things to all people?) After all, He IS the Son of God, right?
“Chas is unwilling to say Christ is the way to salvation.
I wonder why that is?”
Maybe he feels its best left said in church. Maybe he’s realized that no matter what he says, you will pick it apart until nothing is left. We’ve discussed this before, Nathan. Religion is in your heart. Not everyone is comfortable witnessing in a public place such as this blog. Does that make them less of a Christian than you or ksgrm or anyone else?
It appears that what you’re doing is judging his faith, and not everyone will measure up to your standards. Isn’t that God’s job?
Chas,
Why do you deny Jesus before men?
Posted by: Nathan | September 13, 2007 at 12:59 AM
======================
There you go LYING again… Not answering your questions is NOT denying Jesus before men..
It is simply that.. NOT answering your questions!!
And you would be amazed at the major differences in the denominations… playing music in church is one of the MINOR ones…
But, if you havent ever studied any church history, you wouldnt know that… and that comment on “differences” proves that you have done little or no studying in Church History…
Chas,
I would love to discuss differences in denominations.
I have studied them.
Why are you a Christian?
Nope I am not going to go any farther with this comedy of the absurd… Just stop harrassing me… I am a Christian… And that is ALL that YOU need to know…
Now go to bed or something, you little tiny persona non grata!!
GOOD NIGHT!!!
You are a very small, deprived person… I feel very sorry for you and your narrowness of mind!!
God’s Blessing on you…
Rox,
Actually, the more vague and unwilling Chas has been is exactly what is driving my curiousity.
He could make this all end if he would simply profess his faith in Christ as the key to salvation.
Or
Stop calling himself a Christian
Or
Explain why he considers himself one if he doesn’t profess Christ is the key to salvation.
Or
Just ignore me
I say again…
Chas is no pastor.
Rox,
“But that’s true! Even among Christians, each conception is different in some way.”
No it is not.
If I conceive of God to be a golden calf… is that true?
Is that true if I am a Christian???
And if you think your are so smucking fart, Which Sunday in Ordinary Time is September 16, and What are the key lectinary readings for the day, and the alternates???
And what colors are we wearing for this time and season???
You want more??
And, we are baptizing babies this week as well… For a part of the PEACE SUNDAY SERVICE…
Try that one on for size…
And most likely, we will use a fresh bottle of WINE… for the Holy Eucharist as well, since it is a special liturgy for PEACE…
And the bread will not be unleavened, since it is the Post Easter cycle… We dont want to use “Dead Bread” to celebrate a Living Christ….
Now, what are you going to say??? You think you know your denominations??? Go for it Mr. Brain!!!
From God Himself:
“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
You shall have no other gods before Me.”
“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,”
Where (And I do mean anywhere) in the Bible does God ever say or anyone ever say that:
God is whatever you conceive of him to be????
I didnt say it was from the Bible, now did I Nathan?? It is a statement of respect for ALL faiths… which apparently you seem to be lacking… tsk tsk tsk…
I have a Bible program on my computer too, Nathan… no big deal there…
So you deny God before men to respect faiths which do not believe in God?
NATHAN…
I posted: “… AND more importantly, that their “message” was NOT credible, peer-reviewed science.”
Okay Nathan, explain WHY Earth has been RAPIDLY warming during the last three decades, when solar activity was DROPPING!!!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
But Nathan cannot, so he makes garbage posts. Nathan is a big embarassment to rational humans, and the Marines.
Make some more garbage posts Nathan, and then run away like a coward.
In some of our churches, we have two sacraments… In others we have 2 1/2 sacraments. Depends on which part of the Reformed traditions we are from…
Some of our churches baptize babies… some dont… Some believe in a form of Spirit Baptism, like the Quakers… In no case do we practice Believers Baptism… like most of the Reformed Tradition, we practice Baptism, followed by Confirmation…
You want differences??? LOTS of differences… and so far I am just in my OWN denomination!!
WRONG AGAIN Bible boy… I think you are just intentionally being STUPID and DENSE…
Nobody can be this DENSE…
Where do you come up with “denyhing God” You just make it up as you go…
I told you, I am not playing your one sided, TROLLING GAME!!
So, TROLL NATHAN…. KNOCK IT OFF!!! I am not going to discuss it any further with you… not tonite, not any other time… I have better things to do with my time… Pity that you dont…
NITE NITE NOW!!
The proliferation of day laborer hiring sites has paralleled the explosion of the illegal alien problem in the United States. What was once largely a problem confined to large city sweatshops and seasonal crop agriculture has expanded enormously as illegal aliens have spread across the country into the meat processing industry, construction, assembly-line work, services such as landscaping, and all sorts of casual day labor jobs. Studies show 84 percent of day laborers are illegal immigrants.1
The hiring sites that have mushroomed around the country generally have been created to deal with the problems caused by groups of immigrant workers (largely illegal aliens) who congregate on street corners waiting for persons seeking laborers to drive by. In some areas, these informal hiring sites have caused traffic disturbances, and the lack of sanitary facilities has often led to public urination. Nearby established businesses have often complained to the police that the gatherings drive away their clients. Other common complaints include public drunkenness and harassment of pedestrians.
In response, some private groups (often including Latino service groups and church-based groups) have worked to get local governments to establish formal hiring sites to get these workers off the streets. Part of this approach is to establish an orderly process for the workers to match up with employers and to establish a record of the employer so that if there is a complaint of non-payment, there is a basis for investigation.
DAY LABOR CENTERS IGNORE RULES AGAINST ILLEGAL WORKERS
The reason that day labor hiring sites should not be tolerated by local governments is that they ignore the issue of the work status of the worker, thus facilitating illegal immigration. The center managers argue that it is the responsibility of the employers, not them, to verify the work eligibility of the employee hired. While this may be technically correct, if there is local government support for a hiring site, it is reasonable for a prospective employer to assume that the worker who is made available through the site is legally entitled to work. Thus, the hiring centers may not only facilitate the employment of unauthorized workers, they may also encourage the employer of the day laborer to break the law against hiring illegal aliens.
HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS AT A DAY LABOR CENTER IS A CRIMESince the adoption in 1986 of the Immigration Reduction and Control Act (IRCA), it has been illegal for an employer to hire an illegal alien. The IRCA gave rise to a system of document checking by empoyers (the I-9 form) to control against violations.
In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the hiring or continued employment of an unauthorized alien.2 Violation of this law involves the felony of concealing, harboring, and shielding illegal aliens from detection and is demonstrated when employees lack work authorization documents, are paid in cash, Social Security or federal taxes are not withheld, and the employer fails to pay employer contributions.3
DAY LABOR CENTERS DRIVE DOWN WORK CONDITIONS FOR LEGAL WORKERSAll state governments and most, if not all, county governments and large city governments operate labor departments funded by federal and state unemployment trust accounts. Their responsibility is to try to match out-of-work residents (often receiving unemployment benefits) with employers seeking workers. These labor departments assist job placement of legally employable workers. The day labor hiring centers that are currently erupting in areas of large concentrations of illegal aliens circumvent and undermine the taxpayer-funded operation of the government employment offices. Among the screening standards provided by an official placement office is assuring that the employment complies with legal requirements, such as the minimum wage and overtime payments. The employer sanctions provisions of the immigration law specifically provide that workers hired through a state employment agency are to be considered legal workers.4
Employers hiring workers from day labor centers often will avoid legal standards, pay less than the minimum wage, fail to withhold salary for taxes, and avoid paying into the unemployment fund and other expenses. Those employers illegally cut the costs of employment and, in the process, decrease the job opportunities for qualified workers who may be unemployed, but who are unwilling to work for cash payments under the table. As a result of this process, the wages that a qualified worker may earn become depressed towards the wages that the illegal workers are willing to accept. The effect of the day labor centers is, therefore, to benefit the illegal alien workers and the employers who are breaking the law in hiring them, while at the same time undercutting the earning potential and opportunities for some of the country’s most needy workers. It also increases the burden on taxpayers because of the cost of general assistance provided to the out-of-work residents.
DAY LABOR CENTERS DEPRESS WORKING STANDARDSMany of the employers of day laborers are contractors who are working on construction sites. They use day laborers because it offers greater flexibility as the workload fluctuates depending on weather and the economy. Such construction contract work is highly competitive, and unless the contractor is working on a government contract, the cost of wages may determine who wins the contract. In this kind of environment, the contractor who cuts labor costs by suppressing wages has an advantage, something that using illegal workers helps to achieve.
A contractor who is scrupulous about respecting the law and hiring only legal workers may thus be at a comparative disadvantage in competing for a contract. Over time, greater pressure will develop for all competitors to use illegal workers, and the wages that are offered to day laborers may become depressed so far that legal workers are unwilling to take these jobs.
Greg Feere, the head of the Contra Costa (Calif.) Building and Construction Trade Council explains, “What it [the day laborer hiring site] basically does is put a legitimate contractor at a disadvantage. You get non-union contractors who don’t work by the rules, don’t offer worker’s compensation and pay with cash.”5
DAY LABOR CENTERS ATTRACT ADDITIONAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTSA day labor hiring center that makes no distinction between legal and illegal workers sends a message to illegal workers that our society does not care whether a worker is legally in the country or is in violation of our immigration law. It also invites other illegal aliens to come and take advantage of the inviting environment.
For example, in New Jersey where several day labor hiring centers have been established, the number of workers seeking to find jobs through these centers has continuously increased so that pressure has been created to establish still additional informal hiring sites. By accommodating this, local governments are creating conditions whereby the population of illegal workers will simply expand and generate further pressures until such time that the demand for such workers is entirely fulfilled, at which time the community is likely to find that it has a large number of unemployed illegal aliens as well as legal residents.
WHAT CAN WE DO?The most important point to remember is that local action has succeeded in confronting and deterring the proliferation of day labor hiring sites. The Get Involved/What You Can Do section of FAIR’s website describes several options for Confronting Illegal Day Labor Issues in Your Community.
The actions will vary depending on the circumstances, but they include:
Encouraging local residents and merchants to complain to law enforcement and local government bodies about loitering, public urination, litter, or sexual harassment problems.
Pressing local governments to enact an ordinance to prohibit all solicitations of moving vehicles.
Filing lawsuits based on public nuisance laws.
Creating a photographic record of curbside hiring – both of laborers and employers, which can document the hiring activity and those involved in it. (The funders and managers of day labor hiring sites are legally accountable if it can be shown to have actual knowledge that hiring hall users or beneficiaries include illegal aliens or other unauthorized workers.)
Identifying and documenting the amounts and sources of financial support used to pay for the hiring hall. If Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are used to pay for services to illegal aliens, statutes restricting the use of federal funds may have been violated.
Organizing protest activities.
Chas. has exceeded the maximum capacity for posting “good night” on this blog.
Please refrain from answering posts to this completely confused, totally indecisive, individual. He is the finest specimen of a “lost soul” as there ever has been.
God Bless him.
And good-night (one time post).
Does that make them less of a Christian than you or ksgrm or anyone else?
It appears that what you’re doing is judging his faith, and not everyone will measure up to your standards. Isn’t that God’s job?
Posted by: Rox | September 13, 2007 at 01:05 AM
Rox, I am not judging Chas. What I am doing is listening to what he tells others and it doesn’t jive with what he says about himself or what he says he is. If you truely feel as Nathan and I do that Jesus Christ is the answer, the only true answer but you allow others to make cheap jokes about him and even go along with those jokes – you are showing a disrespect that doesn’t go along with your stated profession in MOHO.
He can define his faith in his own way. And as for not being comfortable professing his faith in a public venue – he is a minister for heavens sake. How much more visible could he be?