Our Constitution needs protection NOW! (Except the Second Amendment)

[Combat-wombat]

All of these liberals are talking about how our constitution is being infringed with the Patriot Act and so on (which is true), but still are against the Second Amendment! The other week I showed up at a peace rally(I am against the war in Iraq, don't get on my case about it if you disagree.) Anyway, this stupid hippie is yelling about the Patriot Act and our constitution and how John Ashcroft is anti-constitution, But right after that he corrects himself and makes some joke about conservatives and guns. Why is it that liberals do that???

 

[Sindawe]

Because they are Bliss-ninnies?

This looks to be a trait of many folks on both side of the political fence. Liberals who deride the destruction of the Liberites they hold dear (privacy, spending other peoples money, etc) and by Conservative who deride the destruction Liberites they hold dear (Firearms, telling others how the live their lives, etc). IMAO is demonstrates a fundimental failing in our culture to teach the children to mind their own buisness and not go butting into that of others.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...right after that he corrects himself and makes some joke about conservatives and guns. Why is it that liberals do that???

Leftism thrives on fear, lies, contradiction, ignorance, superstition, envy, and assorted other ugly emotions.

 

[cuchulainn]

Never underestimate the human ability to overlook the contradictions between compartmentalized beliefs ... and it isn't just a leftwing thing.

 

[rock jock]

and it isn't just a leftwing thing.

Maybe not, but they certainly take the lion's share.

 

[Chris Rhines]

The 'leftist' (hate that term) opposition to war is an intellectual sham, devoid of any pretense at ethics or internal consistency. With that in mind, it's no surprise that their other political and social views are similarly scattered.

- Chris

 

[Tropical Z]

Liberals are IDIOTS!!!
If you don't agree with a liberals point of view your'e Hitler!:banghead:

 

[Bikeguy]

Maybe not, but they certainly take the lion's share.

Yeah, right.

If you don't agree with a liberals point of view your'e Hitler!

And if you don't agree with a conservative, you are a commie pinko.

 

[roscoe]

Leftism thrives on fear, lies, contradiction, ignorance, superstition, envy, and assorted other ugly emotions.

Sounds like how Newt Gingerich worked.

And, although this is not gun-related, I feel like I should just point out that it is only conservatives who are trying to get creationism into public schools. Talk about using contradiction, ignorance, and superstition.

Lefty gun-owner here. Feel free to flame away, or shut down the thread. This is a gun forum so I don't get to mention the many other areas conservatives are in the wrong. Kind of gets my blood up after a while.

 

[rock jock]

Yeah, right.

I'm glad you agree.

 

[rock jock]

And, although this is not gun-related, I feel like I should just point out that it is only conservatives who are trying to get creationism into public schools. Talk about using contradiction, ignorance, and superstition.

Actually, conservatives just want evidence that is contradictory to evolution to be examined side-by-side. If you know anything about evolution, you know that it is a theory in disarray these days, and not from "whacko" right-wingers, but rather from secular scientists. Sticking with a dogmatic approach to teaching evolution is no different, and no less religious, than teaching that the Earth is the center of the solar system in face of overwhelming evidence. It is a disservice to science. But, the fanatical attitude of the left on this issue typifies their tyranny and hypocrisy. Gun control, of course, is another shining example.

 

[roscoe]

rockjock,

Actually you are dead wrong about evolutionary theory being in disarray. And I know wherof I speak, because I am an evolutionary biologist (PhD pending). Scientists disagree on the minutae of evolutionary patterns, but no serious scientist has ever rejected the idea of evolution by means of natural selection. And if you knew anything about genetics, you would know that the mechanisms of evolution have been identified to the sub-molecular level.

Comparing evolutionary theory to pre-Copernican astronomy is comical, since both it and creationism have been completely falsified by scientists long ago. And, incidentally, it was the 'conservatives' who tried to suppress Galileo's and Darwin's ideas.

You might want to know that the hallmark (in fact the very definition) of science is its falsifiability and rejection of dogma. That is why it is not a religion. If you think you can disprove evolution, or the Copernican system for that matter, go for it. Many have tried, but the data hasn't stood up to scrutiny so far.

And that, incidentally, is one interesting thing about many conservatives I know (although some liberals as well). They will often stick to a belief in the face of virtually any contradicting data. Nothing personal, but I am glad you rose to the bait, because it effectively proved my point.

 

[roscoe]

Oh, and I meant to add this to make it firearm related: I was an anti until I bothered to look at the data. I performed my own statistical analyses on data sets from the FBI and Lott's book. I also examined Kellerman's research. Needless to say, the data were clear. I know quite a few other liberals who have been similarly converted, far more than the number of fundamentalist conservative christians in my classes who would not even look at the data demonstrating the facts of evolutionary theory.

 

[Thumper]

roscoe

I happen to agree with you (somewhat), but your previous two posts consisted of the most self-important drivel I've seen on either TFL or THR.

How about toning it down a little?

 

[Ed Brunner]

roscoe makes an excellent point

I was an anti until I bothered to look at the data. I performed my own statistical analyses on data sets from the FBI and Lott's book. I also examined Kellerman's research. Needless to say, the data were clear. I know quite a few other liberals who have been similarly converted, far more than the number of fundamentalist conservative christians in my classes who would not even look at the data demonstrating the facts of evolutionary theory.

Once he learned the truth he was alright. So it IS a matter of ignorance.

 

[ArmsAkimber]

roscoe said:

Oh, and I meant to add this to make it firearm related: I was an anti until I bothered to look at the data. I performed my own statistical analyses on data sets from the FBI and Lott's book.

and also

I know quite a few other liberals who have been similarly converted...

roscoe, would the meaning of Second Amendment be different if Lott's, et al. findings were different? Are human rights as mutable as the latest study? Heck, scientists can't even decide if coffee is healthful or not.

I am glad that the Founding Fathers were not statisticians. They were keen observers of human nature, students of history, men of science and men of faith.

As for intellegent design in school, I say why not. To tell school children that there is only one theory of our origin, sweeping descent under the rug, does them a disservice.

 

[roscoe]

Thumper:

I apologize if it sounded self-important (drivel os OK, I do that all the time), but I was responding to what I saw as a specific challenge:

If you know anything about evolution, you know that it is a theory in disarray these days

but, critique accepted if it seemed too heavy-handed. Still, as a liberal on this site, I have to put up with an absurd amount of broad-brushed ad hominem anti-liberalism. I felt it was time to make a point about conservatism, since it seems like no one else is going to step up to the plate.

ArmsAkimber:

Actually, I felt that I wasn't really in a position to make judgements about constitutional law. Now I have examined it and I do agree with the general RKBA position. But, I can't claim any particular knowlege of the case law outside of what I pick up here (and TFL) and random other places. To make a real statement about the intent of the 2nd amendment one would really need to be a historian. I am not, so I don't go out too far on rheorical limbs with that. There are many others who are far more knowledgable and should be making those arguments.

When I write letters to senators and US representatives, governers, and mayors (which I do fairly frequently), I make the types of arguments that I feel they will respond to. Since I have knowledge of statistics, I can make the statistical arguments. The constitutional arguments will have to be made in the courts, anyway.

But, lest you think otherwise, I strongly agree with the natural right to defend oneself.

As for natural design: fine, teach it, but not in science class. It belongs in theology class, since it has not stood up to scientific scrutiny.

Ed Brunner:

My point is that both sides often work from a position of ignorance. I wasn't so much defending liberals as attacking conservatives.

 

[ArmsAkimber]

As for natural design: fine, teach it, but not in science class. It belongs in theology class, since it has not stood up to scientific scrutiny.

I don't know about natural design, but intellegent design is not necessarily theologically-based. Intellegent design encompasses theories, not based in theology, which contradict natural selection. As such, it's place is in science class, right next to Darwinism. I expect you won't accept this, particularly considering the considerable investment you have made in your study of evolutionary biology, but scientists much smarter than myself have made a strong case for ID, IMHO. Best to agree to disagree, I think, considering the off topic nature of the issue.

In an effort to keep on-topic WRT gun rights, I am glad to know that your position of self-defense is not strictly utilitarian. I do not agree, however, that one needs formal training as a historian in order to understand the meaning of our founding documents.
Deference to the professional learned in the sphere of civil rights is a formula for slavery.

 

[roscoe]

I definitely agree that one not need defer to "professional" historians, or biologists, or gun experts, for that matter. I just meant that I felt that I would have to do a lot of research on my own to feel like I had explored all the case law, statute law, intents of the founders, etc.

It is my opinion that a lot of people only read the research that confirms their prejudices, and that is no way to inderstand a topic (constitutional law and evolutionary biology included).

 

[rock jock]

roscoe,

I certainly won't argue with you on the finer details of sciene with regard to evolutionary theory. I would say, however, that the reading I have done on this subject convinces me that ultimately this is a question of philosophy rather than science. I say that because there are "data gaps" within the realm of evolution, some of them very large gaps. These gaps are filled in with reasoned conjecture based on the available data at hand. I would not argue this point at all - this is in fact the scientific method. However, I do object to the exclusive use of methodological naturalism to form the framework by which these questions are answered. Since science cannot exclude supernaturalism as a force, who is to say that a creator did not use supernaturalism as part of the life origin model. IOW, to rely solely on methodological naturalism solely is unsupported by the scientific method UNLESS you set as a foundational rule that it may not be considered. For brevity, I offer one example: the bacteria flaggellar system which is an example of a molecular motor in a living system. It has a rotor, a stator, a bushing, a universal joint (so to speak) and is a great example of the Watchmaker concept. Now, the evolutionary model cannot fully explain the degree of complexity in this system. I am sure you would argue that that explanation is in the future, but if an ID model can offer an explanation that satisfies the existence of the system, then how can you exclude that model? The only answer is, is because by definition supernaturalism cannot be considered. That is a fallacous argument. Both the evolutionary and ID groups are approaching the same problem, but the evolutionists insist on excluding the ID premise of creator influence, which they then argue is the reason why it should not be considered. That is a classic example of circular reasoning.

 

[cuchulainn]

rock jock,

Why do you want children to be taught that evolution is equally valid scientifically as the story of the Three Creating Divinities: Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mi, Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto and Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto?

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/kojiki.html

 

[Thumper]

intellegent

 

[roscoe]

rockjock,

The idea that the bacteria flaggellar system is a result of irreducible complexity is a much-discussed example of the failure to understand exaptation (co-opting of anatomy used for other purposes). Check out : http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
for a discussion.

But, more to the point, intelligent design needs to be able to provide falsifiable hypotheses to be taken seriously by scientists. As cuchulainn noted, if you are willing to invoke an idea that can't really be tested, then virtually any hypothesis can be put forward, and they must all be considered equally valid (equally untestable). So any explanation is as valid as any other, including the story of the Three Creating Divinities.

Intelligent design falls into this category, since it offers as a cause a deity that can't be perceived, measured, etc., and no way to determine the degree of complexity we might expect from natural selection versus a great watchmaker. It is essentially a hypothesis that cannot be evaluated on any level.

To keep this on-topic (gun-related), let me just say that, of all my firearms, the most intelligently designed is my CZ-75, followed closely by the P32. I do have great hope, also, for the SU16, which may be the great non-assault assault rifle that can be owned by those in every state in the US.