Despite Ignorance, Too Many Still Spout Off

IBD ^ | December 11, 2007 | Thomas Sowell

[Myrddin]

I have looked at the Taurus Judge at my local FFLs. They come in a blue and a stainless version. The price is very reasonable. After viewing the Judge, I wondered how a 410 shell would fare in my T/C Encore 460 S&W barrel. I haven't tried it. T/C does make a proper 45LC/410 barrel for both Encore and Contender frames.

[Redleg Duke]

Try restating your comment after you get the tinfoil on your head more comfortably arranged.

[absalom01]

He’s telling me I have no place or right to question the use of force our government employs.

No, he's not. Never says or implies that in this piece.

[DoughtyOne]

People are entitled to have opinions whether right or wrong. They are entitled to voice them. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.

I disagree. In the same way, I disagree calling a "tail" a "leg" makes a horse five-legged; I disagree the SCOTUS defining urinating on a flag "speech" but campaign contributions are not, makes it so in the existential sense.

What bothers you about a person calling a tail a fifth leg?  Doesn't that tell you all you need to know?

As for urinating on the flag, I don't see that as protected speach.  It doesn't argue a point.  It's an insult pure and simple.  It should be legislated against.

I also disagree the First Amendment was intended to protect the information/advertising/propaganda technologies we have today in the same way gun grabbers don't believe the Second Amendment was intended to protect the rights of the individual to own a Stinger missle.

I don't have a problem with that.

If the SCOTUS has ruled a person has no right to yell fire in a crowded theater (presumably when there is no actual fire) other, provably false, maledictions should not be given carte blanche by virtue of our protection of dissenting opinion.

I'm sure you see somewhat of a difference between disagreeing about corporate salaries and saying so, and yelling fire in a theater that could cause a number of deaths.

Differences of opinion are important. Silencing them is a very dangerous thing to advocate.

Very true, and I don't advocate it, but valuable "opinions" and gratuitous "assertions," are very different things that "look" superficially similar.

Okay, who is going to be the arbiter of that?  Let's say we've got a state like Arkansas under Bill Clinton and the arbitration board was stacked by him.  Are you going to buy into that scenario?

Frankly, it doesn't take that much education to distinguish between the two.

And it takes a whole lot less education to understand that it doesn't matter.

[DoughtyOne]

I would agree that it’s best not to go looking for the perp. Dialing the police would be good if you could. If the guy comes within sight, and he appears armed, all bets are off.

Thanks for the comments.

[driftdiver]

“Try restating your comment after you get the tinfoil on your head more comfortably arranged.”

Great debating technique you have there. There is nothing paranoid about questioning our government. Perhaps you think they are infallible?

[driftdiver]

blah blah blah

[papertyger]

What bothers you about a person calling a tail a fifth leg?

Read my tagline.

I'm sure you see somewhat of a difference between disagreeing about corporate salaries and saying so, and yelling fire in a theater that could cause a number of deaths.

Actually, I don't. I am of the "assault is an assault is an assault" school. I see no appreciable difference between assaulting someone's person, and assaulting the product of their labors. Even so, "saying" corporate salaries should be subject to restriction is much different from mounting a campaign against them. The first should be free; the second should carry responsibility.

Okay, who is going to be the arbiter of that?

That's not the issue. I do not have to solve the procedural problems to know the current interpretation of the First Ammedment is antithetical to a free society.

And it takes a whole lot less education to understand that it doesn't matter.

Gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously ignored...by definition.

[Redleg Duke]

I think you may be paranoid and seeing black helicopters at night.

[r9etb]

D. Your anti-cop attitude will probably play better over at DU.

Ah, yes -- the gratuitous "over at DU swipe." There's no surer way to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[driftdiver]

“I think you may be paranoid and seeing black helicopters at night.”

Why am I paranoid? Because I think governments and their representatives have the habit of abusing their power? I think your naive. There are numerous cases of abuse of power. There are also cases of properly used power and force.

I haven’t seen any black helicopters at night. But then how would you??

[ozzymandus]

He didn’t say anything “anti-cop”.

[r9etb]

The guy can’t seem to stick to a single topic.

Most of it is actually pretty good, but you're right -- his sidetracks into shotguns for home use, and his last three paragraphs, are jarringly out of place. IMO he's just trying to make up his word count there....

If there is one its that nobody but cops can have an opinion on the amount of force used by cops.

I don't get that from his comments -- a better description would be "better safe than sorry, and more shots is safer."

[driftdiver]

“Ah, yes — the gratuitous “over at DU swipe.” There’s no surer way to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

yep, don;t dare question the police because they are always right. And if they aren’t right they’ll just rewrite the policy to make them right.

When did it become paranoid or liberal to question/monitor our government?

[driftdiver]

“I do remember a day when my 45 instructor told me “if you keep shooting this way you will set a new record” and then I proceeded to put the next five shots in the dirt at 15 yards. To much stress.”

Thats why I laugh at the libs who suggest shooting at someones legs instead of center mass.

[driftdiver]

“IMO he’s just trying to make up his word count there....”

Kinda my impression as well. I agree with much of what he says but its so disjointed.

“I don’t get that from his comments — a better description would be “better safe than sorry, and more shots is safer.””

I think it was his comments about how the unknowing masses have no place questioning the police that rubbed me the wrong way. When a cop puts 40 rounds into a guy pulling his wallet I think there should be questions. It may be the cop was correct but there still needs to be questions asked.

Or like the time the SWAT team raided a house to save a suicidal man. 369 rounds later, 1 dead cop, man shot, and 1 more cop shot. Cops were the only ones with guns.

[been_lurking]

The next time you find yourself in trouble, maybe you should "question" the role of the police instead of dialing 911.

By doing so, you will both stroke your own ego, and free up the limited police assets for somebody more deserving of the service.

[driftdiver]

“The next time you find yourself in trouble, maybe you should “question” the role of the police instead of dialing 911.”

It may be more effective. The few times I’ve called it took at least an hour for a response.

But what you’re really saying is the little people should not question their betters; the elites; the ruling class.

“By doing so, you will both stroke your own ego, and free up the limited police assets for somebody more deserving of the service.”

And Police Chiefs wonder why they have an image problem with people out there like you throwing insults for absolutely no reason or provocation.

[r9etb]

When a cop puts 40 rounds into a guy pulling his wallet I think there should be questions. It may be the cop was correct but there still needs to be questions asked.

That pretty much sums it up ... I agree with you.

See you back over at DU, comrade -- our nefarious plot to disrupt another FR thread has succeeded!!!

[DoughtyOne]

What bothers you about a person calling a tail a fifth leg?  Doesn't that tell you all you need to know?

Read my tagline.

Sorry, that doesn't mean anything to me.

I'm sure you see somewhat of a difference between disagreeing about corporate salaries and saying so, and yelling fire in a theater that could cause a number of deaths.

Actually, I don't. I am of the "assault is an assault is an assault" school.

Expressing your opinion even if that opinion is wrong, doesn't constitute an assault.  I constitutes an expression of belief.

I see no appreciable difference between assaulting someone's person, and assaulting the product of their labors.

And that's your right.  It's also my right to think that opinion reaches the level of poor humor.

Even so, "saying" corporate salaries should be subject to restriction is much different from mounting a campaign against them.

Not really.  If a group of people think the salaries are too high, it's their right to advocate for whatever they believe.  I might disagree on point, but I don't run their lives.

The first should be free; the second should carry responsibility.

If stockholders find the salaries of top executives to be unreasonable, they have every right to address them.

Okay, who is going to be the arbiter of that?

That's not the issue. I do not have to solve the procedural problems to know the current interpretation of the First Ammedment is antithetical to a free society.

Well that sounds like an attempt to come off as high minded, but I don't find it high minded to tell others what opinions they can express and which they can't.  Free Society, surely you jest.

And it takes a whole lot less education to understand that it doesn't matter.

Gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously ignored...by definition.

Oh I have, don't worry.