You say that like you beleive women don't have testosterone.

Collectivism personified.

Never rebutted? Try reading this article. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Have many more if you like.
Can we take a junk-scientist like Lott serious, a rolling stone who used aliasses and sock puppets to post several five star reviews of his books on Amazon.com or to attack his critics and defend his work online? Creating a false identity for a scholar usually goes down as fraud in science circles. Furthermore Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics earlier this year. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey, which supposedly found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack", that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition.

I believe Simkin and Rice are not on speaking terms with Zelman anymore? They write this on their website:Re genocide: the claim that Nazi gun control law in 1938 to maintain their power is false. Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was already introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the Nazi SA. Hence the Nazi came to power by the ballot box (and some By backroom backstabbing, double-crossing, threats, and promises, including among former Chancellor Franz von Papen, present Chancellor Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, and the elected President Hindenburg.) and not by an armed coup.

Having actually read the material I cite, I say the necessity of the three root causes of any genocide being present is amply proven, and the case proving it is formidable. You have not addressed the case by bringing up a side issue of who's arguing over what.

If the cops are armed, so should the people be.
It is not hard.

Did you read the last paragraph in my message or only looked at it?

Not until you answer the questions I asked you, personally. Not what the law says. What Maggie would do.

You're an admitted collectivist.

Nonsense. Now you're playing tw...and you don't do it well.

Not nonsense. You stated you aren't averse to all taxes. You're merely a selfish collectivist, which is much more communist than tw, who leans toward the socialist side of collectivism.

When I pay taxes that pay for law enforcement, I get value for that.

It's not cooercive collectivism, where value is taken from me to be redistributed to someone who "deserves" it, or to meet some other social engineering goal.

I'm not as pure a libertatian as some, and I'm not an anarchist.

Semantics...

Doesn't anyone who chooses to live in a society and pay taxes agree to collectivist principals...even if it is by default?

BTW Maggie, I couldn't find the post that you were quoting from. What number was it?

"...is the subfield of linguistics that is devoted to the study of meaning."

Rather an important thing to dismiss so casually.

Not happening. My answer incorprated the law by reference. If you won't read it, you don't care about my answer, you just want to troll.

"Asked and answered", as they say in court. Go read. You went to that site and ran back here screaming that there was no law on those pages and telling me I should check before posting.

Now that I've pointed out that it actually is there, and that your post claming that it wasn't was utter hogwash, go read it and educate your ignorant ass.

I quote a lot. Which of of my posts are you referring to?

"Principles".

Not really...especially not cooercive collectivism. That's the cooercive part.

When someone steals your stuff and laughs that it's been "reappropriated", that's pretty cooercive.

If you live in a society where you pay taxes which go towards paying for other peoples social security for instance, you're a collectivist because something is being taken from you by the state for the benefit of other members of the society.

Whether you like it or not Maggie, you're a collectivist just like the rest of us.

'When someone steals your stuff and laughs that it's been "reappropriated", that's pretty cooercive.'

I wouldn't say there's anything coercive about it at all.

Obviously you're again refering to the quote I've asked you about, and since I've already asked once where it was from, I don't see much point in asking again. Therefor, if you want to continue to refer to the same point to support your argument, you're not going to be making much sense from here on in.

Oh, I found it. I didn't realize you'd only taken a portion of the whole quote to support your argument.

Nothing further needs to be said since I'm pretty sure anyone else could have seen the humour in the post in its entirety. Even UG managed it.

See what happens if you decide not to pay for police.

Don't end a sentence with a preposition, genius.

What's next? Dangling participles? Split infinitives? :::afraid to post:::

Why is it that some people in this community have to insult, belittle, and name call when someone disagrees with them?

Unfortunately there's no line item veto on taxes. But my payment for law enforcement is not coerced. Sorry to hear about yours.

OK, I'm sorry I called your ass ignorant. It may in fact be smarter than many other parts of you.

Which, to respect the infinitive, is something up with which you should not put.

But you want to rail about the justified use of deadly force while refusing to read the relevant law...that rises above mere disagreement.

Whining about being taken to the woodshed over a whole slew of matters of fact, Spexx? My, my, once again, is the Left childish... much?

The Right's generally braver, and understands correction better. It's called being grown up -- the Right just takes it better.

Right! The right is RIGHT and the left isn't right. It's just wrong. So don't go left, go right before you forget what's right and what's not.

I never said anyting about mine. But there is no distinction between coercive and non-coercive taxes. If they aren't coercive, they aren't taxes.

My payment for a war in Iraq is...

Ali, there is many a true word spoken in ... irony.

Oh UG...you must have misunderstood. I was taking the piss out of you and your comrades. ;)

Sure, but hardly worth mentioning some piddling little 4 Billion a month.:rolleyes:

Like in goldy or bronzy, but then made of iron?

How come the people who are the staunchest defenders of guns are the ones I fear having guns the most?

Jeb, I ain't shot you yet. And we live in the same state. Have for years. Hell, I was born in the Monterey area. WTF you scared of, ignorance boy? Seems there's too much you don't know. Do you truly know how to rightly handle a gun?

Because hoplophobia literally means "fear of guns".

Seriously.... I'm not a bad guy. When I was head of security people came to our club, we tripled in attendance, because I made sure no one was castled even when we had to carry them out. When people pushed me I always told them "yes...you can beat me up, I am sure of it. Let me buy you a beer and let's break this up instead of all these other bouncers carrying you out, ok?"
I don't like conflict or guns... as I stated earlier, I have not messed with mine in years. I think of them as a necessary evil... but necessary none the less.
I worry that my posts on this subject have been very prejudicial as far as how the Cellar views me.
It is truly the only thing that I am very conservative about. Though my definition of liberal and conservative are much older than today's. I do not think of a neo-con as a conservative. A conservative wants less government, taxes and believes in state's rights. I am very conservative in that sense... but very liberal when it comes to today's definition in a lot of ways. I believe pot should be legal, we should have state health care as well as private, Social Security and welfare should not be attached in any way (if you did not pay into it you don't get any).... bla, bla, bla... hell, some things sound very conservative like my fiscal side and others make me very liberal. I think the National Forests should NEVER be touched other than prescribed burns... pristine woodland, period. If you pollute, you pay for ALL of it to be cleaned-up, period.
But, at the same time, as long as you are not harming your neighbor or the environment... your home is your castle and ALL the Bill of Rights must be protected at all costs.
Illegal search and seizure, warrantless searches and that type of thing are grounds for revolution IMO, real action to let those in power know that it will NEVER be tolerated.
Freedom of speech and the press is/should be actual and pure.
Religion and the State should NEVER have ANYTHING to do with each other under ANY circumstances.
So when people ask me if I am "liberal" or "conservative"... I just don't know.

Mhm. Hmmm. Thoughtful, anyway. I've long figured you for having your head screwed on nose to the front.

Werent there some studies done in the 70s or 80s by KGB or some other Russian organization stating that while they felt they could handle the US military if they wanted to attack America, the population was to well armed to hold the territory they could take?

I don't know if having a gun or not having a gun makes a difference when it comes to crime, Ive never been a criminal or the victim of a violent or gun based crime myself. But from a criminals perspective wouldn't the throught process between "Should I" and "I will" be a bit longer and more involved if the threat of return violence is immediate?

IE if as a criminal I was looking for a place to setup shop for say, burglery, would I consider a place like Texas where its more likely Ill run into an armed citizen willing to fight, or would I rather go somewhere its not as likely? Just the fact that they would have to walk that line of thought through would hopefully persaude a few of them its not worth it.

One thing I noticed in the thread, just as an FYI, as a national champion debater, when your opponent sinks to verbal attacks and name calling, you've won. Most people with any brain will stop paying attention to someone who stoops to that, so beware your own arrogance. Be open the to the thought process's and idea's of others.

" The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. Consequently if the rules for trials which are now laid down some states-especially in well-governed states-were applied everywhere, such people would have nothing to say. All men, no doubt, think that the laws should prescribe such rules, but some, as in the court of Areopagus, give practical effect to their thoughts and forbid talk about non-essentials. This is sound law and custom. It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity-one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it." Aristotle's Rhetoric

How about some reference to Logical Fallacies, which abound in this thread.

Steve

"Most of our energy goes into upholding our importance...

If we were capable of losing some of that importance, two extraordinary things would happen to us. One, we would free our energy from trying to maintain the illusory idea of our grandeur; and two, we would provide ourselves with enough energy to...catch a glimpse of the actual grandeur of the universe." Carlos Castaneda

--to me this is the answer to the koan about a tree falling in the woods with no one around. The sheer arrogance of the question points to the answer--

"Self-righteous morality is jealousy with a halo" HG Wells

"Self righteousness is a mask for hypocrisy and self importance." Carlos Castaneda

[Threadjack]
You're confusing National Forests with National Parks. One of the basic tenets of National Forests is to provide controlled timber harvesting for a steady reliable lumber supply.[Threadjack]:D

You are right, Parks. Though some of the old growth and breeding areas for endangered species in the National Forests should be off limits.
We are equally, but never more, important than the environment.

Woah woah woah. Who said I was afraid of guns? I'm afraid of touchy idiots having guns and very troubled (not for my own safety however) about some here who see guns as a balm to any affliction.

Would you believe I'm actually a firm believer in the 2nd amendment? There is a vast gap between gun nuts and responsible gun owners. The difference between these types shines through, even online.

But, but, there's no problem that can't be solved with the judicious application of high explosives. :lol:

I needs me a grenade... true Bruce.

Anyone mistaking me for anything other than a responsible gun owner has... more issues than National Geographic. They also tend to get worsted in any arguments about it.

In a way, it's tedious. Necessary, but not including enough of the really new to avoid a dreariness.