Yeah, except for stuff like women who want to control whether to birth a baby, or gays wanting to marry - y'all are BIG on individual enpowerment...
snood wrote:Yeah, except for stuff like women who want to control whether to birth a baby, or gays wanting to marry - y'all are BIG on individual enpowerment...
I've been trying to point out several times the hypocrisy of people on this thread.
I on the other hand agree with the right to choose, gay marriage, and the 2nd amendment.
snood wrote:Yeah, except for stuff like women who want to control whether to birth a baby, or gays wanting to marry - y'all are BIG on individual enpowerment...
Your implication that there is a contradiction is nonsense. The idea that people should have the right to individual self-defense doesn't imply that they should be empowered to do anything they wish to. Since you have neatly avoided the question, I'll simply ask you. Do you in fact disagree with the general philosophy that each individual has the right to defend himself if necessary?
Brandon9000 wrote:snood wrote:Yeah, except for stuff like women who want to control whether to birth a baby, or gays wanting to marry - y'all are BIG on individual enpowerment...
Your implication that there is a contradiction is nonsense. The idea that people should have the right to individual self-defense doesn't imply that they should be empowered to do anything they wish to. Since you have neatly avoided the question, I'll simply ask you. Do you in fact disagree with the general philosophy that each individual has the right to defend himself if necessary?
You're the one doin' the dancing here, genius. You just went, in two posts, from saying "we have the strange idea that individual citizens should be enpowered", to "people should have the right to self-defense". One is a general statement, the other is specific. You only got specific
after I pointed out the obvious hypocrisy.
People have a right to self-defence against disease, say malaria for example, and they get inoculations (I can't say "shots" here) for that. But medical science and common sense says it's better to eradicate the disease.
Here the disease is the number of guns in circulation, and some people's attitude to the gun.
Good analogy?
Re: deaths in Iraq. I recall that during the Vietnam conflict, Vietnam war was on page one every single blessed day, whether there was anything significantly new to report or not. The media aren't doing that with Iraq. In fact, they're barely reporting it at all. The complaint then was that the war was being over-reported in an attempt to glorify it. Now the complaint is that it's under-reported in an effort to minimize its devastating impact. Can't have it both ways, you know.
Merry Andrew wrote:Re: deaths in Iraq. I recall that during the Vietnam conflict, Vietnam war was on page one every single blessed day, whether there was anything significantly new to report or not. The media aren't doing that with Iraq. In fact, they're barely reporting it at all. The complaint then was that the war was being over-reported in an attempt to glorify it. Now the complaint is that it's under-reported in an effort to minimize its devastating impact. Can't have it both ways, you know.
Why can't you have it both ways if both are true? They are two differrent wars in different times frames.
About the first I really wouldn't know, about second, I don't watch tv news anymore. I read the news on the internet and catch up with tv news on the internet, don't seem to miss much as far as I can tell.
farmerman wrote:are you assuming that the information is incorrect?My point is that Barretts are being "marketed" as the interview with the president of the company that makes barretts seemed to indicate. Data is what the data is. Who prints it is often immaterial.
No, I am assuming the "data" (which isn't data at all - it is opinion) is biased. I'd give it the same amount of credibility as I'd give the Democratic Party's view of what the Republicans stand for or what the Republic Party things the Democrats stand for.
It is far from any level of "evidence" of anything related to what the gun industry "perceives" as you stated. It is what an extremely anti-gun group thinks the gun industry perceives.
Killer in Reverse: Virginia Shooter Gets New Name
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote: Many Media still have not corrected Cho's name. In Asia, his name order would be Seung-Hui Cho. CNN is still calling him Seung-Hui as his last name. ---BBB
------------------------------------------------------
Merry Andrew wrote: Btw, BBB, if the shooter's name in his native Asia is Seung-Hui Cho then the networks are absolutely right in referring to him as Mr. Seung-Hui. In Asia -- i.e., China, Korea,. Indo-China -- the family name always comes first, followed by the personal pronomen. Apparently he adopted the Western custom of putting the family name last and thus here he is known as Co Seung-Hui.
Please don't thank me.
-------------------------------------------
Killer in Reverse: Virginia Shooter Gets New Name
Published: April 20, 2007
E & P
BLACKSBURG, VA In a statement to the Associated Press today, the family of the student responsible for the Virginia Tech shootings says his name is Seung-Hui Cho not Cho Seung-Hui as first reported to the media by police and school officials.
The Asian American Journalists Association notes that while Korean names are traditionally written with the surname first, many families adopt the western order of surname last when they emigrate to the United States.
The Cho family came to the U-S in 1992, when he was eight years old.
The AP said it will use the Cho family's preference.
Re: Killer in Reverse: Virginia Shooter Gets New Name
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote: Many Media still have not corrected Cho's name. In Asia, his name order would be Seung-Hui Cho. CNN is still calling him Seung-Hui as his last name. ---BBB
------------------------------------------------------
Merry Andrew wrote: Btw, BBB, if the shooter's name in his native Asia is Seung-Hui Cho then the networks are absolutely right in referring to him as Mr. Seung-Hui. In Asia -- i.e., China, Korea,. Indo-China -- the family name always comes first, followed by the personal pronomen. Apparently he adopted the Western custom of putting the family name last and thus here he is known as Co Seung-Hui.
Please don't thank me.
-------------------------------------------
Killer in Reverse: Virginia Shooter Gets New Name
Published: April 20, 2007
E & P
BLACKSBURG, VA In a statement to the Associated Press today, the family of the student responsible for the Virginia Tech shootings says his name is Seung-Hui Cho not Cho Seung-Hui as first reported to the media by police and school officials.
The Asian American Journalists Association notes that while Korean names are traditionally written with the surname first, many families adopt the western order of surname last when they emigrate to the United States.
The Cho family came to the U-S in 1992, when he was eight years old.
The AP said it will use the Cho family's preference.
That certainly clears that up. Thnx, BBB.
The fact that you can do terrible violence with a knife is not a valid reason to forbid people to own knives. It's foolish to make policy based on the most extereme outlying points. For every psycho who becomes a deranged sniper, there are many, many law abiding citizens who want a gun for self defense in an emergency.
Yeah, but that's just a buncha hyperbole. Cho couldn't have gotten a handgun if the BR check had just included mental health records along with criminal records. All that would have to happen is to include any kind of involuntary mental health treatment (and please see if you can restrain yourself from launching into another semantic game about what 'involuntary' reallymeans). No UN blue helmets confiscating all the good ole boys' guns, no re-enactment of Waco, nothing dramatic.
snood wrote: Cho couldn't have gotten a handgun if the BR check had just included mental health records...
This remains a ridiculous contention no matter how many times it's repeated. 23 year old college kids don't have trouble purchasing illegal things, be they drugs or weapons. Please.
Ah, but he in particular had trouble talking, he might have had trouble buying a street gun. But I get your point, O'Bill.
How many "extereme outlying points" must one have before they decide to change policy? Why must we make it so easy for a "deranged sniper" to acquire a gun?
What we need are stricter gun control laws. If there are those who disagree with that than what is the alternative?
Just catching up, appreciate fishin' and dlowan's responses after mine on page 50. My lifelong angst is that my dad was institutionalized, at Camarillo, after that episode, later transferred to the VA, where he died after a heart attack, younger than I am now.
The good thing is the jump away from some of the old vile treatment of people, and the negative is the fact that with people, professional or otherwise well meaning, having their ability to treat held back by legal constraints, some people still die rather horrible deaths as homeless, or attack others. (Though many fatal attacks of others are seemingly simple domestic disputes.) I agree it's a mess of a situation, understanding as I do, the civil rights aspect too. And I agree with dlowan that the change, which did happen after my father's time, was primarily triggered by monetary concerns, or so I thought at the time.
Moving along, I agree with fishin' and dlowan on page 53 too. Stay tuned...
ossobuco wrote:Ah, but he in particular had trouble talking, he might have had trouble buying a street gun. But I get your point, O'Bill.
He didn't seem to have any trouble talking to the people he bought them from. Why should another be any harder?
xingu wrote:What we need are stricter gun control laws. If there are those who disagree with that than what is the alternative?
Laws that do not restrict legal gun owners from carrying concealed if they so desire and pass the required tests.
Illegal gun owners already do this.
