Hoyt, this is for you :)

[milod]

... Okay, for those not knowing much about firearms... a bit of a primer.

 

Go ahead and quickly pass it by if you're more interested in prating the anti-firearm stuff that ignores facts.

 

Also, please note that the specifics of different firearms are very similar to the specifics of differing guitars - I don't know why in heaven's name, for example, anyone might want a Flying V. If you're really looking at it technically, it's nothing but an oddly-shaped SG perhaps with a slightly different "feel." Ditto firearms of many mechanical types.

 

So....

 

To answer a bit of the technical side, very much simplified:

 

The term "automatic" is very misleading, as is the usually misused term "assault rifle (pistol or whatever)."

 

The first firearms that "automatically" fired, ejected, reloaded, cocked the piece and fired again were not "automatic" at all, but were crank-operated multiple-barrel arms invented by a fellow named Gatling. With various non human-operated mechanisms, this concept continues into modern military usage - but they're far from man-portable regardless of movie folks representations. (Movies really mess with reality at times.)

 

"Semi-automatic" arms - and one might include at least one rather interesting revolver design as well as magazine-fed firearms - basically fire a round, then eject it by purely mechanical or gas-assisted means, and load the chamber of the piece with the next cartridge in the magazine without a human muscle-assist. This has not been particularly difficult in terms of mechanical design since the relatively "clean" smokeless powders were invented.

 

In fact, John Browning, who designed the famed Winchester lever action Model 92 and 94 rifles as well as a number of true machine gun designs (some still in current U.S. military inventory), actually designed a gas-assist system that could make the Model 94 "deer rifle" either semi or fully automatic.

 

Fully "automatic" arms will continue to fire and load as long as the trigger is held down - or technically, until a trigger disconnect or the end of available ammunition, if any, ends the series. Some modern arms have a switch that allows firing of short bursts that are much less wearing on the piece. Recoil is a major problem with accuracy.

 

"Assault rifle" is a term for a relatively low-powered and usually "shortened" rifle round in a piece that resembles a rifle but has both semi and full automatic firing capability. That's why the fully-automatic version of the U.S. M-14 rifle and similar arms of other NATO nationalities might fall short of being an "assault rifle" since they used the full-powered .308 (7.62 mm) Nato rifle round. The .308 "Winchester" round and others of larger and smaller caliber are very, very popular in all sorts of rifle designs for hunting purposes.

 

The Germans in WWII basically thought up the idea of "assault rifle" using a low-powered round but with relatively "large" magazine capacity compared to their standard infantry rifle that was an 8 mm. Mauser bolt action design with "stripper clips" allowing relatively rapid recharging of full-power rounds. It was to allow less-skilled soldiers to carry more ammunition (small rounds = less weight and volume) and use their arms for "area" and "suppression" fire - not accuracy or the effectiveness of the lesser-powered rounds.

 

The U.S. was unique in WWII using a semi-automatic standard infantry rifle that used "clips" to recharge the magazine. The design was expensive and rather complex and soon brought a replacement arm.

 

The Soviets came up with the semi-automatic SKS somewhat in response to the German challenges using essentially a relatively low-powered .30 caliber cartridge. This design was not entirely dissimilar to the AK-47 that did have fully automatic capability and used the same cartridge, and that replaced the SKS prior to 1950.

 

The SKS is NOT an assault rifle by definition regardless of physical appearance, nor are semi-automatic-only versions of the AK or the later M-16 semi-automatic variations used regularly in shooting competitions.

 

A "machine pistol" is a well-misused term. It's a fully-automatic firearm using pistol caliber rounds in a more or less pistol-shaped arm. Very few people can shoot them accurately. More interesting is that a real pro can fire a double-action or even a single action revolver (Double action: pull the trigger and it goes "bang" as opposed to a single action "cowboy" revolver that requires the hammer to be cocked before one might pull the trigger to make it go "bang") at a cyclical rate rate very similar to a "machine pistol" in terms of shots per minute.

 

Now about "large capacity clips." These do not make an arm more or less powerful. They have military and police usages and theoretical defense usages although they're, IMHO, too darned big and heavy - but they're just plain fun to use for recreational shooting at such targets as tin cans or in various sorts of shooting competitions.

 

Technically, by the way, the actual "thingie" that holds cartridges is a "magazine" rather than a "clip." A "clip" technically is a device used to charge a magazine.

 

All repeating firearms, including cap and ball revolvers (both rifles and handguns) have multiple shots available without reloading. Technically all have a "magazine-fed" mechanism. In the Civil War, one cap and ball revolver gave nine shots with "bullets" and then a shotgun round - all in the same piece!

 

Now consider this: What is the purpose of a 6-string guitar when breaking the top "E" offers very little additional in terms of range? The argument for keeping the top "E" is roughly the same as having a repeating firearm - it extends the range available for "play."

 

Again, true "assault rifles" have been illegal except for very special and quite rare federal licensees, since the late 1920s. You've built a "straw man" argument about something that simply does not exist for most law-abiding Americans. Cosmetics are just like guitar cosmetics - they have little impact on the actual mechanical construction of the guitar - or rifle.

 

Let's reverse the question: Why, if I'm plinking at tin cans, should I not be allowed more than one shot without reloading the arm?

 

Or - are you simply listening to "anti" folks to whom truth and technical specifications simply ruin their arguments and bring them to a total lack of logic in their arguments? Again - why a Flying V when the SG works quite well?

[KSG_Standard]

 

KSG' date=' you are showing your true colors with this post. A great way to protect democracy is to limit who can vote. Real smart.

 

And get rid of the signature--it is both annoying and offensive. Your moving avatar is annoying enough.

 

[/quote']

 

My suggestion for testing voters was sort of tongue-in-cheek...But think about this, when the deep south used to "test" voters and/or required a poll tax, prior to the passage of the Voter Rights Act, the tests were inherently unfair. Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans were at a disadvantage because they were denied equal opportunities in education.

 

For at least 3 decades now, no minority group has been denied an education. So, most minorities have had an opportunity to learn to read, and they have had an opportunity to learn the basic functions of the US Government. Not all people choose to learn, but the opportunity has been provided for learning. Today, if we "tested" basic knowledge prior to allowing people to vote, there would probably be a mix of races that would fail the test, so it probably wouldn't be racially biased to test.

 

There are millions of people that get their news from MTV, Good Morning American, John Stewart, Kieth Olberman, Bill O'Reilly, etc...These are not news programs, but rather entertainment programs. Hard news is available to anyone that wants to look for it, if you can read, then you can learn about what's going on in the world. Many people CHOOSE not to make themselves aware of real news, but they still vote. I realize that voting is a right, but isn't it a shame that so much of the electorate is unaware of the basic functions of government? Isn't it a shame that so many people vote for politicians based on name recognition, party affiliation, pork barrel spending, skin color or physical looks?

 

Wouldn't we ALL be better served if voters knew what they were doing at the polls and who they were voting for?

 

Moonie, as for my signature, I hadn't thought about any racial overtones in the sig. It's good to know that you did. I like it, I think it's funny and I think I'll keep it.

 

Cheers...

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

bravo milod, thank you for that useful post!

[Hoyt]

Facing many thugs' date=' especially one with testes, you would be a popsicle.

 

Facing me, I guarantee it.

 

I had machetes for years, used them clearing fenceline brush. I think I can wield one effectively.

Your first swing better count, you won't get a second.

I really don't think you would do anything other than piss your pants....

 

 

So, you wanna brandish a big knife and jump around yelling like an idiot?

Yeah, and you don't wanna hurt anybody (except yourself).

 

Now you wanna do a psyche eval on me?[/quote']

 

 

LMAO at GIJoeRamboConMan and his brethren.

[Hoyt]

 

KSG' date=' you are showing your true colors with this post. A great way to protect democracy is to limit who can vote. Real smart.

 

And get rid of the signature--it is both annoying and offensive. Your moving avatar is annoying enough.

 

[/quote']

 

 

Truer words have not been posted on this thread.

[milod]

Okay... first I did the real definition of several types of firearms.

 

Now let's get into the practical usages of firearms in defense. There are been more than a few studies showing that there have been huge numbers of assaults foiled merely by the showing of a firearm in the US. That doesn't get into the "press" that may or may not be "left wing," but nevertheless tends to set the agenda of what is covered, and how.

 

Secondly, in ways the best assault weapons ever designed that don't meet the official "definition" include the 1858 Springfield rifled musket with a bayonet and the Japanese samurai sword. (I once did a piece on the 1950s-60s U.S. military swords. Horrid things to utilize that IMHO come in a distant second to the musket.)

 

I got into an argument once with a clinician at a writer's seminar who was convinced that a modern "assault rifle" was the be-all and end-all of close quarters defense. He had no training with one. He had no training with a two-handed relatively "short" sword ("short" is subjective, of course) nor bayonet nor, apparently, had he trained with a pump action shotgun. Golly, what an expert.

 

Frankly the old U.S. military folding shovel made an excellent cqb weapon, as do variations of kitchen utensils that I'd prefer if properly used to the machete, btw.

 

Firearms, as guitars, are worth only how they are perceived. The non-player can appreciate the beauty of an ES175; the non-shooter should be able to recognize the manufacturing and design genius of a fine firearm.

 

Those who believe non-religious guitar music a function of the devil are a perfect analog to those who believe firearms inherently evil, and for exactly the same reasons.

 

In fact, that latter point is perhaps ideal: Consider those whose religious beliefs, and there are many, consider secular music of any kind a function of the devil to draw people into "sin." Others believe any depiction of a human or animal as "idolatry."

 

Both beliefs do not fit in my paradigm of the world, but I can see where they're coming from, much as I believe otherwise. I doubt many of us on this forum believe that a guitar is the instrument by which we lead the innocent into sin and the minions of "the devil." Nor, I'll wager, do many of us believe that a photographic or painted depiction of human or animal is, ipse facto, idolatry.

 

But some folks do believe just that - that the form of an "instrument" defines its "morality" rather than its use.

 

Guitars, firearms...

[FennRx]

 

 

LMAO at GIJoeRamboConMan and his brethren.

 

LMAO at Comrade Hussein Hoyt

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

:) LMAO at bald headed axe

[MReynolds]

What's the matter Hoyt?...no snappy come back for Milod's posts?

 

 

Also for the rest...a good post on what an "assault rifle" is and where all those weapons in Mexico are coming from.

 

http://www.joncaldara.com/2009/03/assault-weapons-in-mexico-not-from-us-sorry-bill/

[MReynolds]

I realize you folks buy "assualt weapons" for "intimidation." That's my point and exactly why they should be outlawed and anyone who has or wants them should be given a pre-emptive psychological exam to ensure they are not a homegrown terrorist and/or psychopath. Sorry you feel the need to use such weapons to "intimidate" and bolster whatever you feel you are lacking. Seems to be a common trait among right wingers.

 

Like these same "homegrown terrorists" using "assault weapons"?

 

On the 15 of April 1775' date=' when General Thomas Gage, British Military Governor of Massachusetts, was ordered to [b']destroy the rebel's military stores[/b] at Concord...

 

...Until this time there was no armed resistance to the British that had resulted in loss of British life. Several Months earlier, Gage had attempted to destroy miliary arms at Salem...

 

 

Those "assault weapons" were flintlocks...real high tech and large capacity rounds huh?

 

As for outlawing those "assault weapons"...good luck at getting them turned in...I dare say those trying to confiscate will be met with the same result.

[milod]

Well... MReynolds and Hoyt... <grin>

 

Actually one should instead look at various dictionary definitions of "disarmed."

 

"Disarmed" is not exactly a nice place to be, either in terms of physical items or mentally.

 

A disarmed populace is essentially an urban sort of concept. Keep the people in a state of being mentally as well as physically disarmed and they rely increasingly on a government that may or may not protect them from much of anything while providing "bread and circuses" as did the later Roman emperors.

 

Being "armed," on the other hand, is a mental more than a physical state. One is "armed" with good argument. One is "armed" with a good guitar. One is "armed" with faith in something, whether it be deity or his or her own capacity to prevail at whatever.

 

Firearms are, as I've said earlier, only instruments little different from guitars. And I know of more than a few ways that guitars, either whole or in parts, can be used as pretty powerful weapons. I know also that firearms can be instruments to teach responsibility, integrity and, yes, physical valor even if that's a virtue you disdain.

 

MReynolds hit the nail on the head about "assault weapons" and technology of the 1770s. Note that the intent of the army of George III was to "disarm" a population that saw arms as a natural right. The "big government" concept in England was to the contrary. Thos. Jefferson believed nothing was much better to relax the mind and strengthen the body than a walk in the woods with a good rifle.

 

Another "shot" in history, if taken honestly, will note that when "gun control" first began in the U.S., it was aimed specifically at minorities to keep them literally as well as figuratively "disarmed" for easier human control. In the U.K., where the U.S. got its basic idea about human "rights," they started their gun control during the 1920s and union "troubles." Union troubles? Hmmmm. We must certainly disarm them so they can't threaten "the better classes."

 

Hey, I'm far from being any "winger:" I believe all of us have the same set of rights, not just bureaucrats, the wealthy and their employees. It's what we do with those rights that defines us as individuals and as a society. When we lessen those rights to personal capacity for self defense, and denigrate those who believe self protection is indeed a right including the means to it, we become a society that denies the human rights of the physically weak.

 

Oh, by the way Hoyt? Didn't you read that "assault weapons" have been illegal in the US since the 1920s and you simply changed the meaning of term to fit your argument "to bolster whatever you feel you are lacking?"

 

Hmmmm. Yup, that's argumentum ad hominem, one of the earliest-recognized logical fallacies. I don't think you're very well armed in your contention.

[Gitfidl]

I like the rifle and the guitar. First the rifle: it won't kill anyone. It'll just sit there and do nothing. If a human wants to kill someone then a rifle is only ONE WAY to do it. You can use the B string from a guitar and a piece of broom handle --faster quieter -- gushy but that's the downside. I hope that doesn't make you want to forbid owning guitars (I have five of them too). You could kill someone with a claw hammer (many have done it). But then how would we do "honey do's?" So please don't outlaw claw hammers. We could kill someone with a car. 50,000 a year get it that way -- every year for the last 60 years (worse than ALL the wars). Maybe you could start by outlawing cars. They are the most dangerous. You can kill someone with a bathtub .. so are you going to stop taking baths? What about swimming pools? You can kill someone with a baseball bat or an ax or an air hose. You can rape someone with a d*** so are you going want all of those cut off? Will you go first?

 

Or maybe you ought to be a little bit of an optimist and TRUST your neighbors to show some common sense and not kill anybody with anything. In which case we could remain a free country and not be a police state (like Nazi Germany)(I realize it's tempting to the control freaks)

[daerious]

Im not talking about the Govt regulation gun ownership' date=' when you dont respect guns, ANY gun can be dangerous, but what purpose does a semi-automatic, magazine fed weapon serve to the common man?

 

I drive a 02 dodge dakota, never more then 4MPH over the speedlimiit, I come to a full stop, use my signals, and brake for truckers and idiots, when it comes to driving, I am as safe as can be. I imagine I would be the same when it comes to handling firepower.

 

Im not trying to challenge your points, dont over interpret my question-as I really want to know why (a simple because I want would work fine)

 

 

[b']What is the purpose of owning a magazine fed, semiautomatic, assault rifle serve?[/b]

 

The 2nd Amendment was written specifically to protect the citizens of the US from the government of the US. The idea behind this is that as long as the government fears the people, as in fears the people will revolt as they did from their mother country, the government will be by the people, for the people, etc, etc.

 

The second part of this idea was that when the government does not fear the people, they will become over-powerful. There are countless examples of what an over-powered government is capable of, and I can't think of a single case of it turning out to be a good thing.

 

Finally, to get down to the answer to your question, in order for the government to fear the people, the people must have, and exercise, the right to arm themselves every bit as effectively as the government they are meant to keep in check. If our government controls a military that consists of military personnel armed with automatic weapons, which it does, then we too should equally arm ourselves to maintain the balance. This isn't about preparing for a revolutionary war so much as it is about preventing the need for one.

 

Besides the previous point, there are several other good answers:

 

1. Because I want to, and I'm not hurting anyone, and this is still the USA and that should be good enough reason.

2. Because I was trained with this weapon in the military, and I am most comfortable with it, and thus it is the safest

choice for my own protection.

3. Because I do not have extensive weapon specialization training that qualifies me to reliably judge the quality,

reliability, and effectiveness of a weapon. Therefore I feel that the military choosing it as their

weapon of choice, along with law enforcement agencies, is a good recommendation for what weapon I should get

trained with, and use to protect myself and my family.

4. Because in spite of all possible efforts anyone could ever take, 5 gang members looking for drug money very well

could break into my home and force me to defend myself against 5 armed men. I feel my chances are better if I

can put a few rounds into each of them, taking into account missed shots (being mindful of my backstop of course),

and manage to, under stress, get at least 3 rounds on each target. This in contrast to a "6 shooter" where if I

miss only twice, someone is left perfectly healthy to kill me, and 4 others are left with wounds that will likely allow

them to continue their assault.

5. Heard the story about the state trooper killed by the suspect... after he shot the suspect 6 times in the chest with

a .357 revolver? A handgun is not the most effective means of defending your home. That honor belongs to either

a shotgun or rifle, depending on the layout of your home and surroundings.

 

If you ask 100 people, you could very well get 100 good answers, but a more important question is, what purpose would it serve to ban me from owning said weapon.

[KSG_Standard]

When the second amendment was written, the framers had the idea that the citizen soldiers (the militia) would fight side by side with the Army in the event of war. They had the idea that the citizens would be armed with guns that were similar to the guns that the US Army and the enemy army would be carrying. So based on the original intent of the framers, it would seem only reasonable that we should be able to at least own semi-automatic, high capacity firearms capable of firing the same ammunition as the Army and the enemy.

"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."

 

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

 

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

 

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

 

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

 

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

 

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

 

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

 

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

 

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

 

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

 

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

 

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

 

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

 

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

 

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

 

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

 

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

 

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

 

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

 

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

 

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

 

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

 

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

 

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

 

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

 

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

 

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

 

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

 

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

 

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

 

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New England)

 

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

 

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

 

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

 

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")

 

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [boston, 1833])

 

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

 

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

 

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

 

"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, © 1984, p. 71-72.]

 

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 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 constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

 

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

 

" 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

 

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

 

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [state vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

 

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

[Hoyt]

KSG, Too bad the founders didn't allow slaves to own arms. Or, maybe they just should have freed the slaves, allowed women to vote, and outlawed killing Native Americans for their land.

 

Sorry, the founders didn't envision citizens trying to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction (aka, "assualt weapons", special bullets, etc.). Timmy McVeigh shared your views though.

[Bluemoon]

 

My suggestion for testing voters was sort of tongue-in-cheek...But think about this' date=' when the deep south used to "test" voters and/or required a poll tax, prior to the passage of the Voter Rights Act, the tests were inherently unfair. Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans were at a disadvantage because they were denied equal opportunities in education.

 

For at least 3 decades now, no minority group has been denied an education. So, most minorities have had an opportunity to learn to read, and they have had an opportunity to learn the basic functions of the US Government. Not all people choose to learn, but the opportunity has been provided for learning. Today, if we "tested" basic knowledge prior to allowing people to vote, there would probably be a mix of races that would fail the test, so it probably wouldn't be racially biased to test.

 

There are millions of people that get their news from MTV, Good Morning American, John Stewart, Kieth Olberman, Bill O'Reilly, etc...These are not news programs, but rather entertainment programs. Hard news is available to anyone that wants to look for it, if you can read, then you can learn about what's going on in the world. Many people CHOOSE not to make themselves aware of real news, but they still vote. I realize that voting is a right, but isn't it a shame that so much of the electorate is unaware of the basic functions of government? Isn't it a shame that so many people vote for politicians based on name recognition, party affiliation, pork barrel spending, skin color or physical looks?

 

Wouldn't we ALL be better served if voters knew what they were doing at the polls and who they were voting for?

 

Moonie, as for my signature, I hadn't thought about any racial overtones in the sig. It's good to know that you did. I like it, I think it's funny and I think I'll keep it.

 

Cheers...[/quote']

 

 

So perhaps we should require that those who buy guns take tests too. Perhaps you should only to be allowed to own a gun if you have a certain IQ and have taken a number of certified firearm safety classes. For instance, I am a diver. I had to take both a written test and a test in the water to be certified.

[milod]

Here we go again... and I'll try to keep this relatively short.

 

Why not have some sort of "test" for those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights, and then to determine who "deserves" those rights or not?

 

Sorry, the argument is bogus, especially after the recent SCOTUS decision that finally puts an end to anti 2nd amendment arguments that "only the National Guard" is affected even with the term "the people" in the article.

 

Should we also then have tests to see who is competent to attend various churches, and who should be allowed to speak freely, to publish news and opinions or to assemble peaceably?

 

That latter is what is what it appears some would advocate. I question whether any "test to allow" firearms ownership or possession is constitutional. On the other hand, one must admit there are "tests" for those who wish the governmental status of "clergy" in the religious arena. But that also is a relatively recent artifact of bureaucracy and governmental "control" of society at large.

 

The Brits exercised warfare against the "native" Scots and Irish into the mid 18th Century - and disarming the population was part of the agenda. The battle at Culloden was in 1746, rather recent.

 

Music a "weapon of war?" Yup. It was the Brits who proclaimed the bagpipes a weapon of war. They were, for a generation or two (I don't recall off the top of my head) banned as such.

 

It's exactly that "government knows best" and "privilege for those born to it" that the English and "Scots-Irish" of the American colonial experience found contrary to their core ideals and led to revolution.

 

The bottom line remains: Do we wish a nation, nay, a world, where a musical instrument might be outlawed? Don't forget that the bagpipes were treated as a "weapon" to be outlawed along with firearms and swords - and at the time, many Brit legislators and aristos believed that the pipes indeed were as dangerous as a rifle.

[Bluemoon]

Here we go again... and I'll try to keep this relatively short.

 

Why not have some sort of "test" for those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights' date=' and then to determine who "deserves" those rights or not?

 

Sorry, the argument is bogus, especially after the recent SCOTUS decision that finally puts an end to anti 2nd amendment arguments that "only the National Guard" is affected even with the term "the people" in the article.

 

Should we also then have tests to see who is competent to attend various churches, and who should be allowed to speak freely, to publish news and opinions or to assemble peaceably?

 

That latter is what is what it appears some would advocate. I question whether any "test to allow" firearms ownership or possession is constitutional. On the other hand, one must admit there are "tests" for those who wish the governmental status of "clergy" in the religious arena. But that also is a relatively recent artifact of bureaucracy and governmental "control" of society at large.

 

The Brits exercised warfare against the "native" Scots and Irish into the mid 18th Century - and disarming the population was part of the agenda. The battle at Culloden was in 1746, rather recent.

 

Music a "weapon of war?" Yup. It was the Brits who proclaimed the bagpipes a weapon of war. They were, for a generation or two (I don't recall off the top of my head) banned as such.

 

It's exactly that "government knows best" and "privilege for those born to it" that the English and "Scots-Irish" of the American colonial experience found contrary to their core ideals and led to revolution.

 

The bottom line remains: Do we wish a nation, nay, a world, where a musical instrument might be outlawed? Don't forget that the bagpipes were treated as a "weapon" to be outlawed along with firearms and swords - and at the time, many Brit legislators and aristos believed that the pipes indeed were as dangerous as a rifle.[/quote']

 

It was a rhetorical question--KSG was the one arguing that people should have to pass a test to vote. I wanted to see if he believed that same approach should apply to gun ownership.

 

And thanks for keeping your posts relatively short.

[Homz]

Come on Bluemoon, don't you know the more words you use the more you support your point. It's a well known fact.

 

Lots of words = lots of credability

 

Like this.

 

Republicans are dipsh1ts. Want more proof that Republicans are dicks? Here it is, straight from the Gallup poll:

 

“Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent… Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats.”

 

How does this prove that Repubs are assholes? One word: arrogance. You could break it down a few different ways. Here’s two:

 

– Democrats tend to be more open minded - and therefore more open to the concept OF mental health, and having less than perfect mental health, and seeking help to maintain or uplift it as needed.

 

– Republicans carry around the enormous weight of maintaining an image of total reason, control, certainty etc., etc., when in fact they’re just as confused as the rest of us.

 

The Gallup poll clarifies that the relationship between party identification and self-reported excellent mental health is consistent even when income, age, gender, church attendance, and education are looked at independently. So we can’t blame it on the fact that those with lower incomes are more stressed out, that women and other minorities harbor resentment that they consider to impair their mental health, that educated people go, “Well, I’m educated – what could be wrong with my brain?” or perhaps even that men are too macho to admit when they have a problem.

 

It’s interesting to note that independents too reported more “excellent mental health” than Democrats. How do I interpret this? Well, we all know that smug nonpartisan who thinks they’re just so clever for considering themselves nonpartisan because “both parties suck.” Of course they’d be more likely to declare excellent mental health than the hand-wringing Democrat. (This is assuming that the poll means ‘nonpartisans’ when it says ‘independents,’ based on the fact that ‘independent’ is not capitalized and there probably aren’t enough members of the actual Independent Party to provide a good sampling for this poll.)

 

In the end, though, the most glaring part of the poll is just the fact that, even in the face of so much evidence mounting against their ability to reason (Iraq, dwindling economy, impending enviro catastrophe, not to mention public opinion) and emotional health status (conflicting emotions about the toll of the Iraq war, the state they’re leaving the environment in for their children and grandchildren, the fact that they love their gay daughter/son/relative yet vote against their best interests), even when it’s SO OBVIOUS how wrong wrong wrong they are, Republicans can still - STILL! - think of themselves as Oh So Right.

 

It reminds me of one Walter Sobchak, of The Big Lebowski. In the movie, after pulling out a gun on a fellow league bowler and riling the unrile-able Dude, insists in the car that he IS relaxed.

 

“I’m perfectly calm. I’m perfectly calm. Calmer than you are.”

 

I’m sure that if you asked the tightly-wound Sobchak about his mental health, he’d say it was impeccable.

 

I have no idea what the above says. I didn't actually read it, but since it has lots of words it must be true.

[Homz]

Large-breasted women tend to be Democrats.

 

It must be true. I found it on the internet. I will now support the comment with many words.

 

 

A breast augmentation("breast enlargement") is performed to increase the size and fullness of the breasts. Uneven breast sizes may also be improved by the use of different volumes in each implant. The breast enhancement procedure can boost self-confidence by improving the balance of your figure and restoring breast size and projection that has been caused by weight loss, pregnancy, and/or the aging process.

 

The Straith Clinic in Bingham Farms, Michigan located between Southfield and Bloomfield Hills, performs breast augmentation in Metro Detroit's state of the art accredited surgical suite. No matter what area of Metro Detroit you are from: including Warren, Grosse Pointe, Taylor, Livonia, Troy, or Rochester Hills, the Straith Clinic is close by for Breast Enlargement Surgery.

 

The choice of final breast size depends on a number of factors:

 

* Amount of breast tissue available

* Patient's body proportions

* Judgment of the surgeon

* Patients Preference

 

The Breast Implant Procedure

 

An incision is made in the fold of the skin below the breast, in the axilla, or the edge of the areola. Placement of the implants through the navel is not approved by the FDA or the breast implant manufacturers. A surgical "pocket" is constructed either under the breast tissue (subglandular) or under the pectoralis major muscle (submuscular). The implants are placed into this "pocket" and the small incisions are sutured closed. Placement of the implants through the navel is not approved by the breast implant manufacturers.

 

Silicone Breast Implants or Saline Breast Implants

 

Both Silicone Breast Implants and Saline Breast Implants are FDA approved for cosmetic breast enlargement. Silicone breast implants are filled with silicone gel and saline breast implants are filled with sterile salt (saline) water. Currently, both silicone breast implants and saline breast implants in a variety of shapes and sizes are utilized at the Straith Clinic. Straith Clinic surgeons specialize in breast augmentation and will discuss with you the advantages and disadvantages between silicone implants and saline implants during your free breast augmentation consultation. They will help you make an informed decision that will be safe and effective and that will give you a natural result. It's a well known fact that large breasted women tend to be Democrats. Yeah Democrats.

 

General Breast Augmentation Surgery Details

 

· Anesthesia: Generally local anesthesia with IV sedation.

· Length of surgery: 1 to 2 hours.

· In/Outpatient: Generally out-patient in our AAAHC accredited office surgical suite or in a hospital setting.

· Recovery: Back to work: few days. Physical contact with breasts: 3 to 4 weeks. More strenuous activity: 3 to 6 weeks.

· Duration of Results: Variable - Implants may require removal or replacement years after initial placement.

[Bluemoon]

Large-breasted women tend to be Democrats.

 

It must be true. I found it on the internet. I will now support the comment with many words.

 

 

A breast augmentation("breast enlargement") is performed to increase the size and fullness of the breasts. Uneven breast sizes may also be improved by the use of different volumes in each implant. The breast enhancement procedure can boost self-confidence by improving the balance of your figure and restoring breast size and projection that has been caused by weight loss' date=' pregnancy, and/or the aging process.

 

The Straith Clinic in Bingham Farms, Michigan located between Southfield and Bloomfield Hills, performs breast augmentation in Metro Detroit's state of the art accredited surgical suite. No matter what area of Metro Detroit you are from: including Warren, Grosse Pointe, Taylor, Livonia, Troy, or Rochester Hills, the Straith Clinic is close by for Breast Enlargement Surgery.

 

The choice of final breast size depends on a number of factors:

 

* Amount of breast tissue available

* Patient's body proportions

* Judgment of the surgeon

* Patients Preference

 

The Breast Implant Procedure

 

An incision is made in the fold of the skin below the breast, in the axilla, or the edge of the areola. Placement of the implants through the navel is not approved by the FDA or the breast implant manufacturers. A surgical "pocket" is constructed either under the breast tissue (subglandular) or under the pectoralis major muscle (submuscular). The implants are placed into this "pocket" and the small incisions are sutured closed. Placement of the implants through the navel is not approved by the breast implant manufacturers.

 

Silicone Breast Implants or Saline Breast Implants

 

Both Silicone Breast Implants and Saline Breast Implants are FDA approved for cosmetic breast enlargement. Silicone breast implants are filled with silicone gel and saline breast implants are filled with sterile salt (saline) water. Currently, both silicone breast implants and saline breast implants in a variety of shapes and sizes are utilized at the Straith Clinic. Straith Clinic surgeons specialize in breast augmentation and will discuss with you the advantages and disadvantages between silicone implants and saline implants during your free breast augmentation consultation. They will help you make an informed decision that will be safe and effective and that will give you a natural result.

 

General Breast Augmentation Surgery Details

 

· Anesthesia: Generally local anesthesia with IV sedation.

· Length of surgery: 1 to 2 hours.

· In/Outpatient: Generally out-patient in our AAAHC accredited office surgical suite or in a hospital setting.

· Recovery: Back to work: few days. Physical contact with breasts: 3 to 4 weeks. More strenuous activity: 3 to 6 weeks.

· Duration of Results: Variable - Implants may require removal or replacement years after initial placement.

[/quote']

 

I like breasts.

 

[milod]

RE: breasts.... Most ladies I know are rather attached to theirs.

 

Also... for what it's worth, the note was rather short. I've also put out over 2,000 words for "work" before noon.

 

Sorry... I guess some folks don't like information that's easily documented if it goes against their beliefs that aren't.

 

Oh, and I love bagpipes. Never learned to play them, though. And anyone questioning why they were considered a "weapon of war" to be banned is naive.

 

But then, my understanding is that it's illegal to play a number of musical pieces in today's Germany.

 

We Americans have done our own censorship of the currently politically incorrect. Try finding a lot of film cartoons and musical recordings from the WWII era. One song title I recall from my parents' collection was "We're going to have to slap that dirty little Jap." Can you imagine that playing today on the radio or on Youtube?

 

As musicians we should be aware that governments, even "modern" and "enlightened" ones, don't necessarily like our work unless it fits the paradigm of those in power. And that's regardless of the U.S. First Amendment.

[Homz]

RE: breasts.... Most ladies I know are rather attached to theirs.

 

Also... for what it's worth' date=' the note was rather short. I've also put out over 2,000 words for "work" before noon.

 

Sorry... I guess some folks don't like information that's easily documented if it goes against their beliefs that aren't.

 

Oh, and I love bagpipes. Never learned to play them, though. And anyone questioning why they were considered a "weapon of war" to be banned is naive.

 

But then, my understanding is that it's illegal to play a number of musical pieces in today's Germany.

 

We Americans have done our own censorship of the currently politically incorrect. Try finding a lot of film cartoons and musical recordings from the WWII era. One song title I recall from my parents' collection was "We're going to have to slap that dirty little Jap." Can you imagine that playing today on the radio or on Youtube?

 

As musicians we should be aware that governments, even "modern" and "enlightened" ones, don't necessarily like our work unless it fits the paradigm of those in power. And that's regardless of the U.S. First Amendment.

[/quote']

 

Don't miss the point. It isn't those that take the time to write their own posts that bother me it is the all the copy/paste stuff used to support some exaggerated point. It's obvious you and others put some thought into your posts. I might not agree with them all the time, but their your opinions and you are of coarse entitled to them.

My point wasn't directed to you.

[milod]

BTW, Homz...

 

For what it's worth, one of your notes on politics might easily serve as a college logic class study of how arguments can include a wide range of fallacious logic - everything from argumentum ad hominem to "red herring" to "Straw man" etc., etc., etc. <huge grin showing the creases of a topographical map where once I had a face>

 

I fully agree, btw, about cut and paste being overblown here and elsewhere on varying "lists."

 

But argumentum ad hominem - in effect, "your argument is bad because you stink" - is especially bothersome to me. Music and politics are, of course, quite subjective in what catches a given individual's fancy.

 

And yet... I can't help but believe, and continue to hope, that discussion on either music or politics can follow some degree of valid premises and then solid reasoning from those premises in an overall atmosphere of mutual respect. Some things, such as my appreciation of skilled bagpiping, can't necessarily be considered "logical," and that should, indeed, be admitted. But one's appreciation of Segovia's incredible repertoire is quite logical in terms of recognition of the talent and incredible memory that guitarist exemplified.

 

This is just "personal opinion," but I also can't help but believe that one who has played lots of "blue collar" and "cowboy" saloons is most likely to end up something of a "libertarian populist" - odd as that might sound. Ah, the tales I might tell of that, as well. <and here's that grin again!>

[Homz]

I have no idea what you said, but I like the way you said it.

 

I did actually read it too.