Decision triggers debate

Views vary on whether gun ruling on target

By Matt Lakin, Friday, June 27, 2008

[NightSerf]

I expect this decision to be well received in Tennessee. It does address only half of the Amendment, though, and I'm sure activists will now focus their attention on the right to bear arms as well as owning them for home protection. I expect to see a test case reach the Court in the course of the next decade.

[Bored]

Watching Headline News this morning (June27) they showed results from a poll.

76% were In favor of the ruling.
20% were NOT.

Those numbers suprised me actually. I would have guessed them alot closer than that.

[more deaf than dumb]

NightSerf wrote:

I expect this decision to be well received in Tennessee. It does address only half of the Amendment, though, and I'm sure activists will now focus their attention on the right to bear arms as well as owning them for home protection. I expect to see a test case reach the Court in the course of the next decade.

I agreed with what I heard Penn Jillette say, to paraphrase:
Everybody should be allowed to carry a gun...let the terrorists profile us.

[more deaf than dumb]

NightSerf wrote:

I expect this decision to be well received in Tennessee. It does address only half of the Amendment, though, and I'm sure activists will now focus their attention on the right to bear arms as well as owning them for home protection. I expect to see a test case reach the Court in the course of the next decade.

BTW, I noticed the statement under your avatar, and was wondering...where does that work at?

[NightSerf]

more deaf than dumb wrote:

<quoted text>
BTW, I noticed the statement under your avatar, and was wondering...where does that work at?

It's the foundation of my personal philosophy. I've spent the last decade identifying and reexamining my basic assumptions in an attempt to form a more rational basis for my world view. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living, and I extend that concept to systems of belief.

So many cling to ideas that they gleaned from parents, teachers, friends, and neighbors but never put to any test or measured against solid research. If they look at the vast body of knowledge that is now so accessible through the internet at all, it is only to cherry pick it for a few tidbits to support what they already believe, not to know more or see farther.

So that phrase promotes readiness and willingness to give up even the most closely held opinions in the face of new data of all sorts. That opinions must yield to known fact is at the heart of my brand of skepticism. But the only place that it is meant to "work" is within a growing and changing mind.

[more deaf than dumb]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
It's the foundation of my personal philosophy. I've spent the last decade identifying and reexamining my basic assumptions in an attempt to form a more rational basis for my world view. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living, and I extend that concept to systems of belief.
So many cling to ideas that they gleaned from parents, teachers, friends, and neighbors but never put to any test or measured against solid research. If they look at the vast body of knowledge that is now so accessible through the internet at all, it is only to cherry pick it for a few tidbits to support what they already believe, not to know more or see farther.
So that phrase promotes readiness and willingness to give up even the most closely held opinions in the face of new data of all sorts. That opinions must yield to known fact is at the heart of my brand of skepticism. But the only place that it is meant to "work" is within a growing and changing mind.

That's an honorable path towards an admirable goal, others have followed a similar path:

"The Emerald Tablet", Dennis William Hauck

[Bailey3017]

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
It's the foundation of my personal philosophy. I've spent the last decade identifying and reexamining my basic assumptions in an attempt to form a more rational basis for my world view. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living, and I extend that concept to systems of belief.
So many cling to ideas that they gleaned from parents, teachers, friends, and neighbors but never put to any test or measured against solid research. If they look at the vast body of knowledge that is now so accessible through the internet at all, it is only to cherry pick it for a few tidbits to support what they already believe, not to know more or see farther.
So that phrase promotes readiness and willingness to give up even the most closely held opinions in the face of new data of all sorts. That opinions must yield to known fact is at the heart of my brand of skepticism. But the only place that it is meant to "work" is within a growing and changing mind.

All...the....big....words, can't...process....head....swe lling....can't focus.

LOL...j/k serf! Love ya...I'm feeling a bit whitty and sarcastic tonight.

[Bout time]

Bored wrote:

Watching Headline News this morning (June27) they showed results from a poll.
76% were In favor of the ruling.
20% were NOT.
Those numbers suprised me actually. I would have guessed them alot closer than that.

Someone was holding a gun to the heads of the 76% who said they were in favor of the ruling.

[Bored]

Bout time wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone was holding a gun to the heads of the 76% who said they were in favor of the ruling.

But why would Headline News report that poll? Being a pretty liberal news channel.

[more deaf than dumb]

You made the wild assertion that the US spends more on corporate welfare than it spends on the poor.
Post evidence that supports your statement.
Otherwise, I have no intention of arguing against your ill-informed opinion.

rollin wrote:

<quoted text>
Why don't you cry foul at the corporate handouts which far exceed the amount spend on the "poor". Isn't the neocon mantra: If you can't make it on your own don't ask us for help? Doesn't that apply to corporations too?

rollin wrote:

<quoted text>
Did a Oil company ever loan you money?
Did time/Warner ever loan you money to start a business?
Did con/ed ever pay your mortgage?

I took in a stray parakeet two years ago...I have no use for a parrot.

[more deaf than dumb]

OOps, jumped threads somehow, sorry.

[Bout time]

Bored wrote:

<quoted text>
But why would Headline News report that poll? Being a pretty liberal news channel.

So they can say "I told you so" when the crime rate goes up???

[more deaf than dumb]

Bout time wrote:

<quoted text>
So they can say "I told you so" when the crime rate goes up???

What will they say if the crime rate goes down?

Indianapolis Star newspaper reports on all the murders every year, but for some reason this list includes police action shootings and people shot and killed trying to rob someone.

[Joseph Bailey]

This decision was the most accurate that they sorry excuse for jurisprudence called the US Supreme Court has done in years. It has always been an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT-why in the world does anyone think it was part of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

The Second Amendment is the single most important part of the US Constitution. It has NEVER been about hunting, not even the NRA is right about that but about the ability of the States' to take on the feds, were it to be necessary to reign in the central government. Then it was about self-defense. Regardless, lock and load and be PROUD OF IT because all of those other horrible bans are going to be challenged and brought down!

[Bout time]

more deaf than dumb wrote:

<quoted text>
What will they say if the crime rate goes down?
Indianapolis Star newspaper reports on all the murders every year, but for some reason this list includes police action shootings and people shot and killed trying to rob someone.

It WILL go up--they get to report what they choose, right? You can make statistics say just about anything you want.

[Joseph Bailey]

Bout time wrote:

<quoted text>
You can make statistics say just about anything you want.

Never a truer statement spoken.

[NightSerf]

Statistics are easily manipulated only because many cite them without knowledge of their basic principles and audiences often accept them uncritically. Many in forums like Topix cite statistics to support assertions of one sort or another, often unaware of the sources or methods of collection and analysis. They are simply repeating what they've heard (and accepted uncritically) from such secondary sources as media commentators or their own acquaintances. Unless a citation includes a source which readers can (and should) verify, statistical assertions should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Congkiller]

NightSerf wrote:

Statistics are easily manipulated only because many cite them without knowledge of their basic principles and audiences often accept them uncritically. Many in forums like Topix cite statistics to support assertions of one sort or another, often unaware of the sources or methods of collection and analysis. They are simply repeating what they've heard (and accepted uncritically) from such secondary sources as media commentators or their own acquaintances. Unless a citation includes a source which readers can (and should) verify, statistical assertions should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Hey Serf, this is off topic, but I wondered what happened to you. Did you visit Rogers? I went over to Champs on the 4th and I kept going because I saw my wife's yellow motorcycle outside.