Hodgepodgeiness

Reagan was obviously speaking in the abstract and in that sense he is 100% correct. The reality of the world is that inner city thug Obama voters carry guns and mug and murder innocent people with them and innocent people ought to be able to defend themselves. No abstraction there!!

Congrats on the new job, back to corrupting the youth?

I'll stop carrying a weapon if you can guarantee me 100%, I will never be the victim of a violent crime.

I guarantee you will never shoot anyone.

Benevolus

how can you guarantee that?

Does CPB carry something other than a gun?

Statistics, boojum...the probability is so astronomically low that I am perfectly happy giving that guarantee. Here are a few more:

I guarantee CPB will not be struck by lightening.

I guarantee CPB will not win millions from the Nebraska lottery.

I guarantee CPB will not be killed by a terrorist.

I guarantee CPB's house will not be hit by falling debris from an airplane.

Boojum

Never argue with a fool

Better leave this board then.

I read on a this on a gun blog:

"I have finally become convinced I don't NEED a 30-round magazine for my AR15. The same way Rosa Parks didn't NEED to sit at the front of the bus. But then, rights have nothing to do with NEEDS, do they? Rights are bigger than that. If we are allowed to have only what we need, we are not free, and never will be!"

JG

Not quite a 'one-to-one' comparison, but thanks for sharing anyway.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. Benevolus' perverse mind will never see nor understand JG's logic and that likely goes both ways. What it boils down to is this: the amendments, specifically the 2nd in this case, not only protects its people from tyranny, but also from those people who wish to use their government to limit the rights of others.

E-z,

What is perverse about pointing out that banning 30-round clips is not the same thing as government sanctioned racism?

This seems pretty obvious.

The bottom line is this: individual rights have been (and should be) trumped when there is a greater safety/well-being issue at stake. You have free speech, but there are many limits. There are libel and slander laws, there are laws against inciting a riot, you cannot make terroristic threats, you cannot create a panic by yelling fire in a theater/bomb on an airplane when no threat exists, etc.

You have the right to practice religion freely, but you don't have the right as an agent of the State to impose your religious beliefs on another person. Also, certain religious-based practices are limited (think polygamy). So freedom of religion also comes with limits.

If banning high-capacity clips can be demonstrated to increase public safety/well-being, then doing so is no different than limiting speech or religion for the safety and well-being of the population writ large.

Banning such clips will do NOTHING to increase public safety. NOTHING. As a veteran and now a sportsman I can assure you it takes less than 2 seconds to change a magazine in an Ar-15 or a mini-14 or an SKS. NOTHING. Given that there is no increased public safety the gun and magazine ban is nothing more than a liberal power grab. NOTHING MORE THAN.

It is theoretically defensible that lower capacity magazines would reduce the ability of a mass-murder to inflict damage and death by increasing the amount of time dedicated to reloading. Most shooters are not well-trained. Most are white males in their late teens to early twenties with no military experience. So combat speed reloads that you describe are unlikely. Even during a two second combat reload there is time to engage the target, so anything over two seconds will add to the effectiveness of a counter-attack.

If this is true in observation then we must conclude that large magazines are more detrimental to safety than smaller ones.

There is not much scientific literature on this topic. However, studies from the 90's do indicate that while gun violence was not significantly impacted by the assault weapons ban, the number of multiple gun shot victims did decrease dramatically over that time period.

Unfortunately ugly, we need more than your personal opinion and anecdotes to formulate reasonable public policy.

This may all be moot anyway because Senate Dems dropped the proposed assault weapons ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/reid-cuts-assault-weapons-ban-from-se...

I know I will sleep better at night knowing those most willing to commit crimes involving guns will surrender their high cap magazines for the good of public safety.

Benevolus,

Magazine, not clip. As with you, I would like to see proof. I would like to see your proof that a citizen having the right to own one of these inanimate, soulless objects increases the likelihood or has increased the amount of mass murder in the US. Studies I've read indicate that gun violence has decreased since the sunsetting of the "assault weapons" ban. My perverse perspective versus yours.

Moreover, who has the right to say what I NEED and do not need?

Another thought: let's go back just 30 or 40 years. The same "assault" weapons existed. Many school-age students came to school with a shotgun in their window gun rack to hunt after school. Few, if any incidences of school shootings occurred. Tell me what has changed? It isn't the guns.

Lets add to the 1960's thought while we're at it. A man sat in a bell loft at a college with a bolt action rifle and chose to shoot at innocent students killing many and wounding even more. He didn't have a "30-round clip".

I can't say that the previous words are well connected, but these are some thoughts from a person typing personal opinions in vain. One could try to stay Swiss on here, but its impossible as you've demonstrated over the last year or two.

Many of these mass-killers are young men who have not been long-time gun owners. Meaning, when they get it in their heads to go on a killing spree, they go to the store/gun show/internet to get equipment, not to their well-stocked gun safe.

So, it most certainly could be the case that the next teenage/early-twenties killer who goes to buy a few guns, extra mags, and ammo would be limited to small magazine capacities were such a ban in place.

It isn't a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. And by the way, considering such a solution does not make a person 'anti-gun', in the same way that supporting polygamy laws doesn't make someone 'anti-religious' and supporting libel laws doesn't make someone 'anti-free speech'.

Regardless, it seems the gun-control Dems are backing off this line of policy.

E-z,

You are right. I know better than to confuse clip with magazine, thanks for pointing that out.

If you read my comment above, I already stated that not a lot is known about the effectiveness of banning assault weapons or banning large capacity magazines. There is no proof I know of either for against such a policy increasing public safety.

There were some studies done in the 90's, but not many. And I don't think the authors make any definitive claims other than more research is needed.

Here are a couple excerpts:

"The ban's short-term impact on gun violence has been uncertain, due perhaps to the continuing availability of grandfathered assault weapons, close substitute guns and large capacity magazines, and the relative rarity with which the banned weapons were used in gun violence even before the ban."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_brief1999.pdf

"Having said this, the ban's impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs [assault weapons] were used in no more than 8% of gun crimes even before the ban. Guns with LCMs [large capacity magazines] are used in up to a quarter of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading."

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_exec2004.pdf

My points are that (a) banning LCMs is a fundamentally different issue than Rosa Parks and government imposed discrimination/segregation policy. The two aren't even related. And (b) banning LCMs (especially if doing so increases public safety) is not a violation of the right to bear arms in the same way that banning libel/slander is not a violation of free speech.

I think banning large capacity mags would have an affect on poorly trained shooters, and maybe save some lives.

I compete in handgun competitions, long gun competitions that in the course of fire require mag changes. I have observed trained shooters, in relatively low stress competition, fumble a mag changes.

I watch shooters who cannot safe their weapon at the end of a course of fire, who will shoot a weapon dry and not realize it until they attempt to fire the weapon a couple times.

I have many years of experience with handguns,yet I have no confidence that I could draw from concealment and engage an assailant in a timely manner. I would need a lot more training and steady practice.

I support the 2nd amendment however i also would support the requirement that a firearm buyer be able to demonstrate some basic skill with a firearm.

I also believe that our justice system needs to place more emphasis on Criminal control, not gun control.

The last thing the democrat party wants to do is control the uninformed inner city thug criminal element of their voting block. They would rather appease them by taking the law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves from said thug voters. It is insanity. Liberals are insane. Liberals hate America but love inner city thugs (IE. voters).

it only takes 2 seconds to change the magazine? Well then why not make them smaller since it makes no difference? And, if it makes no difference how is this a liberal power grab since, according to you, it makes no difference?

Because liberal democrat party member it is taking away my freedom not to have to reload my sport rifle very often and infringes on my right to bear arms. Silly liberal.

Ahhh, the logic of a zealot. It is fun to read your nonsense, ugly, I will give you that.

1991; A loader dumping dirt into a dump truck I was driving got hit by lightning. Not a direct hit, but close enough.

1985; My car while parked at Lincoln Airport was hit by "blue ice". While I myself didn't get hit, still close enough.

1982; Got mugged and assaulted at 27th & Holdrege in Lincoln. Firearm stays with me.

CPB does not buy lottery tickets, so you are safe with your wild guess.

I do missionary work outside US, will just have to wait and see on the terrorist forcast. Keep guessing away Benevolus.

Well imagine that, Reality trumps stats.

I have a bridge to sell you if you believe any of that nonsense, boojum.

And still every statement I said is correct.

(1) Gun laws are obeyed only by the law-abiding.

(2) Criminals will always get any gun and any magazine they want. Many recreational drugs have been illegal for decades; yet, you can buy them anywhere.

(3) Thus, disarming people like me who are no danger whatsoever, makes all of us into prey for the criminals of our society.

Who is Benevolus to decide what I NEED? Or anyone like him. He lives in fear of guns, fear of poverty, fear of hunger, fear of being unable to take care of himself, and in fear of those like me. I fear our overreaching government far more than any other enemy, foreign or domestic.

Read the Patriot Acts I and II.

Read the National Defense Authorization Act.

Read the Obamacare bill.

Read the Homeland Security Act.

Then read the Constitution which will take only 30 minutes, and it makes infinitely more sense.

JG

So Bene, I should believe your nonsense rather that CPB's nonsense?

What do your stats say about the probability of that?

I bet I could get a government grant to buy that bridge.

so john, speeders well speed despite the posted speed limit, shall we do away with those? Should we get rid of every law that a criminal breaks because they are going to break it anyway? Why even try?

Odds of getting killed by lightening = approx. 1:11 million.

"Blue Ice. There are several known cases of houses being struck by frozen airplane-lavatory waste, euphemistically known as "blue ice." The ice can form when a plane's lavatory develops an external leak; frozen at high altitude, the waste warms and dislodges as a plane descends. Luckily, there are no known instances of people being struck by blue ice."

http://bookofodds.com/Accidents-Death/Natural-Disasters-Hazards/Articles/A0284-D...

Myth #2: Pilots can dump the tank while in flight.

"Fact: It's physically impossible for a pilot to dump a tank while in flight. That exterior lever means only the ground crew can operate the valve that opens the tank while the plane is on the ground."

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6659

In other words, it takes a malfunctioning plane leaking waste "AT HIGH ALTITUDE" for "blue ice" to form in the first place. Planes aren't typically at high altitude around airport parking lots where CPB claims to have been struck.

Moreover, given that there are about 30million flights per year in the US, and from 1970 to 2003 there were fewer than 50 reports of "blue ice" hitting the ground, CPBs chances of being hit were 1:19.8 million.

Enough said.

Regarding being robbed, going back to the 1980s there are only about 1000 robberies per year in the state of Nebraska. From 1990-2000 the robbery rate in Lincoln was about 178 per year. It is likely that in 1982, that number wouldn't have been much different. To be generous let's give CPB a 200 out of 171932 (Lincoln pop: 1980). We will ignore that this is likely to be an underestimate because of the fact that at any given time, Lincoln's population is larger than reported by the Census, so CPBs chances were actually less likely. This means that at best, CPB's odds of being robbed were approx. 1:860. At a 1% chance of occurring this is by far the most believable of CPB's claims (and the odds are still extremely long).

Here's the point, the compounding probability of a) being robbed, b) being hit by lightening, and c) being hit by "blue ice" puts the figure somewhere around 1:1 quadrillion against.

Bear in mind that since commercial flight, there hasn't even been 1 trillion+ people on earth in total.

In other words, if we evaluate CPB's claims, since commercial flight began, CPB is the ONLY PERSON IN WORLD HISTORY, to have been robbed, hit by blue ice, and stuck by lightening.

Now, boojum, about that bridge.

Classic liberal democrat party member move bo. One mans speaks of constitutional rights and matters dealing with said constitutional rights and you speak of speeding tickets which are never mentioned in the document. What a tool.

"And still every statement I said is correct."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Mar 21, 2013, at 9:41 PM

This post nicely sums you up.

Good God Bene, you are the savant of stats!

Why don't you compile the stats about the number of people who believe you vs CPB.

I have submitted my grant application for the bridge, expect results quickly, told them I live in Egypt, need it to get to my new air base for some new fighters.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/23/georgia-mom-says-teen-told-her-do-want-me-t...

Inner city thug Obama voters did this crime. I guess her baby got struck by lightning huh benny. And the lightning strikes are only going to get worse as the liberals drive this nation into insolvency.

Bene!

I got some questions back from my grant application,

they asked what bridge? So I told them Bene's bridge, that you owned it. They asked me if you built it, and I said heck no he didn't build that bridge. So they said, you can't sell it.

However, after a bit more discussion, they, the government, decided to use Eminent Domain. So they are coming to take your bridge and give it to me, for my new air base for my new fighters, f-16's I believe.

So it is all good, right?

Bene's bridge. I like that.

The lightning struck the baby right between the eyes according to the 911 call I just listened to. But lets talk about speeding tickets......

But my premise is sound.

Also, if you are too ignorant to understand what I am talking about then the best thing to do is not say anything

The voices told me to stay home and clean my guns today!

"But my premise is sound."

"And still every statement I said is correct."

Did you just create a second username?

I don't think your speed limit analogy premise is sound. For it to be so, people would need to be demanding the repeal of every gun law because criminals have guns. I don't think that is the current debate.

As far as people who are worried about guns rights would see it, I think a better analogy still using speed limits would be a proposal to reduce speed limits for some cars which some people argue are more dangerous because it would be safer but allow other cars to drive at high speeds.

Maybe you can come up with a better analogy, or maybe I just lack your knowledge base to understand your words, if that is the case maybe you should try to lay a better foundation.

Sorry I can't dumb it down enough for you to understand.

I shall endeavor to be considerate of your personal failings in the future.

Thank you.

And I yours

So in the future if I ask you to explain something better you will try but not now because it was in the past?

Because when I suggested you consider that some might not understand your flawed analogy, you said you were unable to rephrase it, that doesn't seem very considerate to me.

I had thought from your response that you are simply unable to form a different way of expressing yourself.

So confusing.

SW,

Can you better explain your rebuttal? Po's analogy makes sense to me.

The argument from John was that criminals won't follow the proposed guns laws anyway, so we shouldn't institute said laws.

It seems to me that po's speed limit analogy set up the argument: criminals might break the laws we create, but that is a poor reason to not create laws.

Thus, the speeding analogy makes sense in that context. Just because we might predict that people will speed (or that criminals will still carry ar-15s or use HCMs) doesn't mean we shouldn't have speeding laws (or gun laws).

You are easily confused. Benevolus seems to get it. It's not that I can't from a different was of expressing myself but more that I refuse to. If you don't understand such a simple matter then I'm not going to waste my time trying to help someone who won't help themselves.

There are plenty of posters on here who get it and I think it's unfair to slow down the board and bore them so I can explain simple, rudimentary concepts. I recommend you have your parents read it and explain it to you.

You wrote "It's not that I can't from a different was of expressing myself but more that I refuse to." Is this a joke or could I have missed something Mr. President?

I wanted to add maybe you might want to talk with Jay Carney before going on line, but I'm not sure this falls under the job of the Whit House Press Secretory. I'm impressed that you would take the time to correspond this way with the common folk.

The correct analogy is this. States would be stripped od their right to set their own speed limits (federal gun control). The feds would set the speed limit to a mandated speed, say 55 (HCM BAN). All cars sold to the general public would be required to be mechanically limited to that speed. The exception would be government own cars that would have no speed limits. The cultural elites would also be excluded.

The second prong of car control would be the ban of all black cars. As we know from watching movies, black cars are capable of much higher speed than other color cars. Again, government and cultural elites would be excluded from said ban.

The simple point is, no one needs to drive at speeds greater than 55. And no one would ever possibly need a black car to buy groceries.

Thanks for the spelling and English lesson. I was typing that while driving. That is against the law but it doesn't stop criminals like me so they should get rid of that law. If you criminalize texting while driving then only criminals will text and drive.

I was at a concert and saw a guy smoking pot and thought the federal drugs should be rescinded because they don't work either. This criminal didn't care about the law. Criminals don't follow laws.

No chunky, just don't have any speed limit or drug laws. Much easier.

Why do you insist on conflating two disparate issues: creating new gun laws and eliminating all laws?

Are you sure these are new gun laws, SW? The 1990s weren't that long ago, surely your memory is better than that.

Also, it isn't that difficult to follow po's reasoning, so I am not sure why there is so much controversy.

John's argument was that we should not (re)institute the proposed gun laws because criminals won't follow them.

Po's counterpoint is that if John's logic were applied more generally it would undermine the basis of having laws in the first place.

John's logic applied to automobiles: we shouldn't have dui, speeding, reckless driving laws, etc., because criminals won't follow them anyway.

John's logic applied to murder: Law obeying citizens don't murder people, just murderers. They won't obey our laws, so we shouldn't have murder laws in the first place.

In that sense, po's reasoning certainly weakens John's original point.

Generally speaking, the reason laws are established is because people are likely to engage in the behavior targeted for prohibition. Many places have fences along overpasses because one person decided to toss a mannequin onto the freeway. We legislate to the lowest common denominator. Law-abiding citizens can still own a mannequin, and they can still walk along overpasses; the law that requires fences along overpasses is simply an attempt to make it more difficult for certain people (i.e., criminals) to endanger the lives of others.

No, just ban all black cars, then no one can speed. Legalize drugs and require people to buy permits to use them. Then tax the hell out of legalized drugs.

Benevolus,

I guess we'll just have to disagree. I didn't interpret JohnGalt's point to be that laws are pointless as you have gleaned. I took him at his word that his conclusion was "Thus, disarming people like me who are no danger whatsoever, makes all of us into prey for the criminals of our society." That disarming law abiding citizens would leave them in more danger from criminals than we are today. Now note, I'm not saying I agree with his point, but at least I'm not trying to misrepresent it as some have.

Furthermore, has he said we need to get rid of all gun laws as you are suggesting his logic demands? Or is this just another instance of you trying to create straw men to fight against?

Unfortunately you and your new friend's attempts to twist another's words is simply a po' argument.

I wonder how long it will be before more members of the administration join up.

Your dummy argument has little merit. Person throws debris, we build a fence to stop another person from throwing. But for that analogy to apply here the proposed law would need to be: person throws debris, we pass a law saying that the specific type of debris he threw is now outlawed so that no one can now throw that type of debris.

"Are you sure these are new gun laws, SW?"

Yes, if they are not currently the law, then an attempt to change the law makes it a new law. Furthermore, is the proposed law just a re-institution of the old law?

The first speed limit passed in the US was 15mph outside of town. Do you believe a law to place the speed limit at 15mph now would not be a new law?

SW,

I believe you simply like being purposefully obtuse rather than reasonable. JohnG reaches his conclusion through 2 premises.

"(1) Gun laws are obeyed only by the law-abiding.

(2) Criminals will always get any gun and any magazine they want. Many recreational drugs have been illegal for decades; yet, you can buy them anywhere."

You cannot rationally accuse me or anyone else of creating a straw man argument because the claims thus far have attacked JohnG's first two premises.

That you refuse to evaluate all of John's logic, and just blindly accept his conclusion "at his word" does not speak very highly of your thoughtfulness, sorry to say.

The bottom line is that John's attempt at a syllogism is not logical. Po pointed out a weakness in John's logic, and I agreed. If that makes us friends or co-conspirators or whatever you are implying, so be it.

Meanwhile they buried the lightning strike victim. Maybe the baby was being purposefully obtuse and deserved to die huh benny.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/23/georgia-mom-says-teen-told-her-do-want-me-t...

"Yes, if they are not currently the law, then an attempt to change the law makes it a new law."

I disagree. There is a distinction between creating laws that have never been tried, and reverting back to laws that have precedent. In your example, going back to 15mph speed limits is a reversion, and by definition a reversion is not a new law.

I am not sure what you are talking about married, but if you care to explain I am certain it will be delightfully ridiculous.

Benevolus,

There is nothing wrong with you coming to a different conclusion than someone. The straw man is built when you try to substitute your conclusion in place of John's. The straw man is not based on attacking the premises or ideas behind a conclusion, it is based on attacking the position with a superficially similar misrepresented version of the position, that is what makes it a straw man.

He says criminals don't follow laws and instead attacking or disputing that position, you try to suggest he says therefore we need no laws. That is not his position, that is your straw man. That seems to me to be a superficially similar misrepresentation of his position, does it to you? Or is this a case where ONLY YOU and people who agree with you KNOW what someone else means based not on their words, but on your superior ESP?

Are you sure you know what a straw man is?

What is wrong with his first premise? The second is a little hyperbolic or perhaps he is incorrect in saying criminals can get whatever they want, but the general idea as I interpret it is valid.

You are very good at being a bully and calling names, can you answer a question that doesn't support your bullying?

Where does John, or anyone but the straw men here suggest that all gun laws should be eliminated because people break the law? If that is your position, fine, claim it. Don't try to pawn it off on other people.

Is the proposed law the same as the law from the 1990s?

SW,

"You are very good at being a bully and calling names..."

That is funny coming from a guy who admits his main purpose for posting is to belittle and chastise Michael. Bullying includes verbal harassment and therefore, your admitted reason for paying attention to this blog is to be a bully. Given this fact you might understand if I find your accusation to be pretty hollow and meaningless.

Regarding strawmen, it seems as though it is you who does not know what he is talking about. There is a major difference between applying a person's logic to another similar situation, and creating a conclusion that was never reached.

Doing the former is an important part of reasoning and argument. We do this in science all the time. If the premises and conclusions are true/logical in case x, but not true/logical for case y, then there needs to be a theory or explanation as to why there is a discrepancy.

In this case, John's conclusion is that gun rights should not be enacted. His premises are that 1) law abiding people don't break gun laws, and 2) criminals will just break the laws anyway.

It is perfectly reasonable to apply John's line of logic to similar or analogous scenarios. If John's conclusion is valid for gun laws, it should be reasonable for other types of laws as well. If it is valid in one scenario, but not the other (as Po and I have demonstrated is the case) then an explanation needs to be presented as to why John's logic applies to gun laws, but not to other kinds of laws.

"John's conclusion is that gun rights should not be enacted"

That ^^^^ should be: "gun laws"

SW,

"What is wrong with his first premise?"

(1) Gun laws are obeyed only by the law-abiding.

It isn't true. What if someone follows all gun laws to a 't' except for one? Perhaps, for example, a person was given an unauthorized automatic weapon that they keep locked away and don't use, but still carefully obey all other gun laws. Clearly in this case a non-law-abiding citizen is still following gun laws.

The main problem with John's logic is that he concludes that someone is trying to "disarm" him.

This claim is false, and it certainly doesn't follow from the previous two premises.

In essence, John's logic is inherently flawed, and worse it is based simply in alarmist nonsense.

If one kid a kindergarten class uses his crayons to color on the wall, then does it make sense to take crayons away from all the children in the class? Or does it make more sense to take the crayon from the offending child?

This the attitude of Benevolus regarding guns. He would take them away from everyone to punish those who obey the law. Meanwhile, the criminal merely disregards the law.

There's a big difference though; not having a crayon does not make you a defenseless victim, like not having a gun does. The weakest in our society, such as women and the elderly, benefit most from the fact that a gun neutralizes the strength of criminal attackers.

The places that have the strictest gun laws, have the highest violent crime rates. Places like Chicago, D.C., Detroit, New York City, Los Angeles. Evidently the criminals are not paying attention to gun laws.

Benevolus, you are in pretty bad company with your views and attitude toward guns.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration!

Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolph Hitler

Benevolus, you work so hard to avoid logic in any argument.

In the tragic school shooting that occurred recently, the shooter violated a bunch of laws.

(1) He stole the weapons from his mother.

(2) He killed his mother. The law against murder is a biggie in my book.

(3) He violated the law against guns in the school. and

(4) most importantly, he violated the law against murder again, multiple times.

I know that you are shocked that the "no guns allowed" sign at the school was ignored by the shooter. I know it "should" have stopped him, sigh. But it only stops the law-abiding.

The most dangerous thing a politician can say is "But we have to do something!".

How about enforcing the laws we already have? Like making the lists of mentally ill people available for use in the background checks we already have. Oh, of course that would violate the RIGHTS of the mentally ill. But even then, he could still steal one from his mommy and do exactly what he did.

More of these types of shootings will occur. Bet on it. And the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. A sign on the door won't do it. That sign merely prevents any CCW holders (the good guys) from halting such a tragedy.

If you really want to accomplish your goal of making kids safe, go through the background check like I have, take the mandatory training and start carrying. But also push to get those stupid "no guns" signs taken down; they make you less safe because I cannot defend you there.

JG

John,

Talk about avoiding logic. I am a gun owner!! I have discussed this before. I even own (though I do not store at my apartment) a big scary AK47.

Here is the deal though, nobody is trying to disarm you or me. So you can take off your tinfoil hat. And (for the sake of argument) if assault weapons were banned along with HCMs I certainly can understand why. I am not convinced it will do much good other than maybe reducing the number of multiple gun shot victims or innocent people gunned down accidentally by the spray. I do know that such legislation is not a violation of the Constitution, nor is it without precedent. I also know that the science regarding the effect of an assault weapons ban on gun violence is inconclusive.

But here is the good new, you can keep all the arms you own, including your HCMs and assault weapons because neither is going to be banned anytime soon. And even if there were banned, the even better news is you get to keep them anyway.

Also, we have already reviewed the odds of needing to violently defend oneself with a gun. They are extremely long, so your hyperbolic talk about defending me seems like little more than macho BS.

And you are dead wrong about violence in New York where guns laws have gotten stricter, the murder rate is at an all-time low.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/murders-fall-record-city-article-1.1229273

With every post, John, you continue to prove that your thinking is tenuously grounded in reality.

"If one kid a kindergarten class uses his crayons to color on the wall, then does it make sense to take crayons away from all the children in the class? Or does it make more sense to take the crayon from the offending child?"

This is a very poor analogy, John.

Here is a more 'apples to apples'comparison: if sharpened scissors were in kindergarten classes, and increasingly there were alarming instances of kindergartners committing dozens of fatal stabbings with sharpened scissors, it would make good **** sense to only allow safety scissors in kindergarten class.

Nobody is trying to disarm me? What those stupid "no guns" signs do is EXACTLY that.

Since you are obviously not a CCW holder I will enlighten you. Places you cannot carry include schools, post offices, some banks, most public buildings, most government offices, libraries, churches, synagogues, bars, daycares, most large shopping malls. All have the stupid signs that protect absolutely nobody.

The crazy people who attempt mass murder apparently realize that the gun-free zones are the place to carry out the crime of their dreams.

The shooter at the mall in Omaha--yep,gun-free zone.

The shooter at the theater in Aurora, CO--yep, gun-free zone.

The shooter at Virginnia Tech--yep, gun-free zone.

The shooters at Columbine, CO--yep, gun-free zone.

We should use the term "free-fire-zone".

Congrats on the AK. A very reliable weapon.

JG

Given the scores on the geography quizzes I just handed back I for one am quite glad that the 19 year-old college students I teach aren't armed. What a disaster that would be.

I guess the solution for you John is to never go to a school, mall, or theater. I mean, these events are so frequent that I can see why one would rationally be so scared.

You definitely need an assault rifle and their extended mags everywhere you go. You should probably wear some level IV Dragon Skin.

Outside of the range about once a year the AK is useless. But thanks, I guess.

I read an interesting article that touched on that subject and there is zero, none, nada evidence that these people choose the place to shoot up based on the no gun signs.

Simply put, the signs do not encourage shooters to show up and shoot people

The signs sure don't help stop attacks though do they. Silly liberal.

Married, why are you always so wrong about everything?

Signs aren't meant to stop a behavior, they are meant to convey a policy to people. Signs have all kinds of purposes, but in this case it is to let the public know that a certain behavior is expected by law. If a person violates that law they cannot say they weren't warned because the policy was posted.

Drug free zones do not stop drugs, but they do alert you that the area has a different policy than non-drug free zones.

No trespassing signs likewise convey a similar message. They do not stop trespassers, but they do demarcate an area where a person's unauthorized presence will be penalized.

So a stop sign is not meant to stop cars? Only to convey a policy?

LOL

JG

You are on it John!! Just a policy...... The depths liberals will go to argue against freedom and conservatism know no bounds. When their mighty leader questions the definition of "is" they have no rules in trying to impose their will.

Wow, I guess I need to stop overestimating the cognitive capacities of "ya'll".

This is how I would explain to a grade schooler, hopefully it helps you...

Do stop signs stop cars. Sure they do. Do they always stop cars. Obviously not.

Do Drug-Free Zone signs stop drug peddlers. Sure. Always? Doubtful.

Do Gun-Free Zone signs stop people from carrying guns. Absolutely. Always? Obviously not.

People disobey signs. Does this mean we should take these signs down because the are "stupid"?

Of course not, because these signs are meant to convey public policy. You are required by law to behave a certain way in the presence of the aforementioned signs. If you don't and you are caught, you cannot claim ignorance when you are punished.

Not rocket science people.

Also, John, I didn't mention stop signs, but I did write:

"Signs have all kinds of purposes, but in this case it is to let the public know that a certain behavior is expected by law."

Can I assume you understand what ""Signs have all kinds of purposes" means?

Do you need the grade school explanation for this as well?

He's reworded the same inane argument as if that will make it all better. Silly liberal. Don't you have a pro postpartum abortion rally to attend or a stop the death penalty march. Now there is a real head scratcher for you benny boy.

I see the wording is still too challenging for you. Obviously the quality of schooling in rural areas is much worse than we thought it was.

Benevolus, if you're so hot on giving up your rights, then by all means, send all your semi-auto rifles and pistols (like the AK you admit owning), along with any magazines over 10 rounds, post haste to the BATFE.

Get in line to show your ID and background check papers to purchase ammunition and guns.

I will gladly applaud you.

Who will the government be looking for when they come to confiscate all weapons in the end? Everyone who enjoys firearms know confiscation is coming; that's the objection to registration schemes.

JG

"Here comes bennie with the insults again!"

Just returning the favor. If you don't like to insulted, don't insult others.

"Benevolus, if you're so hot on giving up your rights..."

What rights am I giving up? You are a sky is falling type of guy John. You have established that clearly.

Here is what I know. If Nebraska bans assault weapons I can still keep the AK and all HCMs because they will be grandfathered in.

If the Feds ban assault weapons and HCMs like they did in the 1990s, I can still keep the AK and all HCMs because they will be grandfathered in.

If assault weapons and HCMs are banned on a state by state basis, or even across the boards at the federal level, there are still millions of these kinds of weapons in circulation. There will be no shortage.

Lastly, nobody is talking about confiscating all guns. You are asking me to believe in a fairytale that you have dreamed up, John.

Reality check: DC tried to ban pistols, SCOTUS overturned that. That was just a ban, not even a confiscation. Get serious, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico--United_States_border

Speaking of signs, there are 1969 miles with many different sign warnings. Plus laws that are in effect. I wonder if there enforced or working. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just asking.

BM definitely!!! Put my family down for 5 votes and if the horses can vote put me down for 17 more. Would putting runny or smelly ahead of it be too much???? I know it is fitting but would it be too much?

Wow, the maturity is amazing around here.

I wonder why conservatives have lost so much ground on their cornerstone issues over the years (abortion, immigration, gay marriage, gun control, etc.).

Could it be they aren't educated enough to win these debates and thus, when they sense they are losing, they employ the same tactics my 8 year-old nephew does when his toys get taken away?

Answer: yup.

Benevolus,

Still bullying, how surprising.

So instead of denying you are a bully, you try to shift blame and attention then keep bullying. Sad.

looks like marriedugly is a bully as well but lets not call him/her out. Lets focus on benevolus

Says SW, the admitted bully. That isn't sad, its hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Bene, you really come here for maturity????

this is like the cartoons, the only reason i post here is to poke fun at the condescending overbearing

posters "look at the stats"

serious discussion won't take place on an anonymous

board, just look at the Senate.

The above post by boojum666 hit the nail square on the head, I'm with you 100% on that.

You agree that the Senate is an "anonymous board"?

Huh. Maybe you should recalibrate that 100%?

As well as the senate talks to one another or even to us they might as well be anonymous.

If a bag was put over their heads one couldn't tell whom was speaking, democrat or republican.

they sure don't represent us.

Condom research, duck genitalia,wars,vacations,

gun control, affordable health care that costs everyone more money...

"I don't have to worry now, Obama will take care of me, I will get a new house,cell phone, gas, health care, etc. etc. etc.

I just wrote checks for my tax obligations today, I am in a bad mood, but i did write them and will mail them.

Making negative remarks about me, doesn't do anything to refute the observation.

Po's comment regarding your clear partisanship was spot on (just as an observation).

And SW, in case you have difficulty reading between the lines, refuting your ridiculous, hollow, and hypocritical observation is of no interest to me.

Your opinions about other poster's personalities are not helpful or productive. Sadly, your time here is mostly spent futilely trying to police the behavior of the posters to whom you are ideologically opposed.

You'd be much more formidable and respectable if you actually contributed to the debates on these boards.

Actually, I wrote:

"In 2010, Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16. Moreover, 86% of Red States received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. That is almost 9 out of 10 folks!"

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 10:14 AM

Your map further confirms this trend, as 12 of the 17 states that receive the most federal assistance are states that voted for Romney in 2012.

Speaking of taxes, I got my tax return for 2013 back from the IRS. They are questioning me about how many dependents I claimed. It was because of my response to the question: "List all dependents?" I replied: 10 million illegal immigrants;and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate." They told me this is not an acceptable answer.

They are correct regarding undocumented immigrants. They pay billions into Social Security every year and recoup nothing. The retired are, in part, supported by undocumented workers.

They also pay local sales tax when they purchase goods, payroll taxes are automatically deducted from their paychecks, and property taxes are transferred to them by their landlords.

Regarding the 535, yeah. Good point.

Wow! is that a fact? Well hell then let's let about 115 million more in then. I have one request though, could we let them live in Nebraska? California's broke and crowded. Thanks, I knew you'd understand.

You aren't the first Conservative to realize how much we need migrant workers.

Colorado

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us/farmers-strain-to-hire-american-workers-in-...

Nebraska

http://m.journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/cattlemen-among-those-...

Alabama

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-usa-immigration-alabama-idUSBRE84T1...

Come on Carnac the magnificent, you think all illegal immigrants are migrant worker, or are you saying all migrant worker are illegal? You need to start looking in that sealed envelope that has been kept "hermetically sealed inside a mayonnaise jar underneath Funk & Wagnalls' porch since noon today like you use to. Another thing, calling them undocumented immigrants is like calling a bank robbery an unauthorized withdrawal.

benny and mini refer to abortion as "nuisance abatement" and rape as "unauthorized dna deposit".

My heart goes out to the victims of the bombings in Boston. So many innocents killed and injured in 12 seconds of madness.

When is Benevolus going to call for background checks on purchasers of pressure cookers? Or limiting their capacity to 2 quarts? How about the cooking show loophole?

I realize the cooking lobby is much too strong for the legislators to overcome! And, of course, blaming the weapon rather than the criminal is all wrong now, isn't it?

JG

mini and benny are in mourning that authorities are after 2 middle eastern males and not a couple of white tea partiers.

John,

You may be onto something, but I have a better idea. Let's arm joggers with bombs, because only a good guy with a bomb can stop a bad guy with a bomb.

Keda,

Sorry, but I don't understand your post.

The last line I do dispute though. I didn't say unauthorized, I said undocumented. In my opinion both are better terms than "illegal" because we label people by the crimes they commit.

Bank robbers are called bank robbers, not illegal citizens. Undocumented immigrants are not illegal immigrants, their crime is that they are here without documentation. Thus, they are called undocumented immigrants.

If you want to sound like a yokel and call these people "illegals" that is your choice. The bottom isn't the label, it is the fact that much of the agricultural and manufacturing (think: meat-packing) sectors of our economy rely heavily on migrant workers, many of whom work here without the proper documentation. This is a fact.

Benevolus, the truth is the illegal immigrants are here illegally, no matter which euphemism you choose. Undocumented is just your way of saying they're just fine except for documents required by law.

Liberals love euphemisms. Pro-choice instead of baby killers, killing their own offspring. Progressives instead of Marxists.

It's like calling the Sandy Hook killer a "misguided marksman". Most of us would take offense if you watered down the truth about that sick SOB.

As a libertarian I have no problem changing the immigration laws. Political boundaries have never kept people out or in, though governments keep trying. If we believe in liberty, why do we want to keep them out?

I also believe people should not be forced to have children they don't want, while I abhor abortions at the same time. If we believe in liberty, why do we want to compel others to follow our ways?

I would love to see drugs, from marijuana to heroin, legalized. I hate their effects and would never touch them myself, but I don't want to waste my tax money keeping others from such stupidity. They're gonna do it anyway.

Libertarians love liberty. Liberals love control.

JG

"Undocumented is just your way of saying they're just fine except for documents required by law."

Thank you Captain Obvious. Undocumented immigrants ARE FINE except for the documents required by law. If they break some other law, then they are undocumented immigrants + whatever other illegal action they committed.

When citizens who break the law start being called "illegal citizens" let me know. Until then, I prefer the to be as accurate in assigning labels as possible. "Undocumented" refers specifically to the crime that was committed, "illegal" is overly general and doesn't make any sense. Actions are illegal. Not people.

Benevolus:, you got me, I'm dead in the water. I choose not to communicate with you any longer. I of sound mind do understand there is absolutely no debating with you. Carnac was a Johnny Carson caricature. If you would like, please goggle it. He was an all knowing, all seeing person. I'm showing my age now. You are always right and you will always be! Thank you so kindly your humble neophyte.

Keda,

Is expressing an alternative opinion really enough to get you to completely shut down? Pretty weak sauce, man.

I suppose 'taking your ball and going home' is certainly in-keeping with the behavior I have come to expect out of the conservative posters around here.

Oh well. Thanks for the conversation while it lasted.

Benevolus,

In order to not be "illegal", as in not-legally here, people have to apply for permission from the government you love so much.

Did you need permission to attend K-12, college, to teach, to vote (registering), even to blog on this site (registering again)?

You don't seem to mind getting permission yourself, but others apparently need not be bothered with that, in your mind. So they aren't illegals they're merely undocumented? I guess it wouldn't be illegal for you to vote or teach school, if you hadn't gotten permission, eh? You would just be an "undocumented teacher" or an "undocumented voter".

The difference is the school and the polling places actually check and would never allow you in, while our nation disregards all immigration laws, and actually goes so far as to punish those who attempt to enforce them, like the State of Arizona.

JG

John,

You can use whatever term you like. I really don't care. I find "illegal" unenlightened, and inaccurate.

Like I said when bank robbers, rapists, murderers, drunk drivers, etc., cease to be bank robbers, rapists, murders, and drunk drivers and begin to be "illegal citizens" perhaps I will reconsider my position. In the meantime, I prefer to be accurate and to label people who break the law by the crime(s) they commit.

Discussing labels, while interesting, misses the larger point(s) though. Undocumented workers pay taxes, both locally and nationally. These people, like it or not, are vital to US agricultural and to manufacturing (esp. meat-packing in the Great Plains, and the carpet industry in the south).

The articles I linked above are from 3 distinct geographical areas, they are all three ranchers or farmers, and they all three are having the same problem: they need migrant workers, and too many are leaving or are being deported. The result is that the fruit is literally rotting on the vine because white people can't be bothered to pick it. The articles above paint this picture very clearly.

There are plenty of able bodied legal workers right here in the United States. They choose not to work and our liberal government pays them not to work. Thus the problem with illegal aliens. The democrat party loves the illegal aliens as a source of liberal votes and they too go on the welfare rolls in large numbers helping out the liberal big government perpetuation. Madness really.

Most of the work performed by undocumented workers takes place in rural/micropolitan places. It is the rural teet-suckers of America that refuse to work. I have already proven beyond a doubt that Red States are not paying their way. The fact that farmers and ranchers cannot find able-bodied workers further demonstrates this point.

Also, undocumented workers do not vote. The ignorance you display is astounding, ugly. Madness really.

BULLY!!!

Hahaha. You just made me laugh, SW.

"Discussing labels, while interesting, misses the larger point(s) though. Undocumented workers pay taxes, both locally and nationally."

I am curious about this statement. How, exactly, do they pay taxes? They actually give their employer a nonexistent social security number? And he withholds taxes on their wages just like everyone else? LOL.

All the ones I know (who you like to call "undocumented") work for CASH. No withholding or records, and they don't pay any tax thereon. Which actually frees them to apply for cash assistance, section 8 housing, free school lunches and textbooks for their kids, free Obama cell phones, food stamps, and FASFA federal college assistance for their kids (due to no reported income.) Most places (the "fair" ones with no voter ID laws) they can vote, too, or do you deny that, too. They can use a vehicle registration card or a paid utility bill in the more liberal bastions of the nation, where they tend to congregate.

I, also, am aware they are essential to our economy. We need them to work; they need the work. Immigration reform is a great idea to bring them into the mainstream. As a libertarian, I love liberty and hate all the governmental restrictions that get in the way of real capitalism. As is usual, the problem is the government, and the unintended consequence of stupid laws.

The labels we use matter a great deal. Dumbing down what things actually are with euphemisms is detrimental to us all.

Like when somebody dies. They died; they didn't "pass". If somebody had an abortion, they murdered their unborn child. Calling it a fetus instead of a human being lets them off the hook of reality IMHO.

If an unborn panda cub dies within its mother and is miscarried, people don't refer to it as a fetus, do they? Because we're all about saving the pandas from extinction, and so they MATTER while the unborn child does not, it would seem.

Language is important. Its purpose is to communicate, but many times it is used to obfuscate and obscure the truth through "feel-good" terminology.

When we use those sort of feel-good terms, we tend to display "ignorance", conceal "ugly" reality, and display the "madness" of unreality.

Hahaha. You make me laugh, Benevolus.

JG

I know an online poker player that thought he would "move to Canada" to play poker. When they wouldn't let him back into the country after a trip to Seattle he realized real quick what rights he had and didn't have. He has since "moved to Mexico" to play online poker. If he would have snuck back into Canada he would be an "undocumented worker" and subject to deportation back to the United States.

John,

Here are the all the ways undocumented immigrants pay taxes:

Property Tax: paid through rental or home ownership

Local sales/consumption tax: paid through the purchase of goods and services

US Social Security Administration: roughly 75% of undocumented workers pay payroll taxes, which contribute $8 billion dollars annually. This is money they pay in but can never claim.

Medicare, which is also part of the payroll tax, receives about $2 billion per year from undocumented workers

You can see these are true in links below.

http://medicarenewsgroup.com/context/understanding-medicare-blog/understanding-m...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18077009/#.US-2NTdMt8E

http://www.policymic.com/articles/12651/illegal-immigrants-paid-more-taxes-than-...

Regarding labels, you are right, they are important. If you want to sound like a yokel, use "illegal", it actually helps your political opponents.

The right is learning very quickly that it will have to soften its position regarding undocumented immigrants even going as far as to change the way they attempt to dehumanize via language an important segment of the US population.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/18/committee-to-the-save-the-gop-pass-comprehe...

Action are illegal. Not people. That is why the label "illegal" is ignorant, and inaccurate. There is no such thing as an "illegal citizen" just as there is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant". But I hope you continue to ignore this fact. As the US becomes more Latino, clinging to hateful rhetoric and a xenophobic mentality will only further marginalize people who share your viewpoint. In my opinion, this cannot happen quickly enough.

Oh and John, in case you don't want to remain ignorant...find out about the Earning Suspense File at the SSA.

"Earnings Suspense File

Experts say illegal immigrants make up a majority--possibly up to 75 percent--of SSA's "earnings suspense file," which is a record it keeps on W-2s where the names and Social Security numbers don't match up in their system.

In 2010, the last year for which figures are available, employers reported wages of $70.3 billion from 7.3 million workers whose records were placed in the earnings suspense file, according to data provided by the SSA to The Medicare NewsGroup.

These payroll taxes, however, go straight to their respective trust funds. This amounts to about $2 billion for Medicare and $8.7 billion for Social Security in 2010."

Not surprisingly, another conservative demonstrates his ignorance. Social Security is and always will be solvent.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2013/01/07/social-security-rerun/

Regarding insults, I am just following "ya'lls" lead.

It really is like shooting fish in a barrel around here.

Social Security is a fiscally sound joke and everyone seems to know it except mini, benny, and Krugman. Idealism has fiscally ruined more than one nation.

From the Socialists over at Forbes...

"It is a logical impossibility for Social Security to go bankrupt. We can voluntarily choose to suspend or eliminate the program, but it could never fail because it "ran out of money." This belief is the result of a common error: conceptualizing Social Security from the micro (individual) rather than the macro (economy-wide) perspective. It's not a pension fund into which you put your money when you are young and from which you draw when you are old. It's an immediate transfer from workers today to retirees today. That's what it has always been and that's what it has to be--there is no other possible way for it to work."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2013/01/07/social-security-rerun/

Conservatives would do well to actually become informed about an issue from reputable sources before trying their ideas in public. Give the level of knowledge and factual information on this board, I am starting to see why conservatives tend to lose every single national debate.

"Wouldn't that also be that "inflammatory rhetoric" you so actively campaigned against following the Arizona shooting?"

I didn't start posting here until Fall of 2011. That was almost a year after the Arizona shooting. So, once again, you look like an raving moron.

Just followin' "ya'lls" lead!

The image nicely summarizes what we in the grad offices of Hardin Hall imagine you to look like.

:)

I am not in Arkansas, nor have I ever been. You seem confused.

I live in south Lincoln. I am staring at out the window this very moment at the KFC on 9th and South.

No, silly. I am home now. Hence, the 18 minute delay.

The same day your mom comes to....nevermind.

Moron. Terrible, terrible moron.

You are weakening, gma. Where are the quotes? Where are the childish poop insults?

Buckling in the face of fire...tisk, tisk...you will be no good when Arley's end times are upon us.

I am not surprised.

Benevolus, you cite statistics which while interesting, are presented by the government, and of necessity, do not include your "undocumented" people. When they are "undocumented" they are also not counted. Have you heard of black markets, shadow statistics, and underground economies?

Also, you state actions are illegal but people are not. Are you saying that "illegal" drugs is a misnomer along with "illegal" weapons, since only actions can be illegal?

It is clear to me that you never consider yourself wrong in any way. Or if you consider it, only in general terms, not in any specific instance.

Discussions with folks such as yourself are never honest or productive. And as we have seen, frequently result in childish name calling on your part.

So long, dude. I leave you to your own arguments, as I truly have a life, and better things to do with my time.

JG

http://energycommerce.house.gov/brand/new-report-chronicles-oil-and-gas-producti...

The greatest energy boom in my lifetime and the feds aren't receiving any of the royalty.

JG,

Once again you aren't thinking things through particularly well. First of all, it is the possessing(verb) of an unauthorized gun or drug that is illegal. You see, marijuana in certain contexts is perfectly legal, and in some cases it isn't.

This is true of guns as well. With proper licensure and documentation, the possession of almost any gun is legal. I have seen people with military issue flame throwers and 40mm AA guns.

So yes, it is the act of possessing an unauthorized gun, or the act of possessing a drug without proper documentation (i.e., without a medical marijuana card or a prescription) that is illegal.

Regarding the rest of your post, I am relying on more than government statistics (which are perfectly fine by the way). Many private groups, think tanks, policy centers, etc., collect data, make estimates, inform policymakers, etc.

Your shadow statistics, while interesting, have no standing with serious people. None. Sorry.

Benvolus, "Illegal" is most often an adjective.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal

Merriam-webster online even uses "an illegal immigrant" as an example in the above link. You call that "unenlightened and inaccurate".

But thou O Great One are larger, more knowledgeable, and keener than those folks (or anyone for that matter).

Mark Twain once observed, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Liars love statistics, and I include governments here. The gov't changed the computation of the CPI and unemployment rates to make them look better--you surely know that.

Be very careful what and whom you believe. Just as everything on the internet is not true, not everything the government tells you is true, either.

I call you a "statist". It's a most accurate term that you should appreciate.

JG

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

New paper debunks global warming due to CO2 emissions. Paper points out that Global temps have decreased since 2002. Cites CFC and Ozone depletion as "reasons" .

Global warming due to CO2 always assumed "increased" absorption which was always a stretch.

This is not politically popular research.

Wallis

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf

The paper in full.

Wallis

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/302537-obama-has-no-patience-for-climat...

The President and the Sec of Energy are still not citing correct facts. All people ask is that they look at the real data and not fight just to fight.

America is on the dawn of becoming an energy superpower. The Hydraulic fracturing debate is dying as drinking water is still safe. Injection wells are still injecting after the press dies off. Texas and Oklahoma and North Dakota have booming economies. Oil and Gas are cheaper in the United States than any other country that doesn't use price controls. And yet oil production on Federal Lands is off 40% in the last 4 years. It does not make sense.

Wallis

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100777464

So oil production on Federal Land is down 40% in 5 years. And there is a story on CNBC that considers a Federal Owned oil industry.

Wallis

Wallis,

Excerpts from your paper:

"Both natural and anthropogenic impacts may alter the Earth's climate and environment".

"These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gasses".

"Finally, this study points out that humans are mainly responsible for the ozone hole and global climate change, but international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol must be placed on firmer scientific grounds".

So humans are responsible for climate change. Yeah I can see how accepting this as fact might be politically uncomfortable for many folks (esp. those who swear that climate change has nothing to do with humans).

Interesting as these results may be, anyone who actually understands how science works realizes the disingenuousness of your post. One study does not instantly "debunk" the rest of the scientific community, even though it strongly confirms your biases.

Lu's compelling research and theories must now stand-up to scrutiny from the rest of the scientific community in order to "debunk" current models of climate change. That is how science works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24

Sun spot activity still low. Expect a Cold Winter.

Exports of NG to Mexico surging. Coal being picked on. Expect NG prices to rise this Winter.

Wallis

"Sun spot activity still low. Expect a Cold Winter."

Don't confuse short run fluctuations for long-term trends...in politics or climate change. Listen to Wallis's article:

"Finally, this study points out that humans are mainly responsible for the ozone hole and global climate change"

Ben - Are you saying the Sun doesn't effect temperature?

I know we are of different economic belief systems but that seems a stretch.

No, Wallis, I am saying that the article you cited is pretty sure of its conclusions. Are you ready (per your article) to admit that, indeed, human behavior is largely responsible for the warming of the planet?

Or, did you post an article that got it all wrong except for the parts you like?

By the way, regarding economic systems, I subscribe mostly to the arguments laid out by free-markets and competition--I also recognize the need for a degree of governmental oversight and protections from the system. To borrow from Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system on Earth, except for all the others. Do you really believe that this not correct? You aren't a socialist are you?

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4288&mn=117860&pt=msg&mid=12935854

More signs that NG is going up.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate.aspx

The hippies at Exxon are worried about greenhouse gases and climate change. What would those socialists know about it?

You still short NG?

I've never advocated shorting natty gas.

"The fact is, the US (and Canada) is headed towards natty gas..."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 8, 2013, at 2:10 AM

I like Cheniere...they are probably your competitors though, huh?

I produce 95% oil. I have no interest in exporting LNG.

Why do you like Cheniere?

For several reasons:

(1) Because of their storage capacities at Sabine Pass

(2) Their investments in processing plants (capable of 500 million feet^3/day)

(3) As of last month they were the only US company with the necessary approvals (and realistic infrastructure) to be a major exporter of LNG.

(4) In the wake of Fukishima, Japan's rising dependency on importations of LNG looks permanent.

(5) Charif Souki

Hey Michael,

Just checking in, I hope your NEW job is going well. I assume it is not a teaching job or you would have been more active over the summer months.

Mental health issues that he and the family would rather not detail which is as it should be. This is no assumption.

Glad to see you are keepin' classy, ugly.

How much higher do you think the stock will go?

Wallis

I am serious. A toll was being taken and he had to step back for the good of his marriage and his mental health. There is no derision meant, it is the truth. He kicked the drugs and sloth and he will hopefully kick this too. Another relapse is in order soon but he will prevail or self destruct.

Ugly,

Why are you airing his private affairs publicly? What goal do you hope to achieve?

Wallis,

I am not sure. I think the opportunity for substantial gains is there, but the LNG market seems unstable, I don't have a good sense of who the US and foreign competitors will be, and I remember reading that Cheniere wasn't profitable for a long stretch of the last decade.

But, from my inexperienced and amateur perspective, the potential profit seems to outweigh the risks. Cheniere is up 56% to $29/share so far this year, and since last July it's up 107%. I would give a climb to $30-40/share a high probability (60-70%). And I'd say there is a decent chance (30-40%) that it climbs as high as $40-50/share over the next 12 to 18 months so long as their new facilities come online as scheduled. After 2015, when major exportation to Europe and Asia is in full swing, who knows...

It looks like a potential short to me. Not yet but with one last surge. The stock should have gone bankrupt in 2008 but didn't only due to take or pay. The company has to borrow money to service it's existing debt. The company has just borrowed over $4 billion more and the interest on this debt is high. The projected revenue stream in the future has risk.

This stock is on my list as a short. It has almost completed an Elliot 5 wave advance and this stock is trading on expectations of what can happen. Behavioral economics at work and that is when technical analysis is most useful.

Not a short yet - but getting close.

Wallis

Yeah, you are right, it is not without risk.

But with regard to your second paragraph, I find that the efficient market hypothesis renders Elliot's findings unhelpful. If markets were truly predictable according to wave theory (or any theory), widespread knowledge of the theory would cause traders to immediately buy (or sell) causing prices to immediately increase (or decrease), thus erasing the very profit they were trying attempting to capitalize on...which would (almost instantly) render the technical analysis completely useless.

Regardless, we have two predictions publicly stated, so we can now sit back and see who is right.

Freud said "children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them." As mini battles the child that controls him in his middle years we should hope that he musters the maturity to quell the little boy.

I wonder what Freud would have to say about a grown person maliciously revealing the deeply private issues of someone in order to publicly shame them for no better reason than their political differences?

Perhaps you should reflect on you inner-childishness?

He would say "You rock Stewie!!!"

You are a fine representative small town Nebraska and conservative values. Kudos to you.

I live in Omaha and was raised in Kansas City. My two year brush with MPCC at McCook hardly qualifies me as a small town conservative. As I enjoyed Jeffery Broussard & the Creole Cowboys last night I hoped for better times for the wandering eye liberal dimwits I once knew. What a show. What a night. And to finish it off with a fine Cohiba and Lagavulin Rocks overlooking the Mighty Mo was the best.

Sounds lovely. Excuse my assumption. We shall strike "small town" from the list of adjectives, and simply state that conservatives everywhere should be proud to have someone like who representing their values in public. Someone who isn't afraid to stand up to a "wandering eye liberal dimwit" (whatever that is), by courageously donning a fake name, going online, and sharing publicly their private familial and medical information with people from this person's hometown.

Good form, old chap. Enjoy yourself this weekend, you earned it.

"What the deuce!!". You are right on one count benny. I did earn it. I.

"Someone who isn't afraid to...courageously don[ning] a fake name, going online,"

Mr. Pot?!?! is that you?

"[If it weren't for] Mr. Pot...I...would have been more active over the summer months".

Get off the drugs, SW, and you will be more active.

That's funny.

Where is the quote from?

You, of course.

Odd, I don't remember posting that, can you tell me when I did?

If you tell me when I did, I'll check to see if maybe my roommate had posted it when I wasn't home.

Awww, there is the snarky and childish SWNebr that I will never take seriously.

You wrote all of those words above, in your previous posts, I am sure a person of your vast intelligence can find them.

So that isn't a direct quote, just a mish-mash of words I have typed before then?

I'm not sure what's childish or snarky about asking you to verify when you are "quoting" something I "posted". But if you can't that's fine I guess it just shows once again that you would never try to distort a person's words to say something they didn't intend. *cough*

I still think your comment was funny, but now I think it is sad that you had to lie to make a joke.

Aside from all of that, do you have an app or something that notifies you about comments on this site or do you just always monitor it? It doesn't seem to matter how many hours, days or weeks pass between posts, you are always there with a response, usually within minutes.

Oh, you mean we weren't playing the "Dishonest Editing Game"? When I read your hack job of my statement to ugly, I assumed that you wanted to see who could get the most "creative" with their quote mining.

Regarding apps or programs that monitor chatboards...just mind your business.

Wrong and dishonest.

I added nothing to your words, nor did I change the meaning of the statement. I only didn't post the specific portions that don't apply to almost everyone here, myself included. Weren't you commenting on his being a coward by assuming an anonymous handle while talking about others? If not, what did you mean?

But again, I'm not surprised that you have no problem introducing entire phrases into the mouths of people, or lying, because someone's words don't fit your agenda.

SW, you willfully hacked out the part about revealing familial/medical/personal secrets in an attempt to fit my statement with your agenda. And now you are lying childishly about it; too arrogant to admit you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Tisk.

The full quote included the conjunction "and", which is a logic operator that binds "donnng a fake name" with "going online" AND "sharing [personal] information.

Rather than honestly quoting me in full, you dishonestly chose to not include the entire statement in your hack job. The reason you did not include it is because if you would have, you would have invalidated your silly and meaningless cheap shot.

"If not, what did you mean?"

The comment made clearly was a remark about the cowardly act of anonymously revealing Mike's family/personal/medical secrets to people who know him and his family.

Many of us don fake names and go online to post anonymously, that is perfectly defensible. It is cowardly to hide behind anonymity and use someone's personal life and problems as a way to embarrass them in their home town.

Benny has just called mini's mental illness embarrassing. I am surprised he didn't call him retarded. There is nothing embarrassing about mental illness benny. You should be ashamed.

Speaking of embarrassments, you are a monumental embarrassment to yourself, ugly. Res ipsa loquitor.

Futue te ipsum and a meeny miny moe to you too.

**Do not disrespect the privacy and views of others

**Do not post obscene, profane, sexually explicit, libelous, slanderous, defamatory, harmful, threatening, illegal or knowingly false information

Tisk, tisk, ugly. I wonder if the mods will live up to their policies.

I am not short yet.

Wallis

So when do you suggest a short? I think LNG goes strong for the next 12 to 18 months...and has potential to move drastically in either direction after that.

It could be beginning its 5th wave advance or this double top could hold. The downside potential is 5 so it is worth watching.

The stock is not trading on fundamentals as it is not exporting anything yet and yet the stock is close to an all time high.

Btw my personal experience forces me to disagree with you on wave theory. Elliott Wave and Gann have worked for me for 15 years.

You obviously don't understand how ETFs and index funds and monthly 401 K contributions and momentum funds and high frequency trading programs can skew markets. You also need to understand that human behavior is to buy high and sell low.

Wave theory warns you that once a stock or commodity goes parabolic up or down that the run is exhausting.

You should really understand it before you attack it.

Understanding it will change your life.

Wallis

Wallis, you assume too much, and it make you appear foolish.

I understand wave principle. The fundamental problem that I have with it (which is a criticism levied by many economists) is that it violates the efficient market hypothesis.

Glad I am foolish.

Will compare results with you anytime.

www.extex.net

Since you implied I am foolish please prove I am wrong.

I am prepared to show tax returns dating back for 15 years demonstrating my market prowess. My twin brother Edward Marsh is also prepared to show tax returns for 13 years demonstrating his market prowess.

Wallis Marsh

Your business acumen and knowledge of the market speaks for itself Wallis. In these arenas, you are not a fool. It is when you begin making assumptions about what others do or do not know, when you can run into trouble. Appearing foolish, isn't the same as being foolish. Nonetheless, it is the opposite of wise to outright assume that someone does not know about a proposed market principle that has been in existence for nearly a century. It seems like a bad idea to me to confuse skepticism with a lack of knowledge.

By the way, I hope nobody followed in your footsteps and invested in APPL last Jan. At $427/share, that one hasn't been so hot.

"Bought me some Apple today at $445.

Yum"

-- Posted by wmarsh on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 9:29 PM

Also, this one isn't working out so well thus far either, most major indices have seen slight losses or modest gains, and the Commodity Price Index is down since 12/18/12, when you made your prediction below.

"2013 looks good for commodities."

-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, Dec 18, 2012, at 5:33 AM

Apparently, being successful in business is no buffer against being wrong in the market.

"Since you implied I am foolish please prove I am wrong."

I said you "appear foolish" when you assume that someone doesn't know something that they actually do know.

You are wrong, because your declaration above of 'things I do not understand' is by-in-large nonsense. I am aware of a variety of market theories and I can (for the most part) grasp their empirical/statistical underpinnings.

If you'd like proof, I am happy to debate the premises and conclusions of the efficient market hypothesis, which I believe (in it's weak and semi-strong forms) to be the most rational characterization of markets available.

I am not sure what you think your invitation to a ******* contest involving tax returns will prove. And even more curious is what your brother's tax return has to do with anything. Get a grip, Wallis...

We will see who is right about LNG in 12 to 18 months.

Ben I am 46 years old and have 15 years experience running my oil company and managing my personal trading. I don't care to debate theories but I will show you my past results.

The offer to compare results is not a ******* contest. If you were going to invest in a mutual fund you would revue management and past performance. I am offering to show management and past performance.

You are asking me to accept that a College Grad student in Geography is somehow capable of talking money. I am simply asking you to show me results.

I asked you if you were long in the market in October of 2012 and you gave me your typically answers that said nothing. I got long and rode the rally for big gains.

Wallis,

I am not sure what you do not understand about my admission that you have far more experience with the market and business than I do.(Although, clearly I can talk about money...the handful of stock/market predictions I have made on these blogs have all been categorically correct).

But let me say it again for the cheap seats: Wallis, your business acumen and knowledge of markets is admittedly superior to mine.

On the other hand, I am much younger than you, I learn pretty fast, I am not put off by dense economic theories and empirical studies found in academic journals, and I am making money in the market (albeit not much).

Regarding October, the only convo I could find was one in which you had asked me about some commodities and a handful of individual stocks.

I replied that I would defer to your judgment about those stocks, but that gold and silver appeared like they were going to continue a short-run rise, and as the market gained steam, they would begin their decent. My reply appears to have been pretty much spot on.

Tangentially, in looking back through these posts I found these gems:

"Did the Cnn poll and it came out Romney 313 Obama 222.

Romney still wins in a landslide as some of the New England States will vote for Mitt."

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 5:20 PM

"Ben and Mike - Do I still look desperate for mentioning that the past suggests that the President is going to lose. He is behind in more and more popular polls these days.

Wallis"

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sun, Oct 14, 2012, at 6:05 PM

Then (and now) you seem to be a big proponent of the adage "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior". This is almost certainly why your political predictions tend to suffer, and it may be why we fundamentally disagree on many economic principles.

Wallis,

Don't take it personally, we mere mortals can never contend with the cerebral might that is Benevolus. He knows all and is an expert on everything. Why he can google faster than you can ogle.

As for the Geography student bit, I have some doubts, there isn't anyone at UNL with his stated credentials that I've seen.

He is tainted by class envy and none of us will ever be as good as him at anything. Never mind the fact that he lives in a small apartment, surrounds himself with academia, and doesn't involve himself with living in the real world. He mocks those of us who have the balls to live and thrive in the real world while he hides in his apartment and on campus. What he has over mini is that I think he will survive in this talk back game far longer than mini as mini's life became consumed by this netherworld and his relationships suffered. Benny suffers from a lack of relationships due to his being content in front of a computer for countless hours. This gives him a big advantage over mini. It is a Pyrrhic advantage none the less but an advantage.

Yawn

And he tires easily when confronted with the truth.

Well, you are right on one count. Although, to be perfectly accurate we must set your "truth" off in quotes. Reading your "truth" is tiring. No argument there.

Good luck Matt. You are truly an idiot.

Wallis Marsh

Awww, Wallis, you gonna take your ball and go home now?

By the way, my name is not Matt. Nice try though.

I pm'd you Matt. Bark Bark.

Are you not going to acknowledge our pm's from a few years ago?

I sent an email to your yahoo account and your edu account.

Maybe I call your boss Benevolus? SEC baby!

Wallis

If you are the roommate that has hijacked the account who appears foolish now?

MH getting close?

You are overconfident, Wallis, and that is why you will never be as smart as I am.

I assure you that you are in for a very embarrassing realization.

HA!

I figured you'd like that, SW. I bet myself a dollar that you'd be helpless to reply. "Ya'll" are very predictable people.

You know me so well, blatant hypocrisy never ceases to amuse me. You should have bet yourself $1.25 so you could buy a soda from the vending machine.

Kymberly could be the naughty roommate but most likely MH is a patsy. What is the McCook connection Wallis?

Exactly, SW blatant and intentional...and I appreciate that you are so easily manipulated.

Between you obsessing over me and my posts, and the CEO of ExTex (who is, according to him, a leader in the oil and gas industries) embarrassing himself publicly emailing random strangers trying to find out who I really am, I feel pretty satisfied.

It makes the day pass so much faster to have you guys to toy with. I see your attraction to childishly prodding Mike. It is fun.

It is, I guess now you have to retract all of your complaints about me then huh?

Yes, SW, I take it all back. Being like you is fuuuuuuuuunnnnn!!!!!

From now on, I will be exactly like you, SW. I will offer no arguments or perspectives, I will only tease other posters, and I will type the word "hypocrisy"/"hypocrite" a whole bunch of times.

I think I will call Matt H in the morning. I will then have him call the Gazette or I will forward the Gazette Matt's emails to the Gazette and have them confirm your ID Benevolus.

Welcome back bad roommate.

Go Dawgs!

Wallis Marsh

Because Benevolus if you really have assumed Matt H's identity and modeled yourself with the same degree (Demographics) as he you really are a pretty sick person.

I wonder if the real Matt H. with a Masters in Demographics would find you amusing.

Wallis

Benevolus don't you remember our email exchanges from a few years ago. Don't you remember David V from my office also emailing you?

Did that not happen - but I have copies of the emails so it did happen.

I don't care who you are. But I do know who you have portrayed to be. Maybe you set up a bogus yahoo email? But you also were very knowledgeable about Demographics.

So what are you now? Still the UNL Grad student in Demographics who also has a job at a University? Or have you just assumed an innocent person's identity?

You know the answer but I will get to the bottom of it.

The problem I have with this is I am not anonymous on this board. I was discussing some of the work I had done on some issues. The person with the handle of Benevolus said he was interested in the work. I gave out my email and asked him or her to pm me. Someone did and email exchanges were made. The person emailing me told me who they were name and major etc. Therefore if you made that up you violated the privacy of that person. In the past the old Benevolus apologized for his roommate hacking into his account. Are you that person? Maybe but I will let Matt decide.

Wallis

Karma is a bit*# huh Matt?

Or is Lyndsay the naughty roommate? Does the NDOE condone the use of their computer system to spew liberal BS? Is the position necessary if hours can be spent playing on the comments section of news sites? I guess Mike Foley will sort it out. Handcuffs anyone??????

Wallis,

I am not sure what gave you the impression that my name is Matt, but I assure that it isn't. You are going out of your way to embarrass yourself at this point. Nowhere on this site have I given the slightest impression that my name is Matt or that my last name is H.

I again deny that my name is Matt, or that my last name starts with an H. If you went a google quest based on my yahoo username to try and find out who I really I am, and now you are publicly announcing your findings, you are in violation of the terms of services of these blogs.

I will be flagging all of your attempts to share private information, and I will be contacting the Gazette with regard to your unacceptable behavior.

Furthermore Wallis,

You need to very think carefully about your actions. The only person violating anybody's privacy is you. YOU have brought some person into the public forum on these blogs. YOU are violating not only Gazette policy, but this Matt H. person's privacy as well, I have made no mention anywhere on these boards that I am anyone named Matt H.

Pay attention here Wallis, it is against the law in some states to reveal publicly the contents of private messages (pm's as you call them). The contents of some messages are protected from public disclosure. Believe me, I will be reading up this afternoon on Nebraska's Public Disclosure of Private Facts laws. Tread lightly, Wallis, you are respectable person and CEO.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Bookem Mike Foley. Now Matt is going to research public disclosure in the tax payer dime and the taxpayer NDOE computer. This is "rich" as my old college buddy would say.

I am not an employee at the NDOE either.

Posting from a different computer does not change who you really are Matt. Nor does it hide the trail. Silly Liberal!! Foley and his minions are not so easily fooled. Watch and learn, watch and learn. I am praying for a perp walk.

Yes ugly, pray on. It is the best and only hope that you have.

By the way, Mike might have reason to bring suit against you.

"The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person."

Speaking of perp walks, it might be time for you to lawyer up. Here are your offending posts:

Mental health issues that he and the family would rather not detail which is as it should be. This is no assumption.

-- Posted by marriedugly on Wed, Jul 10, 2013, at 3:24 PM

I am serious. A toll was being taken and he had to step back for the good of his marriage and his mental health. There is no derision meant, it is the truth. He kicked the drugs and sloth and he will hopefully kick this too. Another relapse is in order soon but he will prevail or self destruct.

-- Posted by marriedugly on Thu, Jul 11, 2013, at 9:19 AM

Mike has a pretty much iron clad case against you, ugly.

You can lash out all you want Matt. It won't go away. You can even go into the closet corner and close your eyes if you'd like. It still won't go away. What you have sewn you are about to reap. As Winston said "In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity". You..., Matt, are defiant. I meanwhile smoke my Cohiba embroiled in magnanimity. Good luck to you in the coming days.

You are magnanimous? Now that is funny. You "disdain meanness and pettiness, and display a noble generosity"?

If by magnanimous you mean delusional, I think you might be onto something.

tick....tock.....tick....tock.....tick.....tock

ROFL,

Now Benevolus or Matt or whoever is a Lawyer too.

Like I said back when I first started posting, I have a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from UNL. No law degree. Not a bad idea though.

And I've read like nine John Grisham novels. So I have that going for me. Which is nice.

There is a probability WTI could be $121 by September 15.

Wallis

The long Bull Market in the stock market appears to be entering a capitulation phase. Looking for a sharp correction in the next 90 days. Not out of the market but have pulled up trailing stops and looking to get short.

Great run.

Wallis