Originally Posted by Justin '77

Just like the North Vietnamese. Lost every battle; won the war. And the war is what matters -- they're still in charge of their own country, you might notice.

The North Vietnamese did have outside help, too.

A red-state Republican guerrilla war for gun rights, against welfare and taxes, maybe for the war machine (might be some division on that one), against women's rights, for racism, against green energy, etc.; that's all possible, I agree. And the people who want to defend these bad causes will want weapons to fight them; I agree. I just question whether the government will agree to the means for a possible guerrilla war against it. In the end, I doubt it. It's not what the framers had in mind with the second amendment; it was the reverse, for the defense of the state, not its overthrow. And again, these misguided rebels are going to need a lot more than just citizens with guns.

Note that I am not linking you personally, Justin, with all these bad causes. But what Weave calls a "RW insurgency" is what is most likely to happen; so it's what we're talking about here.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which means that you're in favor of using gun violence to enforce laws against gun violence.

No it doesn't.

Now you're the one who's confused. Here's what I said, and I'm sticking to it:

That's not what he said originally, which was what I was commenting on. But you are holding me to that, as if that's all I said-- but making excuses for Yeager because he said other things later. Again, why defend someone who is obviously a nut case who wants to wage a war for gun "rights," instead of me who says someone like that is dangerous? And why does someone who respects life, support gun "rights" in the first place?

P.S. Who's the other one that I'm "defending?" For a non-lawyer, I sure have a lot of clients.

I believe I implied that I was not going to say.

Originally Posted by The Rani

While I'm not in favor of killing animals in these ways, because IMO it's all part of the "spiral of violence," I'll sure as hell "defend" people who want to use their rights of free speech to discuss these issues.

Fine. There are limits to free speech though. Threatening in a random way to start killing people is not the kind of "free speech" I am in favor of, myself. I guess you are, maybe.

Originally Posted by Weave

While Ive made my points as to the possible efficacy of a RW insurgancy, frankly its a little silly at this point. The chances of Diane Frankenstiens bill even getting to the floor for a vote are slim to none, although the Repubs ought to let go to floor and put the Red State Dems squirm. Two good things could happen, first they could follow their constituents and kill the Bill decisively, or allow themselves to cave under White House pressure and lose in 2014.

The writing is on the wall already and the Dems seem to be consigned to defeat on this issue. I do however appreciate that they have again fired up the conservative base and ensured rural voters will be turning out in droves in 2014.

The one hope for us on the other side about this, is that voters, now tired of the massacres, will write to their representatives and demand action on gun control and assault weapons bans. There is a groundswell of support for this, and while it may not be enough, it's still possible.

Children should bury their parents; parents should not have to bury their kids. Pastors should conduct funerals for the elderly, not for children killed by gun violence. When the proper order of things keeps getting turned around, something is wrong. The ongoing epidemic of shootings – whether in an elementary school or on city streets – shows something in our society has gone terribly amiss.

The problems are obvious, which makes the lack of action by our leaders morally unconscionable. Politicians have refused to enact common-sense gun laws that prevent dangerous people from getting weapons to kill large numbers of people, because they fear the power and influence of the National Rifle Association. When the NRA receives millions of dollars in funding from gun manufacturers, their interest is protecting profits even at the cost of innocent life. [1]

This is not a debate about the Second Amendment. It is about the idolatry of guns – the worship of weapons of mass murder.
Tell the NRA leadership to protect our children and communities by ending their dangerous idolatry of guns.

After the killings at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Conn., Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the NRA, said “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” [2] That statement is at the heart of the problem of gun violence in America today because it is morally mistaken, theologically dangerous, and religiously repugnant.

The world is not full of good and bad people; this is not what our scriptures teach us. We are, as human beings, capable of both good and evil. When we are isolated or angry or furious or vengeful or politically agitated or confused or lost or deranged or unhinged – and we have the ability to get and use weapons specifically designed to kill large numbers of people – our society is in great danger.
This biblical truth about human nature is why stronger protections are needed that would require background checks for everyone purchasing guns and ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

Tell the NRA leadership to end their dangerous idolatry of guns and support sensible gun restrictions.

This is about more than politics. The NRA’s theology is dangerous and idolatrous. It is time for people of faith, especially pastors and parents, to challenge their bad theology that threatens our children.

In faith,
Jim Wallis
President and CEO, Sojourners

P.S. Please join me, and other pastors and parents around the nation, in telling the NRA to stop defending indefensible weapons.

[1] "NRA Gun Control Crusade Reflects Firearms Industry Financial Ties." Huffington Post, 1/11/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2434142.html
[2] "N.R.A. Envisions a 'Good Guy With a Gun' in Every School." New York Times, 12/21/2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/us...pagewanted=all

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The one hope for us on the other side about this, is that voters, now tired of the massacres, will write to their representatives and demand action on gun control and assault weapons bans. There is a groundswell of support for this, and while it may not be enough, it's still possible.

Hope in one hand and shit in the other, see which fills up first......

Originally Posted by The Rani

What are you, jealous? Grow up, Eric. It's a message board, not high school.

Yes ma'am; uh, doctor.

Uh, is there really much of a difference, considering the quality of some of the posts here?

I'm not about to "defend" someone who calls people nutcases and says they deserve to die in a shootout with the police based on an inflammatory video.

Even when they obviously are nutcases, OK. "Deserves" to die? Again, if he breaks the law and resists the police, then it might happen. And yes, we have too many of these nutcases out there. That's all I said; I don't have to say more. Although you keep pressing the issue.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You will have to excuse Eric. He tends to make things up if reality happens to contradict his beliefs.

I am not immune to gaps in my knowledge. If I Remember Correctly (= iirc)

Originally Posted by The Rani

One more time:

You are not qualified to make that call.

That doesn't matter, and I don't care. I will not be officially deciding his case. I am calling him a "nutcase" anyway. If that personally offends you, so be it. What you are not facing is the fact that you are supporting this nutcase, even though you respect life. Do you support the right of nutcases to bear arms? If not, then support universal background checks, and support it being enacted now while the iron is hot.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Thanks, Mr. Cats. The one I hazily remember was in the North, but Guilford Courthouse would be another example.

Perhaps you mean the Battle of Brandywine? But I'm not too positive.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Rani

One more time:

"I'm not saying that he does or does not have a mental illness. That can't be determined without a full evaluation by a qualified professional".

You are not qualified to make that call. If you want to take that statement personally, because I'm "defending" him instead of you, so be it.

You just gotta love this response, Rani.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That doesn't matter, and I don't care. I will not be officially deciding his case. I am calling him a "nutcase" anyway. If that personally offends you, so be it. What you are not facing is the fact that you are supporting this nutcase, even though you respect life. Do you support the right of nutcases to bear arms? If not, then support universal background checks, and support it being enacted now while the iron is hot.

What's up, "Yuk"? Classic 2-Dimensional B&W-thinking. What "Vision"!

You deserve a reward. Arise, Sir "Air-Wreck"!!x9

Prince

PS: "London Bridge is falling down". In-thought and deed!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Forgot one thing ...

In case you hadn't noticed, there's been a lot of talk about killing animals on this very thread:

While I'm not in favor of killing animals in these ways, because IMO it's all part of the "spiral of violence," I'll sure as hell "defend" people who want to use their rights of free speech to discuss these issues.

Hey! I said get them off the roof, not kill them. They leave pretty quickly. I don't even like killing snakes because they keep the vermin in check.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Hey! I said get them off the roof, not kill them. They leave pretty quickly. I don't even like killing snakes because they keep the vermin in check.

I'd assume you are definitely against shooting down zeppelins then?

Originally Posted by Aramea

Hey! I said get them off the roof, not kill them. They leave pretty quickly. I don't even like killing snakes because they keep the vermin in check.

I'm with you on keeping the vermin in check. Snakes will do that, but are a danger, themselves. But if you want to combat both snakes and vermin, as Copper once pointed-out before, your best bet might just be an inspired feral barn kitty! They work on vermin, snakes, and certain birds('peckers can be annoying!).

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'd assume you are definitely against shooting down zeppelins then?

She doesn't have to be, Bob. Zeppelins appear to self-destruct(without any warning).
(Probably something to do with their design)

Prince

Originally Posted by The Rani

Quite predictable, eh?
So much for free will and consciousness.

Chortle! <Prince spits-out coffee through nose!>

I think "The Universe"^TM just pee-ed itself a little.
I guess it was bound to happen...sooner or later!


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

You just gotta love this response, Rani.



What's up, "Yuk"? Classic 2-Dimensional B&W-thinking. What "Vision"!

You deserve a reward. Arise, Sir "Air-Wreck"!!x9

Prince

PS: "London Bridge is falling down". In-thought and deed!

The Zeppelin crash is not an example of a nutcase. Yeager is. He's a nutcase and I'm sticking to it! oh, and "freely decided." I don't know what that has to do with dimensions though. What I wrote earlier about dimensions, is that they are just lines that we put on the world in our minds. I doubt they will call on The Rani to decide who gets a gun either; fortunately if gun control passes, someone besides any of us will be assigned that responsibility and draw that line.

I didn't know you had a trademark on the universe, Sir Cat. When did you get that one?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Zeppelins appear to self-destruct(without any warning). (Probably something to do with their design)

Prince

Well, in the case of the Hindenburg, there was some warning. As they made their approach the ship got tail heavy. They released quite a bit of water from the rear section to maintain trim. This ought to have implied they were losing quite a bit of gas from the rear of the ship.

But, yes, hydrogen was high risk as a lifting gas. Dirigibles also didn't do well in storms. Several of the US Navy's big dirigibles went down in heavy weather. (Come to think of it, some of the theorists suggest that the Hindenburg's gas bag puncture was due to the storm.)

Not that the above is relevant to a thread gone wildly astray...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Waa-waa, waa, waa-waa...I don't know what that has to do with dimensions though...Waa-waa, waa, waa-waa

Of course you don't. That's obvious.

Originally Posted by Eric

I didn't know you had a trademark on the universe, Sir Cat. When did you get that one?

Wow! I don't have a trademark on "The Universe^TM"(at least I don't believe so). I'm merely stating that I believe
it to be an "owned" entity(ie: a "thing"). We are rather pleased that your High-ness would believe it a possibility, though.

Prince

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, in the case of the Hindenburg, there was some warning. As they made their approach the ship got tail heavy. They released quite a bit of water from the rear section to maintain trim. This ought to have implied they were losing quite a bit of gas from the rear of the ship.]

But, yes, hydrogen was high risk as a lifting gas. Dirigibles also didn't do well in storms. Several of the US Navy's big dirigibles went down in heavy weather. (Come to think of it, some of the theorists suggest that the Hindenburg's gas bag puncture was due to the storm.)

Well, I have never studied the disaster in-depth, but here's the Wiki-Def(for what that's worth). There sure are alot of theories, but I guess we'll never know for sure. I found this rather interesting:

"In March 1936, the Hindenburg and the Graf Zeppelin made three-day flights to drop leaflets and broadcast speeches via loudspeaker. Before the airship's takeoff on March 26, 1936, Ernest Lehmann chose to launch the Hindenburg with the wind blowing from behind the airship, instead of into the wind as per standard procedure. During the takeoff, the airship's tail struck the ground, and part of the lower fin was broken. Many spectators' cameras were confiscated to prevent negative publicity, but Harold G. Dick concealed his camera and took pictures of the damaged fin. Dr. Eckener was very upset and rebuked Captain Lehmann:"

Originally Posted by Dr. E

"How could you, Herr Lehmann, order the ship to be brought out in such wind conditions. You had the best excuse in the world for postponing this idiotic flight; instead, you risk the ship, merely to avoid annoying Herr Goebbels. Do you call this showing a sense of responsibility towards our enterprise?

^"

Capt. Lehmann was not Capt. Pruss(The NJ Disaster), but I believe there is a case to be made that human beings make mistakes in judgement i/r/t the possibility of changing conditions and their ability to operate within them. Structural failure is always a possibility, as is sabotage, but I believe that "human error" is most often the prime "cause"(of the accidents that I believe we could label "reasonably" preventable). IOW, recklessness(ie: Arrogance and/or Hubris).
Even the Helium-filled ones appear to have this issue. "Better safe, than sorry" is one of my mottos
(especially when others are at risk).

Originally Posted by Bob

Not that the above is relevant to a thread gone wildly astray...

Might be because of the wind.

Cadet Prince

PS: BTW, Thanks for the warning, Robby!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Of course you don't. That's obvious.

It is pretty clear that Sir Yeager is a nutcase (or whatever other food analogy Sir Rabbit might throw at him). I think indeed he should go before the "king" and get his just reward (which may be to get locked up or shot down, as the king may decide). But I'm sure it will all be delicious for us domestic peaceniks to watch, chortle chortle chortle, even if it disturbs those who defend nutcases with guns! chortle chortle chortle!

Wow! I don't have a trademark on "The Universe^TM"(at least I don't believe so). I'm merely stating that I believe it to be an "owned" entity(ie: a "thing"). We are rather pleased that your High-ness would believe it a possibility, though.

Prince

Well, there's no possibility that the universe is either owned, or a thing. So I guess that's lets you out on your bid for trademark status. Sorry, I withdraw my belief in the possibility.

What we need is a society that understands the "common good." I agree with our president on that one. The time of individualism is over! It has been officially announced by our president at his inauguration! We must all serve the common good now! chortle chortle chortle (voluntarily, if possible )

Originally Posted by The Rani

People who find it delicious to see others locked up or shot down are definitely not peaceniks.
In fact, they're as "nutty" as the "nutcases," and equal contributors to the spiral of violence.

Not at all; you exaggerate Dr. Rani. Just sarcastic spectators to what may happen, as the kings decide. Or are you asserting your qualifications to diagnose me now? You are entitled to your opinion, I suppose. And there are people who need to get locked up, certainly, and that I am glad are locked up. Shot down? Well, I can exaggerate too, in the context of a bunny video, just like you.

Those who defend the "rights" of citizens to own or carry semi-automatic assault rifles, are the ones I think are contributing to the "spiral of violence."

Originally Posted by The Rani

I wasn't exaggerating, but I'm glad to see that you're at least partially backing away from your previous comments.
Baby steps.

Well enjoy your gladness Dr.; it may be all you get.

Now, how about you "partially backing down" from your support for loonies with guns? Not likely, I surmise.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Crossposting for a better tomorrow ^TM


2H₂ + O₂ = 2 H₂O + bang <very exothermic reaction>

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Crossposting for a better tomorrow ^TM


2H₂ + O₂ = 2 H₂O + bang <very exothermic reaction>

i use it as a class demo. First I make the hydrogen gas using HCl and Zn. Then we use H2O2 and KI as a catalyst to make oxygen. Trap both of them in soap bubbles and give them a little start with a candle flame' using a very long spoon. Depending on the ratio of the bubbles in each scoop, it goes with a little pop and flame flash, meaning lots of hydrogen. If the mixture has more oxygen bubbles then we get a sharp crack that can vaporize the soap and it will precipitate out of the air throughout the class during the rest of the day. Lots of fun for everyone.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't have to back down from anything, because I never said that I "support loonies with guns" ...

You're just parsing words until they have no meaning.