In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
FLAWED THINKING
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
FLAWED THINKING: In a recent article about political manipulation that might kill Colorado's latest "concealed carry" act, there was an interesting quote that showed me a very flawed way of thinking about guns and gun control: Karen Littlefield said that she would like to see the measure defeated, that she fears more permits will mean more guns in public places where children, including hers, go, and where "people carrying hidden guns could get out of hand."
The flaw in her thinking is that fewer permits do not mean fewer guns in that crowd around her at the ballpark or the local K-Mart. All it means is there are fewer guns in the hands of responsible, honest people who can counter the guns in the hands of criminals all around her everywhere she goes. Guns that will be there no matter what the law is. The law only keeps guns out of the hands of people who obey the law. Criminals do not.
I just can't understand this kind of thinking. It's just not logical. I even asked the mayor of Denver one time what made him think that a law, any law, would make a criminal, who doesn't obey laws, get rid of his gun. He couldn't answer and had his press hack tell me to stop sending him "spam." They just can't answer that question without destroying their own position so they just "blow you off." This makes me think that people like this mayor know they're wrong, but want it their way, anyway. (Source: The Denver Post, 5/7/2001) [050902-1]
"BLACK LEADERS" ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BLACK PROGRESS: Now before you "hate hunters" start calling me a racist for that headline, think about this: the author of the article to which I'm directing your attention here is black. These are his words, not mine. Further, don't forget that the publisher of this news site is also black. The point of this article is that black people don't need people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, "Calypso Louie" Farrakhan, or even Martin Luther King to get their rights for them. They did it themselves.
Granted, King did a lot in that direction, but there were black people already advancing themselves way before his demonstrations: "It is not just a handful of individuals who advanced without the supposedly indispensable black 'leaders.' Most of the reduction in the number of black families in poverty occurred in the 1940s and 1950s -- before any major civil rights legislation. Black males doubled their years of schooling during that time. When you double your education, your income tends to go up -- with or without Jesse Jackson or other black "leaders." As the number of blacks with higher qualifications increased, their numbers in occupations requiring those qualifications also increased. Indeed, the numbers increased at a faster rate during the 5 years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the 5 years afterward.
"But no one wants to talk about this because it would undermine the myth that the government and black 'leaders' are responsible for the advancement of the black population. One of the consequences of that myth is that, while most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty, the public image is that government programs were responsible. This has left many whites wondering why blacks can't advance themselves by their own efforts, like other minorities -- and left many blacks likewise convinced that without government programs they would be lost. Such myths help race hustlers but hurt the race that they claim to be leading." So all you "hate hunters" remember: these are not my words, they are the words of Thomas Sowell, one of the most intelligent people in America -- who is black. (Source: Town Hall, 3/21/2002) [050902-2]
SOUNDS LIKE WHAT OUR POLITICIANS ARE DOING: In Liberia, President Charles Taylor ordered a suspension of all political activity in Liberia on the same day that his chief rival returned to the country, effectively stopping him from mounting a campaign to defeat Taylor. His Hegelian excuse is that it is "in line with the state of emergency (he) declared February 8 after rebels fighting a three-year insurrection neared the outskirts of Monrovia," He said that anybody holding or attending a political rally will be arrested.
Sounds suspiciously like the law Senator McCain got passed recently in the United States, stopping all political advertising within three months of an election. This law also effectively denies the opposition the right to campaign and makes the positions of incumbent politicians more secure because they have ready access to free television time on news programs run by their friends in the media. Dictators and would-be dictators are all working from the same rulebook, folks. And for Bush to sign this unconstitutional measure is unconscionable. (Source: Associated Press, 4/30/2002) [050902-3]
I'M IN TROUBLE! I actually agree with Democrat Representative Diana DeGette! Heavens to Myrgatroyd! But then, since I support or condemn ideas, not people, it shouldn't be too unexpected for me to support a law that stops employers from being able to order people to do overtime whether or not they wish to do so. The people I work for know that I only do overtime when it's the last thing available and it's an emergency. My name is at the very bottom of the "overtime list." If they ever tried to make overtime "mandatory," I'd be gone -- in the middle of a shift.
But in the nursing profession, hospitals all over the country are demanding that nurses, after already doing a 12-year shift, do yet another four hours, tired as they are. That some are ordered to do 16 hours in a row -- and they get away with it because they have the power to "blackball" nurses who don't "cooperate." So apparently DeGette -- and I -- both support a law that should not be necessary in a free society, the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act, a federal bill that would prohibit hospitals from requiring nurses to work more than their scheduled work shifts. That is, as long as nobody puts something in this bill that I don't like. (Source: Rocky Mountain News, 5/7/2001) [050902-4]
http://www.sierratimes.com/nuggets.htm
News Nuggets is c2002 by Ray Thomas
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The flaw in her thinking is that fewer permits do not mean fewer guns in that crowd around her at the ballpark or the local K-Mart. All it means is there are fewer guns in the hands of responsible, honest people who can counter the guns in the hands of criminals all around her everywhere she goes. Guns that will be there no matter what the law is. The law only keeps guns out of the hands of people who obey the law. Criminals do not.
I just can't understand this kind of thinking. It's just not logical. I even asked the mayor of Denver one time what made him think that a law, any law, would make a criminal, who doesn't obey laws, get rid of his gun. He couldn't answer and had his press hack tell me to stop sending him "spam." They just can't answer that question without destroying their own position so they just "blow you off." This makes me think that people like this mayor know they're wrong, but want it their way, anyway. (Source: The Denver Post, 5/7/2001) [050902-1]
"BLACK LEADERS" ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BLACK PROGRESS: Now before you "hate hunters" start calling me a racist for that headline, think about this: the author of the article to which I'm directing your attention here is black. These are his words, not mine. Further, don't forget that the publisher of this news site is also black. The point of this article is that black people don't need people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, "Calypso Louie" Farrakhan, or even Martin Luther King to get their rights for them. They did it themselves.
Granted, King did a lot in that direction, but there were black people already advancing themselves way before his demonstrations: "It is not just a handful of individuals who advanced without the supposedly indispensable black 'leaders.' Most of the reduction in the number of black families in poverty occurred in the 1940s and 1950s -- before any major civil rights legislation. Black males doubled their years of schooling during that time. When you double your education, your income tends to go up -- with or without Jesse Jackson or other black "leaders." As the number of blacks with higher qualifications increased, their numbers in occupations requiring those qualifications also increased. Indeed, the numbers increased at a faster rate during the 5 years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the 5 years afterward.
"But no one wants to talk about this because it would undermine the myth that the government and black 'leaders' are responsible for the advancement of the black population. One of the consequences of that myth is that, while most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty, the public image is that government programs were responsible. This has left many whites wondering why blacks can't advance themselves by their own efforts, like other minorities -- and left many blacks likewise convinced that without government programs they would be lost. Such myths help race hustlers but hurt the race that they claim to be leading." So all you "hate hunters" remember: these are not my words, they are the words of Thomas Sowell, one of the most intelligent people in America -- who is black. (Source: Town Hall, 3/21/2002) [050902-2]
SOUNDS LIKE WHAT OUR POLITICIANS ARE DOING: In Liberia, President Charles Taylor ordered a suspension of all political activity in Liberia on the same day that his chief rival returned to the country, effectively stopping him from mounting a campaign to defeat Taylor. His Hegelian excuse is that it is "in line with the state of emergency (he) declared February 8 after rebels fighting a three-year insurrection neared the outskirts of Monrovia," He said that anybody holding or attending a political rally will be arrested.
Sounds suspiciously like the law Senator McCain got passed recently in the United States, stopping all political advertising within three months of an election. This law also effectively denies the opposition the right to campaign and makes the positions of incumbent politicians more secure because they have ready access to free television time on news programs run by their friends in the media. Dictators and would-be dictators are all working from the same rulebook, folks. And for Bush to sign this unconstitutional measure is unconscionable. (Source: Associated Press, 4/30/2002) [050902-3]
I'M IN TROUBLE! I actually agree with Democrat Representative Diana DeGette! Heavens to Myrgatroyd! But then, since I support or condemn ideas, not people, it shouldn't be too unexpected for me to support a law that stops employers from being able to order people to do overtime whether or not they wish to do so. The people I work for know that I only do overtime when it's the last thing available and it's an emergency. My name is at the very bottom of the "overtime list." If they ever tried to make overtime "mandatory," I'd be gone -- in the middle of a shift.
But in the nursing profession, hospitals all over the country are demanding that nurses, after already doing a 12-year shift, do yet another four hours, tired as they are. That some are ordered to do 16 hours in a row -- and they get away with it because they have the power to "blackball" nurses who don't "cooperate." So apparently DeGette -- and I -- both support a law that should not be necessary in a free society, the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act, a federal bill that would prohibit hospitals from requiring nurses to work more than their scheduled work shifts. That is, as long as nobody puts something in this bill that I don't like. (Source: Rocky Mountain News, 5/7/2001) [050902-4]
http://www.sierratimes.com/nuggets.htm
News Nuggets is c2002 by Ray Thomas
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no gun banning families about to suffer torture or execution by a criminal.
Sheeple tend to worry about the wrong "what-ifs." I'd say, what if some guy grabs her kid by the arm on that playground and runs for a waiting car. Wouldn't she like to be able to put a slug between his shoulder blades before the kid becomes "missing"? If you're going to be paranoid, at least give yourself the edge ...
- Life NRA Member
If dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878