 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / December 2007For anyone that's interested
http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm Well, Gannett can't be happy about this poll. I'm surprised they haven't pulled it already. Rick Simms > http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm > > Well, Gannett can't be happy about this poll. I'm surprised they > haven't pulled it already. > > Rick Simms Another -resounding testament- for FUTILE John Francis's "silent majority".  SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectvefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:22:44 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Another -resounding testament- for FUTILE John Francis's "silent >majority". Isn't it nice how much easier it is to have faith in something that supports your own ideology. I'll bet Dennis won't argue with the process used on this one. JF > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:22:44 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > supports your own ideology. I'll bet Dennis won't argue with the > process used on this one. You'd know. The last poll you quoted had loaded questions and 400 respondents, and you whizzed right by the bad sh.t. This wasn't a Futile John wife beating question. It was simple and direct, from a relatively non-partisan news source, with a large response. And burns you bad. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectvefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:38:25 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:22:44 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > And burns you bad. It is what it is. Rick's one of those progun folks I respect for his sanity, and I'm certain he's had far more involvement in the formal lobbying process than any of you cowboys here. I stand to be corrected on that but I'm sure if any of you had contributed anything besides hot air, bluster and gunny cant we'd have heard about it long ago. It's interesting, and telling, how some folks can be intelligently supportive of their cause without being whiney, abusive and/or threatening to make their point. I'm sure folks like Rick have far more credibility with people in a position of actual influence than you and the metoos with yer vacuous bluster and bullying. You're lucky you have people like Rick on your side. On your own you'd make a ballsup of it all, just like you do here. I've never felt the urge to twist Rick's tail about his guns. That's because of the calm sensible way he's talked about them with me in the past. I've frankly never given much thought to guns at all, being from Canada, before I started to visit rec.scuba. This time in rec.scuba has been an eyeopener for me. I hadn't realized the extent of the craziness with some folks over mere guns. Does any of that give you any at all clue about where I stand in this whole silly game? Probably not. You can't see through your anger and self-interest far enuf to realize that I'm not antigun, just antiblowhard, and antibully. So, wee one, (to quote another rec.scuban of dubious social skills) ponder on that for a while. JF > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:38:25 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > JF We aren't sure of much form you. You have advocated confiscation, in somewhat limited (but undefined) conditions. You appear to be afraid of people with weapons, even to calling them "antisocial". You will not take the time to define you position well enough to be clearly understood. On the one hand, you have issues with them, on the other hand, you have no problem with sensible carriage of firearms. You waffle. When asked to define your position, you don't reply. No, I am not sure where you stand. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:38:25 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> on your side. On your own you'd make a ballsup of it all, just like >> you do here. I don't do anything but flame your pathetic attemps at narcissicim here. You accuse and accuse and accuse, and I prove and prove and prove. Who the blusterer is is clear. Who is killfiled by a number of intelligent and reasonable people is clear. I don't pretend to speak for a cause, and I never pretended to live by or obey any law but my own. I don't defend what I do, I state what I do (learned that from the great Hal Watts), and then we all watch -you- whine, scurry, make excuses and lie. I've documented scores of your lies, and you can't provide the gallery with -one- of the dozens you've accused me of. That makes -you- the bully, hurling isults over your shoulder as you flee, attacking the reasonable like Lee and Dennis and Bert because you can't put your most basic claims to -any- level of explanation, let alone proof. Anyone here who ever thought you were tail twisting and that all your oral flatulance wasn't about your crushed and shunned ego need only read a post like this to see how desperate you are. >> I've never felt the urge to twist Rick's tail about his guns. That's >> because of the calm sensible way he's talked about them with me in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> self-interest far enuf to realize that I'm not antigun, just >> antiblowhard, and antibully. On the contrary. >> So, wee one, (to quote another rec.scuban of dubious social skills) >> ponder on that for a while. No need. My "side" is winning by a landslide, and you scurry from more and more Rec.scubans every day. The cheese is old and moldy, dude. >> JF > > We aren't sure of much from you. > > You have advocated confiscation, in somewhat limited (but undefined) > conditions. Not so. He's indicated -widespread- confiscation of entire categories of weapons, made more insideous by the fact he can barely catagorize them. The bottom line is that he intends to confiscate every gun he fears: > So which one will you ban and confiscate? I don't know much about the different guns but based on the tv I watch there are lots of automatic weapons out there. In fact I'm sure they're in the majority, certainly in the handgun department. I guess my concern would be with the more easily concealed weapons capable of firing sustained bursts at extreme cycling rates. I think they're often called full auto, but it seems to me that any weapon that chambers another round automatically should probably be called an automatic. To simply push to limit the existance of automatic weapons wouldn't really be fair, would it? - JOF > Which one, as -you- say, does the "spraying", or has the (-your- words) > " too high cyclic rate if fire"? Dunno. I'd have to do some research. Based on what I know (or think I know), your Colt 1911 wouldn't likely be considered a sprayer, even in the hands of an expert like you. > Be specific, and stop snipping all the context. My apologies to Scott. He hates it when we leave in all the stuff from the earlier posts. > >> Since you intend to confiscate them, I'm sure you know what I mean. > > Did I say I would confiscate them? > Yes, several times. Delusion. -JOF ====================== > Spin it how you want. You have -several times made references to gun > confiscation. No matter if 85% of the population approves, as you seem to > think this makes some sort of difference. I'm not calling you a liar on that but I'd like to see the context (I know we've been overusing that word). I'm not a proponent of wholesale confiscation of guns. Well, except perhapsexcept for some of the weapons I think are pretty ridiculously powerful. -JOF ======================= > Legislating against ownership is confiscation, crystal clear. > You've espoused several situations where it would be > "understandable" to "mediate" possession of certain weapons that you > SIMPLY DON'T LIKE, without any justification other than your total > ignorance. > The .50 caliber sniper rifle is a perfect example. > They cost a fortune, the public doesn't have them to speak of, they have -absolutely- NO criminal record, but you FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL people shouldn't have them, just "because". > You have NO OTHER JUSTIFICATION . They're an example of overkill, but perhaps a bad one. Some of the very high cycle rate automatic weapons are probably better examples of weapons that the general public has no need of. -JOF ========================= >Are you for the confiscation of some guns, Yes or no? And this, of all things, is a for us/against us point, and defines your gun control position on the group. Only because of the definition you choose to use. Again, for me it's rey. -JOF =========================== > This "middle" or "gray area" you espouse is a bullshit way of you > avoiding having to say what you mean. > Are you for the confiscation of some guns, > Yes or no? By your definition I am. By my own I'm not. I'm in favour of controls. =========================== "I suppose there would be some amount of confiscation involved in my idea of appropriate weapon ownership" -JOF Furthermore, he intends to keep guns of of the hads of people he simply doesn't -like-. > You appear to be afraid of people with weapons, even to calling them > "antisocial". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, I am not sure where you stand. =================== See, there are a lot of lines in the sand. I'll go back to an old argument I used. I believe that unless gun owners today get used to dealing cooperatively with lines in the sand, they're only going to accelerate the erosion of their gun rights thanks to their intractability. Guns are something of an anachronism now and an easy target for the disinterested majority. It's inevitable that one day guns are going to be held only by the military, law enforcement and the criminals. The first major step will be far stricter regulations for hunters and competitive shooters. Then hunting outside of hunting reserves will be stopped, etc etc. As this goes on and gun ownership becomes more difficult to enjoy legally more folks will lose interest and the support numbers will decline. This can be delayed through a cooperative response from folks like you or hastened by intractability and stubborness, that line in the sand thing. -JOF =================== "I try to couch my comments in neutrality. I try to remain dispassionate. Reason fails when passion rules, or something like that." -JOF ======= "and most of us have learned that to survive in this world we need to be open minded and willing to learn new things. I'm just trying to survive." _JOF ===== "In rec.scuba terms I think I'm pretty darned neutral." -JOF ====== >> >> > That "neutrality" thing needs a bit of polish. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > To actually be doing what you, yourself, describe. That one whooshed me. -JOF ====== "It was a reference to some earlier comments of yours where you made erroneous assumptions based on what you thought I meant to say." -JOF ====== >> >> Frankly, most of our livelier discussions are exercises in endurance >> >> only, as few here seem prepared to move off their chosen party line [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Like I said, that would include you, of course. No. I'm open to rational argument. -JOF ====== > At any rate, it was clear what you said, in a snobbish and insulting >manor. You guys are too sensitive. I wasn't saying anything like that, just defending my own point of view.-JOF ====== >> Perhaps you'd get more sympathy for your cause if you stopped >> referring to anyone who doesn't come out wholeheartedly in defense of >> absolute gun freedom as a "gungrabber". > >Pure hyperbole. Hyperbole is exaggeration.-JOF "I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable." ====== > It's your right to arbitrarily place everyone who doesn't love guns in > the gungrabber category? What about the people who simply don't care? > Are they your enemies too? -JOF As far as we can tell. You've never weighed in at that position, however. -Popeye ====== SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectvefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Dec 23, 8:38 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > Isn't it nice how much easier it is to have faith in something that > > supports your own ideology. I'll bet Dennis won't argue with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The last poll you quoted had loaded questions and 400 respondents, and you > whizzed right by the bad sh.t. The last poll, by Gallup, had 1,010 respondents. This poll, by CNN/ Opinion Research Corporation, had 1,002 respondents. If you think 1,002 is more that 1,010, then there's not much to argue about. > This wasn't a Futile John wife beating question. > > It was simple and direct, from a relatively non-partisan news source, with > a large response. The question was: ""Part of the debate about gun ownership hinges on how we interpret the U.S. constitution. The exact words of the constitution are as follows: '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 upon.' Do you think these words guarantee each person the right to own a gun, or do they protect the right of citizens to form a militia without implying that each individual has the right to own a gun?" That's a simple question? It's a friggin' paragraph that requests the person who answers it to interpret constitutional law, something normally reserved for judges with years of education and experience. > On Dec 23, 8:38 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > person who answers it to interpret constitutional law, something > normally reserved for judges with years of education and experience. I like the part where it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not ne infringed upon'. But if you want to have a militia group feel free to start one up. I have no problem with it > > That's a simple question? It's a friggin' paragraph that requests the > > person who answers it to interpret constitutional law, something [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > arms shall not ne infringed upon'. But if you want to have a militia > group feel free to start one up. I have no problem with it- Fine. We'll start by commandeering your log cabin as our command post. You and your family can pitch a tent in back. Do you have a king-size bed? >>>That's a simple question? It's a friggin' paragraph that requests the >>>person who answers it to interpret constitutional law, something [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > post. You and your family can pitch a tent in back. Do you have a > king-size bed? Yes, I do, with hi def televison - it is a water bed so bring your sea sickness pills - the waves are very benovelent until Joan and I get a moving - you being in a tsunami may not notice Pitch a tent in the back - hardly - the damn coyotes are too close - and it is cold out. Actually it is 8:30 PM it it is XMAS eve - my wife is at work, and I have a vodka marini close at hand - I should be in bed soon OTH - Merry Xmas, Greg! >>>>That's a simple question? It's a friggin' paragraph that requests the >>>>person who answers it to interpret constitutional law, something [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >OTH - Merry Xmas, Greg! Hey, Joe, you should always have vodka marinis before posting. You're a lot more funny! Have a great Christmas! >>>>>That's a simple question? It's a friggin' paragraph that requests the >>>>>person who answers it to interpret constitutional law, something [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Have a great Christmas! You should see me when I have vodka martinis! In article <65fcb934-32ad-4e3e-a79b-7140c4b32e09 @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Dec 24, 9:54 am, Joe English <joe2aengl...@wisperhome.com> wrote: - -> > That's a simple question? It's a friggin' paragraph that requests the -> > person who answers it to interpret constitutional law, something -> > normally reserved for judges with years of education and experience. -> -> I like the part where it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear -> arms shall not ne infringed upon'. But if you want to have a militia -> group feel free to start one up. I have no problem with it- - -Fine. We'll start by commandeering your log cabin as our command -post. You and your family can pitch a tent in back. Do you have a -king-size bed? reread the constitution, again. you sure that you were awake during the class? - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <65fcb934-32ad-4e3e-a79b-7140c4b32e09 > @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > reread the constitution, again. > you sure that you were awake during the class? If I'm overthrowing the government, you think I'm keeping the constitution? Heck, no. I'm writing my own. My constitution says I can have Joe's log cabin if I want. Your place too, though I would have preferred the PV house. >>In article <65fcb934-32ad-4e3e-a79b-7140c4b32e09 >>@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > can have Joe's log cabin if I want. Your place too, though I would > have preferred the PV house. if you take my house - do the guns stay or do I get them? > > If I'm overthrowing the government, you think I'm keeping the > > constitution? Heck, no. I'm writing my own. My constitution says I > > can have Joe's log cabin if I want. Your place too, though I would > > have preferred the PV house. > > if you take my house - do the guns stay or do I get them? That all depends on how many guns I already have. In article <2356885c-4318-4b41-8b4f-d635df95b6f7 @s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, mossman@qnet.com says... -On Dec 25, 7:37 am, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: -> In article <65fcb934-32ad-4e3e-a79b-7140c4b32e09 -> @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... -> -On Dec 24, 9:54 am, Joe English <joe2aengl...@wisperhome.com> wrote: -> - -> -> > That's a simple question? It's a friggin' paragraph that requests the -> -> > person who answers it to interpret constitutional law, something -> -> > normally reserved for judges with years of education and experience. -> -> -> -> I like the part where it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear -> -> arms shall not ne infringed upon'. But if you want to have a militia -> -> group feel free to start one up. I have no problem with it- -> - -> -Fine. We'll start by commandeering your log cabin as our command -> -post. You and your family can pitch a tent in back. Do you have a -> -king-size bed? -> -> reread the constitution, again. -> you sure that you were awake during the class? - -If I'm overthrowing the government, you think I'm keeping the -constitution? Heck, no. I'm writing my own. My constitution says I -can have Joe's log cabin if I want. Your place too, though I would -have preferred the PV house. it WAS really nice, and a nice location, too. unfortunately for you, my constitution, and the US Constitution, say you can not. - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <2356885c-4318-4b41-8b4f-d635df95b6f7 > @s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, moss...@qnet.com says... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > unfortunately for you, > my constitution, and the US Constitution, say you can not. Howza bout the Mexican constitution? That all used to be Mexican land and it can be again if we freedom fighters have our way! Margaritas and Coronas for all citizenry! > Howza bout the Mexican constitution? That all used to be Mexican land and > it can be again if we freedom fighters have our way! Margaritas and > Coronas for all citizenry! Feel free to give it a try... Us Texans fought for our independence from Mexico once and won it readily enough... I don't think they would stand a chance in getting it back... But then again, we're still under Yankee occupation as a result of our actions during the War for Southern Independence (aka War of Northern Aggression)... >> Howza bout the Mexican constitution? That all used to be Mexican >> land and it can be again if we freedom fighters have our way! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yankee occupation as a result of our actions during the War for > Southern Independence (aka War of Northern Aggression)... and what did you a couple of years after gaining your independence...? you gave it up to join the US... ;-) > and what did you a couple of years after gaining your independence...? > you gave it up to join the US... ;-) Yeah, we made a mistake... >> and what did you a couple of years after gaining your independence...? >> you gave it up to join the US... ;-) > > Yeah, we made a mistake... Nah, Sam Houston was smart. My state tried to stay out of the US, but got annexed as a territory and finally ended up going for statehood just because being a territory was so bad. States have *some* self-determination, but territories have none. Remaining truly independent wasn't an option. The US was far too expansionist. Shawn. On Dec 23, 8:38 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > Isn't it nice how much easier it is to have faith in something that > > supports your own ideology. I'll bet Dennis won't argue with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The last poll you quoted had loaded questions and 400 respondents, and you > whizzed right by the bad sh.t. The last poll, by Gallup, had 1,010 respondents. This poll, by CNN/ Opinion Research Corporation, had 1,002 respondents. If you think 1,002 is more that 1,010, then there's not much to argue about. I'd appreciate a link to that pol. It's not the one I was commenting on above. > This wasn't a Futile John wife beating question. > > It was simple and direct, from a relatively non-partisan news source, with > a large response. The question was: ""Part of the debate about gun ownership hinges on how we interpret the U.S. constitution. The exact words of the constitution are as follows: '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 upon.' Do you think these words guarantee each person the right to own a gun, or do they protect the right of citizens to form a militia without implying that each individual has the right to own a gun?" That's a simple question? It's a friggin' paragraph that requests the person who answers it to interpret constitutional law, something normally reserved for judges with years of education and experience. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectvefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Dec 25, 6:59 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > The last poll, by Gallup, had 1,010 respondents. This poll, by CNN/ > Opinion Research Corporation, had 1,002 respondents. If you think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's not the one I was commenting on above. Yes it is. Rick's Gannett source was simply quoting the CNN results. All the polls are found at www.pollingreport.com At http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm you can find both the CNN and the Gallup detailed results, along with a host of others taken over many years. You can clearly see the trend. Guns have become much more popular since the 90s. The NRA has done its work well. On Dec 25, 6:59 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > The last poll, by Gallup, had 1,010 respondents. This poll, by CNN/ > Opinion Research Corporation, had 1,002 respondents. If you think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's not the one I was commenting on above. Yes it is. Rick's Gannett source was simply quoting the CNN results. All the polls are found at www.pollingreport.com At http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm you can find both the CNN and the Gallup detailed results, along with a host of others taken over many years. You can clearly see the trend. Guns have become much more popular since the 90s. The NRA has done its work well. I was talking about the poll Futile John had previously quoted in another thread. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectvefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 > On Dec 25, 6:59 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I was talking about the poll Futile John had previously quoted in > another thread. Furthermore, I don't see any reference to Rick's USA Today poll in your cite. And it's not the NRA that's doing such a good job, it's you and Futile John. Most of those poll questions were written by, and answered by, the ignorant, like Futile. I'd like to debate Futile John on a few, but then he would actually have to think and respond intelligently, instead of just bullying his way through everything. I don't bother debating gun control with you, on the other hand, because your most basic premise is grossly flawed on at least two points, and the rest of your arguments are teetering on that foundation. SignatureDoes anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people, and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones. And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder. I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too. I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper Popeye/ www.finalprotectvefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Dec 26, 5:06 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > I don't bother debating gun control with you, on the other hand, because > your most basic premise is grossly flawed on at least two points, and the > rest of your arguments are teetering on that foundation. What a coincidence. I feel exactly the same way about you. > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:22:44 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > supports your own ideology. I'll bet Dennis won't argue with the > process used on this one. How much? The poll does seem to limit itself per computer, but one person can vote multiple times via multiple computers. Generally that alone ould be sufficient to invalidate the results, at least scientifically. Dennis > > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:22:44 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Generally that alone ould be sufficient to invalidate the results, at least > scientifically. Hence "Carl Nisarel". > The poll does seem to limit itself per computer, but one person can vote > multiple times via multiple computers. > Generally that alone ould be sufficient to invalidate the results, at > least scientifically. Even if it did somehow prevent ballot-stuffing, it's a self-selected sample of a self-selected population. Theoretically, it's *possible* to extract meaningful information from such a poll but no one remotely rational would try. Shawn. > > The poll does seem to limit itself per computer, but one person can vote > > multiple times via multiple computers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > meaningful information from such a poll but no one remotely rational would > try. Too bad JOF didn't bet ;-) Dennis |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.