Guns and the Terrorist Watch List

[Rich-D]

These new McCarthyites demand that everyone on the terrorist list, surrender his Second Amendment rights, The list containing a Million names or more is a totally secret list'. FULL ARTICLE (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/09/AR2010050902611.html)

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I can MAYBE see why a secret list of people, compiled from secret criteria MIGHT be necessary under extreme circumstances, but to use it quasi-judicially and deny rights based on being on the list (or having the same name as someone on the list) is completely unacceptable. It's going to need about 1000X the degree of due process and transparency that it now has before that would be OK.

[DoubleTap45]

Remember the NON-issue of "cop killer bullets"? THAT was fomented by a former DIRTY COP and DIRTY POLITICIAN from my neck of the woods named Mario Biaggi. He ended up convicted and losing his seat. He needed to drive a wedge between the NRA and law enforcement.

This was tough. Nationally a LOT of cops are NRA members but not so much in large urban centers. Most higher ups in law enforcement are not hostile to the RKBA but in big cities they are little more than political sock puppets to their political masters. THIS is why you see big city police chiefs parroting the Brady Campaign but not sheriffs and state police commanders.

While there are still no known cases of cops being shot THROUGH their vests with any high penetration rounds, the frequency of cops being shot in the neck and head went WAY up after Biaggi began bloviating. Why? Until HE brought it up most street thugs didn't even know cops wore body armor.

The first versions of the law were so badly written that it would've banned 99% of all hunting ammo. WHAT lightweight body armor can stop a .338 magnum rifle? For that matter a .308 or 6mm would defeat Kevlar. The press went on a feeding frenzy claiming the NRA supported gang bangers killing cops. Even after the NRA sat down with lawmakers and came up with a law that eliminated any civilian possession of the KTW and similar bullets based on metallurgical properties the press STILL kept trumpeting the Brady talking points. :butthead:

-Ray

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Just like NHTSA allowing MADD to use their statistics to lie about the prevalence of drunk driving. NHTSA puts a accident into the "alcohol related" category if the at-fault driver was drunk, if he had a drink but was at a 0.01 BAL, if any of his passengers had ANY alcohol, if the driver or any passengers in the other car (non-fault) had any alcohol, if any WITNESS not involved in the accident had any alcohol, etc.

Probably defensible from a purely grammatical standpoint to call these "alcohol related" so long as those who make use of the statistics realize the rules that applied to accidents and fatalities on the way into the bucket, except for two things.

First problem is that MADD runs around saying "35,000 people are killed each year by drunk drivers" (or whatever the number is), when in fact they're just citing NHTSA's numbers which include all sorts of other things along with drunk drivers who are at fault in their accidents, and NHTSA doesn't change the rules of the definition nor do they sue to stop MADD from criminally misusing statistics all our tax dollars paid for, so they're culpable too.

Second problem is that they say "Well, not all parties in all crashes are tested for blood alcohol, so in addition to definition for "alcohol-related" when then gets morphed into "drunk driver kills innocent people", we will assume that some of those with no indication of any BAL at all, let alone DUI, were in fact drinking, and throw them in the bin as well".

So in practice what it works out to be is a systematic attempt to inflate and then misrepresent the numbers to justify further abridging our liberty.

A pox on them all. I mean that literally, not as a saying.

[Aguila Blanca]

"Figures never lie, but liars always figure." (Don't remember who said that.)

"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, {darned} lies, and statistics." (Don't remember who said that, either. Maybe Mark Twain?)

Yeah, I know the word filter is upset and you can figure out what the word really is, but it IS an essential element of the quotation so I hope the moderators will be lenient.

[DoubleTap45]

Nanny groups, once they've outlived any usefulness, look for ANY way to justify their continued existence. A GREAT example is the EPA (started by Nixon). Today air quality is the best since measurements have been taken, but TV weathercasters always try to slip in a warning about air quality. This is prevalent in summer when more people are out and about. Think the EPA and National Weather Service drones are trying to maintain their own job security? Suuuuure.

There WAS a huge problem with soft judges letting too many drivers go, especially in small towns at one time. Just as industry standards and basic environmental regs have given us some really clean air, legislation has addressed the issue of DUI fairly well. Do you SEE any signs of MADD folding their cushy tent? The FOUNDER no longer has anything to do with them.

-Ray

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Oh, and I forgot another piece of statistical malfeasance on that subject, because I wrote the post to trash NHTSA for their complicity, not MADD. THEIR crimes are obvious. But anyway, the other thing was how when they lowered the DUI BAL from 0.10 to 0.08, their subsequent donation campaigns were showing how critical their work was by trumpeting the "increase in drunk driving" while omitting to mention that it was they who moved the fence to the other side of the sheep, then complained about which side the sheep were on. Same thing with obesity stats.

[Aguila Blanca]

When the data don't support your argument, redefine the parameters until they do.

Classic strategy. Totally, irreversibly intellectually and morally bankrupt ... but classic.

[DoubleTap45]

In research that's called the "fudge factor". When the results don't support your hypothesis just keep the ones that DO.

-Ray

[Aguila Blanca]

In research that's called the "fudge factor". When the results don't support your hypothesis just keep the ones that DO.
You mean like the global warming mavens did at that university in England? Postulate a "hockey stick" graph, then discard any data that doesn't fit the curve -- and then destroy the raw data so nobody can disprove or even analyze your conclusions.

That's a lot worse than a "fudge factor." That's pure, outright intellectual dishonesty. Inasmuch as at least some of the research that produced the aforementioned raw data was no doubt paid for by taxpayer money (from some country or countries), it's also fraud.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I just learned a new tidbit about NHTSA's lies. Even an unopened container of something alcoholic in a vehicle will make the "alcohol-related" list. So if you're at the grocery, and you buy a six-pack with the spaghetti and the ice cream, and someone bumps you in the parking lot as you're pulling out, by the time MADD hears about it, another drunk driver will have killed another innocent. Even though no one was injured. Even though no one was drunk. Even though no one had consumed ANY alcohol.

When will this scourge on our poor innocent chillllllrun stop??

[DoubleTap45]

Dial,

It's the never ending quest for RELEVANCE. That's what drives Brady Campaign, PetA, VPC and HSUS.

-Ray