tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post5135074989000667319..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Propaganda and Perverting the 2nd AmendmentAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-38500334950299783142015-01-15T18:39:04.655+01:002015-01-15T18:39:04.655+01:00TS, can you imagine how much of Mikeb's silly ...TS, can you imagine how much of Mikeb's silly whining we could have spared ourselves, had we said "<i>approximately</i> billions"?<br /><br />Ah, well. Live and learn.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-58627417831174451052015-01-12T19:11:03.737+01:002015-01-12T19:11:03.737+01:00Now that you've had your remedial instruction ...Now that you've had your remedial instruction (hopefully sufficient, finally) on the meaning of "billions," Mikeb, I'll note without surprise that you have failed to answer <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/propaganda-and-perverting-2nd-amendment.html?showComment=1420387402580#c8094167119903643550" rel="nofollow">my</a> repeated <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/propaganda-and-perverting-2nd-amendment.html?showComment=1420912440877#c6253162924037032333" rel="nofollow">question</a> as to what would impose this notional less-than-one-billion-and-one limit on the number of possible recipients to whom an email could be sent.<br /><br />So instead of trying to require you to solve this great, deep mystery, forget about what <i>imposes</i> the limit. Perhaps you can instead merely edify me on what you think the limit <i>is</i>. Don't worry about precision--anything within an order of magnitude is fine. 100 million? 10 million? Let's hear it.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-82685761096141304642015-01-12T18:11:20.125+01:002015-01-12T18:11:20.125+01:00There was no other way for the right to be interpr...There was no other way for the right to be interpreted. And IF, THAT'S IF, Mike we do get a change in judges to lean left of the center you simply can't reverse the decision without the entire case being brought before them or another case with different or stronger merits that will require the decision to be overturned in favor of the new case. <br /><br />What we have now is a center balanced, altho a little left of center supreme court with one wild card. This court has voted 9 to 0 several times against Obama already. What does that tell you. They were interpreting his constitutional powers and Obama lost.<br /><br />A supreme court may decide that in the Bill of Rights that blacks aren't free, women don't have the right to vote and anything beyond pen and paper isn't free speech. That's what you asking from the court, to have the court rewrite the Bill of Rights to suit what you think it says. The court does not have the power to do that.<br /><br />Gunsmokenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-87776695256401586512015-01-12T14:16:06.928+01:002015-01-12T14:16:06.928+01:00That's the greatest spin job I've ever rea...<i>That's the greatest spin job I've ever read.</i><br /><br />Save your compliments. I've got no use for 'em. What <i>would</i> be useful would be an explanation of which of these assertions is untrue--you only need one of them to be false, to sink my contention that one billion and one can appropriately be referred to as "billions." So which one is it:<br /><br />1) One billion and one can be expressed as 1.000000001 billion.<br />2) 1.000000001 is greater than 1.<br />3) "Plural" can be appropriately defined as "more than one in number."<br />4) The plural of "billion" is "billions."<br /><br />If all four are true, then so is my contention that referring to one billion and one as "billions" is not a "lie."<br /><br /><i>So to answer my other question in this regard, you refer to 101 as hundreds?</i><br /><br />I've already <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/propaganda-and-perverting-2nd-amendment.html?showComment=1420387402580#c8094167119903643550" rel="nofollow">answered that inane question</a>, you ridiculous clown. Look it up.<br /><br /><i>If someone owned exactly 101 guns and claimed to own hundreds of guns, you'd be ok with that?</i><br /><br />Would I "be ok with that"? Well <i>of course</i>. What kind of idiot would bother objecting to that? Oh, wait--I suppose we know exactly what kind of idiot would.<br /><br />Again, I observe that if our positions were reversed, you would be shrieking about my having "diverted" the discussion. But then again, you've never been shy about being a hypocrite.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-67834844035194073432015-01-12T11:42:57.956+01:002015-01-12T11:42:57.956+01:00What has always been the law? The Heller decision...What has always been the law? The Heller decision? Are you kidding? Are you talking about that old god-given, natural human right thing?<br /><br />And that would mean that if the balance on the Supreme Court had been one judge different, and the vote went the other way, that would have always been the law?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-7144600702349067392015-01-12T11:39:29.938+01:002015-01-12T11:39:29.938+01:00That's the greatest spin job I've ever rea...That's the greatest spin job I've ever read. Your inability to admit a mistake and the lengths to which you'll go to avoid admitting it, is hysterical.<br /><br />So to answer my other question in this regard, you refer to 101 as hundreds? If someone owned exactly 101 guns and claimed to own hundreds of guns, you'd be ok with that? These are yes or no questions, Mr. Spin Doctor Kurt.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-62531629240370323332015-01-10T18:54:00.877+01:002015-01-10T18:54:00.877+01:00So an obscure blogger can do "incalculable&qu...So an obscure blogger can do "incalculable" damage using modern communications technology (far more, certainly, than I could have with quill and parchment). How much damage could I do with even the most modern of firearms available to most U.S. citizens? I could possibly kill by the dozen, I suppose. Is that "<i>incalculable</i>"? Depends on one's math skills, I suppose.<br /><br />You also haven't addressed the fact that the most prolific killers in the modern world would be far less capable of killing in the numbers they do without modern communications.<br /><br /><i>By the way, did you ever admit your double mistake about the billions of e-mails? First you insisted such a thing is technically possible, then most comically, you said one-billion-and-one is referred to as billions plural.</i><br /><br />I'm still waiting for evidence of a <i>single</i> mistake. Just some explanation of what limitation stands in the way of sending an email to billions.<br /><br />And then there's this. One billion and one can be written 1.000000001 billion (because 1.000000001 is the decimal form of one and one billionth, and because one and one billionth multiplied by one billion is one billion and one). 1.000000001 is greater than 1. Since "plural" <a href="https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=definition+plural" rel="nofollow">is defined as</a> "more than one in number," then 1.000000001 of something can appropriately be referred to in plural terms. The <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/billion" rel="nofollow">plural of "billion,"</a> as it turns out, is "billions."<br /><br />Game, set, and match, Mikeb. Better luck next time, and thanks for the entertainment.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-81901632921206022902015-01-10T18:26:57.805+01:002015-01-10T18:26:57.805+01:00Kurt, it's my opinion that you do incalculable...Kurt, it's my opinion that you do incalculable damage with your writings in the Examiner and elsewhere. That's because your readers are mainly idiot gun nuts who are rightly impressed with your glib turn of phrase as well as your intractable fanaticism. You push them towards the criminal actions you yourself refrain from. It's despicable.<br /><br />It's also my opinion that the difference between the musket of 1790 and the most advanced individual weapons of today is greater then that of the quill on parchment missive and the e-mail and internet communications of today. I already mentioned why, the one is counted in the loss of life (e.g. Lanza) and the other is not.<br /><br />By the way, did you ever admit your double mistake about the billions of e-mails? First you insisted such a thing is technically possible, then most comically, you said one-billion-and-one is referred to as billions plural.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-87099948808856961482015-01-09T19:55:20.678+01:002015-01-09T19:55:20.678+01:00"Well, I don't know if we deny its validi..."Well, I don't know if we deny its validity as much as just call it a mistake which will be reversed in the future. For now, it is the law."<br /><br />Mike its always been the law. Its just that it has come to the point that the people have been denied their rights to the point that legal challenged was take to SCOTUS had to confirm it. But just short of confirming it all. Just )( this short, but it will come.Gunsmokenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59796907334579757932015-01-08T14:52:05.859+01:002015-01-08T14:52:05.859+01:00Kurt, do you have a special system for finding and...<i>Kurt, do you have a special system for finding and pulling up obscure quotes out of the archives?</i><br /><br />Should I take that to mean that you don't intend to address the fact that you have accused me of doing "incalculable damage" using modern communications technology, but can point to <i><b>no</b></i> damage I've done with modern firearms?<br /><br />As for <i>your</i> inane question, I don't think there's anything "special" about my "system." I'll tell you what, though--if you don't like being held to account for your self-contradictions and inconsistencies, you could try holding yourself to a higher intellectual and ethical standard, and then no one could catch you in these traps of your own making, no matter <i>how</i> "special" the "system" used.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-88168767896275103662015-01-08T08:37:58.061+01:002015-01-08T08:37:58.061+01:00"But then, gun control advocates are also sti..."But then, gun control advocates are also still denying the validity of Heller and McDonald."<br /><br />Well, I don't know if we deny its validity as much as just call it a mistake which will be reversed in the future. For now, it is the law.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-53707943331095209892015-01-08T08:34:12.023+01:002015-01-08T08:34:12.023+01:00Kurt, do you have a special system for finding and...Kurt, do you have a special system for finding and pulling up obscure quotes out of the archives? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59359024680395990212015-01-08T01:39:23.542+01:002015-01-08T01:39:23.542+01:00Here's another thought on the supposedly great...Here's another thought on the supposedly greater threat of technological advances in small arms, as compared to similarly large, or even larger, advances in communications tech. <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/05/more-on-3-d-gun-recklessness.html?showComment=1368301372103#c3573545817801418531" rel="nofollow">You once said</a>, Mikeb, that, "The damage [I'm] doing in the world is '<i>incalculable</i>.'"<br /><br />Presumably, you would be willing to acknowledge that advances in firearm technology have done nothing to augment the "damage" I do, since I have shot, at <i>most</i>, a number of people equal to the number you have shot.<br /><br />I would hope that you would <i>also</i> acknowledge that this "damage" I'm doing <i>has</i> been boosted by advances in communications tech. I suspect, in fact, that if I were limited to quill and parchment for spreading my "damaging" thoughts, that even <i>your</i> mathematical skills would be up to the task of "calculating" the "damage," don't you think?Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-73020885103785331922015-01-07T19:21:02.567+01:002015-01-07T19:21:02.567+01:00Funny Kurt. I guess the cause of a death means not...Funny Kurt. I guess the cause of a death means nothing to you. <br />SS, as it should be IMO. Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-22258617862841832112015-01-07T08:05:33.316+01:002015-01-07T08:05:33.316+01:00Trying to argue that rights are rights just doesn&...<i>Trying to argue that rights are rights just doesn't really work . . . </i><br /><br />So <i>that's</i> your case for the notion that advances in firearm technology have invalidated the right to keep and bear modern arms, but the enormous advances in communications tech have left the First Amendment intact? It's because rights <i>aren't</i> rights?<br /><br />Man, Mikeb--I hope you become a central figure in the "gun control" movement. You'd be better in that role than McCarthy and Biden combined, for the purposes of rights advocates.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-30837874564135700062015-01-07T07:36:48.647+01:002015-01-07T07:36:48.647+01:00"You know what? The more I read this thread t..."You know what? The more I read this thread the more I think comparing the 1A to the 2A is bogus."<br /><br /> Perhaps you should try to get Ms. Watts to stop going there since the gun control side loves to trot out the comparison all the time,<br /><br />"It should not be subjected to the same limits as other Constitutional rights like, for example, freedom of speech. (I can’t go yell fire in a crowded theater, for example.) "<br /><br />http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2015/01/salon-interview-with-shannon-watts.html<br /><br /> But then, gun control advocates are also still denying the validity of Heller and McDonald. ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-71773148021724552642015-01-07T07:29:19.350+01:002015-01-07T07:29:19.350+01:00You know what? The more I read this thread the mor...You know what? The more I read this thread the more I think comparing the 1A to the 2A is bogus. They're apples and oranges. Trying to argue that rights are rights just doesn't really work, as demonstrated in these comments.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-32741049126708294652015-01-07T06:00:31.003+01:002015-01-07T06:00:31.003+01:00"So you see no difference over a right to a d..."So you see no difference over a right to a deadly weapon and free speech?"<br /><br /> Second Amendment rights are already much more heavily restricted than First Amendment rights. ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-10503678937066070292015-01-06T22:59:35.225+01:002015-01-06T22:59:35.225+01:00Speech cannot cause a direct death.
Are victims o...<i>Speech cannot cause a direct death.</i><br /><br />Are victims of "indirect death" any less dead?Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-41378537447947344742015-01-06T19:29:09.213+01:002015-01-06T19:29:09.213+01:00So you see no difference over a right to a deadly ...So you see no difference over a right to a deadly weapon and free speech? Seems logical to me that a deadly weapon should come with more restrictions. Speech cannot cause a direct death. Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-15809044479576846062015-01-06T15:03:52.289+01:002015-01-06T15:03:52.289+01:00"The 1st A has limits and regulations on it.&..."The 1st A has limits and regulations on it."<br /><br /> And these limits and regulations come into play AFTER the misuse of speech. Much like laws punishing assault and homicide come into play for misuse of a firearm.<br /> The few laws restricting speech that deal with public assembly are often challenged in court and not well enforced as can be seen in recent protests. There are however many restrictions on the Second Amendment which come into play BEFORE the right can be exercised.<br /> <br /> ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-964154511127035572015-01-05T19:59:59.801+01:002015-01-05T19:59:59.801+01:00The 1st A has limits and regulations on it. Should...The 1st A has limits and regulations on it. Should the 2nd A be any different? Or maybe you think no right should have any limitations, or regulations on it?Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-77699190084380240292015-01-05T15:00:52.426+01:002015-01-05T15:00:52.426+01:00I see. So now, it's not the magnitude of the ...I see. So now, it's not the <i>magnitude</i> of the technological advance that is supposedly so much greater with regard to firearms than with regard to communication, it's the fundamental <i>nature</i> of weapons vs. communications. That's a rather long way the goal posts have suddenly been moved.<br /><br /><i>The increase in communications capabilities is also great (I'll change that a bit), but since its yardstick is not the measurement of dead bodies . . . </i><br /><br />So do you think the rioting and deaths provoked by "Pastor" Terry Jones' Koran burning would have happened if news of his action had been transmitted only by ink on parchment?<br /><br />Ever wonder why communications are so important to modern military forces, Mikeb? Do you really think that warfare could so efficiently consume lives if commanders were limited to using drums, pipes and signal flags to transmit their orders?<br /><br />Do you think Al Qaeda and ISIS don't greatly value social media as a recruiting tool and propaganda weapon? Do you think a rabidly murderous demagogue could enthrall nearly as many people, nearly as quickly, without modern communications tech?Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-73414188886987923522015-01-05T13:37:40.378+01:002015-01-05T13:37:40.378+01:00I'll stick to my original position. The increa...I'll stick to my original position. The increase in firearm capability from 1790 to today is immense because it is measured in the potential and real loss of life. Think about what Adam Lanza did. The increase in communications capabilities is also great (I'll change that a bit), but since its yardstick is not the measurement of dead bodies, it's not the same.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-90668009922429599772015-01-05T04:21:07.336+01:002015-01-05T04:21:07.336+01:00"You can use the time it takes to get of 30 s..."You can use the time it takes to get of 30 shots for each. Let's say it takes two seconds to load each 7.62x39 round into the magazine, then another ten seconds to fire them off- that's 70 seconds total. The average soldier could fire three rounds from a musket in a minute, so that's 600 seconds to get off 30, for a difference of 8.5 times as long. That's what you called "huge". I don't know what number you would call "not all that great"- say 3x?"<br /><br />And we could always look at the increase in capabilities of firearms during the civil war. During that war, they went from the three rounds per minute with muzzle loading rifles to 8-9 rounds per minute with breech loading rifles. Then many soldiers spent their own reenlistment money to but the new Henry lever action repeater which had a rate of fire of 28 rounds per minute. <br /><br />"The brass framed rifles could fire at a rate of 28 rounds per minute when used correctly, so soldiers who saved their pay to buy one often believed it would help them survive. They were frequently used by scouts, skirmishers, flank guards, and raiding parties, rather than in regular infantry formations. To the amazed muzzleloader-armed Confederates who had to face this deadly "sixteen shooter", it was called "that damned Yankee rifle that they load on Sunday and shoot all week!"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_riflessgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.com