She’s Raising Your Consciousness with Her Rack

A person faced with intruders in their home in the middle of the night can’t assume that the police will arrive in time and take care of the problem for them, even if a call for help can be made.
There’s a pithy phrase to describe that scenario: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”.

My namesake begins to get there. The majority of the people who stop a bullet in the USA are black thugs in the cities. The majority of the shooters are other black thugs. A good proportion of the minority are good people, black and white, defending themselves, or cops.
I cannot be bothered to reference this. I believe the Center for Disease Control has all the numbers.
It astonishes me that Minnow keeps coming back.

. . . right wing liberal and left wing liberal, and conservative.
I think you’re using different terminology than I’m used to.
Ehn, keep in mind that gun control is hitting the target you’re aiming at, and that a gun nut is someone screaming that Guns Are Icons Of Evil And Independently Cause Death!!!!—and yeah, someone actually tried arguing that one to me once . . . where yes, both definitions get claimed as being the complete reverse, of course . . .
So an issue then becomes seeing what is the actual case, what is going on, and do the labels actually still apply?
A Very long time ago I noticed that the political reality/ies have settled into the right wing liberal extremists— Yes right wing liberal—, the left wing liberal extremists, and in between, the conservatives who matter of factly first assess an and every issue and then decide, after having first looked over and considered the facets.
. . . . http://thecuria.com/c-manifesto.html for the long version . . . .

Let me guess. Another fleeing migrant from a doomed California . . .
. . . not if she left us all the way back in ’81 . . .

Raised only my bile…

Well I don’t think one can simplistically link violence to gun laws. You can look at how the Swiss, Canadians, French do it and get a much more complex picture. It ain’t that simple
That said I like the fact that you don’t see guns much in the UK. If more guns were about the police would need guns too. We used to be justly proud of our police – and part of that as that they didn’t need guns to assert authority. I don’t want that to change.
Finally, although I haven’t checked again, Minnow didn’t seem to answer David’s question (surprise!):
What would you say to [Mrs Wilson]? What would you have her do?”
Which is somewhat emotive. I’d like to give Mrs Wilson a gun in that scenario. But I’m aware that the gun laws would then become more complex, and we’d need to see a lot more guns. It would entail complex assessment of who did or didn’t need a gun, in many situations less cut and dried than the one David outlines

This testimony from a while back was recently sent to me by my wife. A tragic case of what-if…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V-oNMHNrS-8

I think the state should disarm first in order to set a good example.

Funny, no sign of Minnow since his fat arse was handed to him by means of stats.
Funny, too, how Obama is against guns but doesn’t seem to mind having lots of dudes around him who are armed. Sure, Obama’s under threat – but so are the residents of South Side Chicago, or Watts, or the Bronx.
By the way Minnow – here’s an actual professional lawman giving people the benefit of his experience, as opposed to your bloviation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEibmLh5qRI

The thing is, if Person X wishes to see firearms effectively vanish from civilian life, what are they going to say to the Mrs Wilsons of the world, and the potential Mrs Wilsons? What of her right to defend herself, her family – a basic moral imperative? Is it to be rescinded in the name of some disputed greater good? And if told that she will have to depend instead on a promise that can never be kept – that the police will always be there in time – should she be happy about it?
As I said upthread, this isn’t a burning issue for me personally. While I used to enjoy archery and it might be fun to practice marksmanship with a gun, I don’t feel a great need to own one. But this doesn’t compel me to tell others, people in very different circumstances, that they should feel the same. That would be presumptuous and morally absurd.

Not really in line with the thread of this discussion but I thought everyone here would enjoy this (and Minnow would nod his head in agreement with it)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/11012398/Is-Gardeners-Question-Time-racist.html
My wife hates buddleia. Should I be afraid that in her spare time she furtively scrawls racist grafitti on walls?

Incidentally, there’s a gun control episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit in which a former gang member explains that criminal gangs generally like gun control laws – which they regard as “a joke” – as this disarms their prey while leaving themselves relatively untouched.

Pablito — a presenter named Flowerdew on a gardening show?
Born to it, I suppose.

People like Henry and Minnow believe the ‘progressivist’ anti-human lie of the non-existence of personal responsibility and outsource theirs to the state
No way am I part of any “progressive” set. There seems to be a lot of naivety & self-congratulation, and not enough intellectual honesty, to be found in those groups.
Have a look at my previous posts here if you have the time. You’re quite wrong about my beliefs on big states and responsibility. I’ve had people label me right-wing when I’ve talked about benefits, the NHS, patriotism, among other things. On the death penalty (and apparently gun laws) I’m in different company. But I digress
On this particular issue (and maybe a couple of others, but not many) I slightly differ with others here. Though I think Minnow does it the wrong way – and got rather fed up with him recently – but some counter-argument is good for all of us.
I also think you misunderstood my point, which was that there isn’t a simple link between crime and gun ownership. In some cultures, gun ownership works. I think we’re right to be cautious as to whether more freedom would work in the UK – as I think it did for the Swiss.
What are they going to say to the Mrs Wilsons of the world, and the potential Mrs Wilsons?
You might still think strict gun laws are the right practical measure in this place and time – perhaps not in others. We’re not talking about school lunchboxes here, as we did once, but about things that might reliably kill Mrs Wilsons.
I’m sure we’d agree that liberty is not absolute. We just draw the line in different places.

Or, to comment, and to nail down terms, it’s rather considered to be more a facet of the right wing extremists, rather than conservatives. In the meantime, of it being rare, Yeah, you’d think . . but . . . . And then I get to just this morning’s news around here . . .
(1) that still doesn’t rise to the level of the comments about gays ‘being dealt with’. People are allowed to think things are wrong or ‘sinful’, and lots of people have hang-ups when it comes to sex and what qualifies as ‘good’.
(2) based on the location in the article, the people doing the complaining are likely inner city minorities, not likely to be otherwise lumped in with conservatives in the American political sense of the word.
The bigger picture is one of language. There are a number of terms being thrown around. Conservative is generally used by both sides to mean ‘right-wing’ but distinct from ‘libertarian’, and therefore ‘right wing extremist’ is a subset of ‘conservative’. Liberal has multiple meanings; the traditional usage has been either amended to ‘classical liberal’ or ‘libertarian’ as opposed to the more recent connotation of ‘liberal’ as a synonym for ‘progressive’.
You’ve created some hypothetical ‘right-leaning liberal’ which corresponds with neither use of the word ‘liberal’ and is therefore useless outside your particular political taxonomy. There are a few isolated people that are both socially conservative and for a big, totalitarian government, but the only place that group has any real power is in the propaganda created by the progressive left as a boogeyman that all correct-thinking people should oppose, and they’ve done it by mashing the worst tendencies of conservatives, libertarians and political kooks like the WBC and pretending they’re all one massive group with identical beliefs. It’s like Minnow’s use of the word fascist to describe people who have nothing politically in common with fascism.

Dr Pitcher said the “crisis in white identity in multicultural Britain” meant people felt unable to express their views for fear of being called racist, so expressed their racial identity in other ways, such as talking about gardening.
Watch out, world. We’re taking back what’s ours, one flower-bed at a time!.

Watch out, world. We’re taking back what’s ours, one flower-bed at a time!.
Yer all a bunch of Pansies!!!

Bart, seriously a brilliant breakdown!
Do you have a site of your own?

(1) that still doesn’t rise to the level of the comments about gays ‘being dealt with’. People are allowed to think things are wrong or ‘sinful’, and lots of people have hang-ups when it comes to sex and what qualifies as ‘good’.
Presenting; some gays being dealt with.
And, additional documentation.
(2) based on the location in the article, the people doing the complaining are likely inner city minorities, not likely to be otherwise lumped in with conservatives in the American political sense of the word.
When grabbing very handy results from the first Google search above . . . .
From Outfront Minnesota—not some random and highly urban situation, Minnesota—: The Truth About “Converting” Gay People
Minnesota census results, 2013
White alone, percent, 2013 (a) 86.2% 77.7%
Black or African American alone, percent, 2013 (a) 5.7% 13.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, 2013 (a) 1.3% 1.2%
Asian alone, percent, 2013 (a) 4.5% 5.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, 2013 (a) 0.1% 0.2%
Two or More Races, percent, 2013 2.3% 2.4%
Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 (b) 5.0% 17.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2013 81.9% 62.6%
Alternet: What Happened When I Went Undercover at a Christian Gay-to-Straight Conversion Camp
Belfast Telegraph: Protesters picket Ballynahinch Baptist Church event on ‘converting’ gays where, speaking of right wing being extremist as opposed to conservative:

“This is not a widely held Christian view, this is held by extremist Christians, who are causing huge harm to our community. And we’re here today in strength, in numbers, in opposition to this type of therapy in Northern Ireland,” he said.

From some newspaper called the Guardian . . .
Texas GOP advances controversial gay conversion therapy in platform
and
Christian counsellors ban therapy aimed at ‘converting’ gay patients
Et Cetera . . . . . . .
The bigger picture is one of language.
Exactly . . . and since the term has come up, gay did once generally mean cheerful and happy, where I do know a number of people who find themselves quite attracted to their own gender who are indeed quite happy and cheerful . . . but that’s not quite the same thing anymore . . . .
So, when regarding There are a number of terms being thrown around. Conservative is generally used by both sides to mean ‘right-wing’ but distinct from ‘libertarian’. . .
Why yes, you are having to put that generally in there.
. . . .and therefore ‘right wing extremist’ is a subset of ‘conservative’
Not any more.
Liberal has multiple meanings; the traditional usage has been either amended to ‘classical liberal’ or ‘libertarian’ as opposed to the more recent connotation of ‘liberal’ as a synonym for ‘progressive’.
Uh huh, as you state, the traditional usage . . . Rather like the traditional usage of gay. Consider the following, where yeah, it does rather proclaim, but then it is a manifesto. It’s supposed to proclaim . . .

Among these facts are that once upon a time there was indeed the classical liberal and the cry that the will of the individual is supreme, is not questioned, and there are no alternatives. Once upon a time the term conservative did have a meaning of right wing, the old guard, the supporters of the way we do things because they work the best, and there are no alternatives.
By the industrial revolution, the liberals had split in two. Since then, the liberals have flanked the conservative, vehemently opposing all balanced, centered reality from their opposing and irrational extremes. The left wing liberal claims that the will of the individual person is supreme, is not questioned, and there are no alternatives. The right wing liberal claims that the will of the individual organization is supreme, is not questioned, and there are no alternatives. Both liberals get very pissy when reminded of the conservative axiom that individual remains a variable and there is and will always be infinite individual diversity, and only this diversity is what collectively forms viable organizations.
Back in that time that no longer exists, when conservative did once mean right wing, in that sense the best ways did work for the most. Changing the demonstrated successful practice just to make changes and changing the demonstrated successful practice only to make changes did indeed lead to failure and does indeed lead to failure. What has changed is that there are organizations that do not best support the individual, and there are individuals who do not best support organizations, and both of these extremes demand the most harm to everything else.
Now that we are all in this current time that is reality, as we see the new demand of the right wing liberal that the organization must always take precedence over the individual, this right wing demand now shows that the right wing does not reason, does not calculate, does not conserve, and thus the right wing is not and will never be known as conservative.

You’ve created some hypothetical ‘right-leaning liberal’ which corresponds with neither use of the word ‘liberal’ and is therefore useless outside your particular political taxonomy.
I’ve noticed that right wing being something other than conservative remains far from hypothetical, where to repeat from up the thread, So an issue then becomes seeing what is the actual case, what is going on, and do the labels actually still apply?
Remember, at this point we have a conservative pope, and the right wingers have gotten rather pissed off at ‘im . . .
There are a few isolated people that are both socially conservative and for a big, totalitarian government, but the only place that group has any real power is in the propaganda created by the progressive left as a boogeyman that all correct-thinking people should oppose, and they’ve done it by mashing the worst tendencies of conservatives, libertarians and political kooks like the WBC and pretending they’re all one massive group with identical beliefs.
Why yes, for the conservative, watching the right and left wing liberals screaming at each other does sometimes get entertaining. Sometimes. Usually it’s more boring. The entertaining bits tend to come up when asking for an assessment of the Pink Pistols, and watching the realization sink in that the right and left wings are indeed the extremes, and the rest of us are in the middle . . . .
Or:

For centuries, political divisions have formed three distinct groups. With the French Revolution and the seating patterns that started with the 1789 National Assembly, these three groups started to acquire the labels they hold today. Two of the groups are merely mirror images of each other, screaming and posturing at each other in perfect unison, always remaining in perfect and complete contrast with the measured thought and decision of the third group. The two groups which waste their time glaring past the center of reason are today known as the right wing and the left wing. Absolutely centered between these right and left wing extremists and permanently in their lead is the conservative.
. . . .
There is no Third Way of politics, there is only The Way. The conservative supports and includes everyone, from the center of the political road all the way past both the right and left wing liberal edges of the road, so as to know, to understand, to best help and support every individual. Only the liberal demands that any who cartwheel and crash off the opposing edge of the road must be left to die.
Politically moderate is a right and left wing liberal fantasy, is the liberal’s crude rationalization for the ongoing and perpetual liberal failure to keep and control all the toys. The “accusation” by liberals that the conservative is “pragmatic” is merely the rallying cry of the ideologically pure, the tactically inept, the inevitable failure. The liberal is pure, the conservative succeeds. The liberal writes footnotes for a fantasy of the past, the conservative leads into the future.
At all times the conservative welcomes attention and discussion, for only that way does refinement and evolution and progress occur. At all times the liberal extreme points past the conservative to the other and opposing extreme, for in that way does the liberal attempt to deflect the self examination and improvement that will inevitably move the liberal away from the right or left wing and expand the liberal edge and excess to the all encompassing conservative center.

Oh, and I also just remembered the Liberal Democratic Party as another example. No, not the British variety, The Japanese.
The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (自由民主党 Jiyū-Minshutō?), frequently abbreviated to LDP or Jimintō (自民党?), is a major conservative political party in Japan. . . . The ideology of LDP is similar to the United States Republican Party. . . . Its members hold a variety of positions that could be broadly defined as being to the right of the opposition parties. . . .
Oh, speaking of which: The LDP opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage.
And then as a note: To make the system more democratic, Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda introduced a “primary” system in 1978, which opened the balloting to some 1.5 million LDP members. The process was so costly and acrimonious, however, that it was subsequently abandoned in favor of the old “smoke-filled room” method.
Heh.
Now, if we can just get these locals past the idea that political machine means medium tank.
—From one of the Dominic Flandry stories, probably paraphrasing, from rather old memory, and I don’t seem to have that book at hand . . .

Again, we seem to be talking past each other. I assumed by “dealt with” you meant imprisoned or assaulted for being homosexual or consenting adults having homosexual behavior or forced ‘conversion’ to heterosexuality. You’ve linked to articles about voluntary ‘conversion’. There’s a difference between thinking that a mode of sexual activity is ‘wrong’ or ‘sinful’ and thinking it should be illegal. To go back to the point which started this whole discussion, you still haven’t established that these people believe that “Gays are evil and wrong” instead of believing “Gay sex and in fact all sex as recreation is a sin and wrong” in the standard “love the sinner, hate the sin” vein of Christianity that acknowledges we are all sinners. It’s not a mere technical distinction, but one vitally important for understanding each other in a society.
What set’s the Westboro Baptist Church apart is that it is the go to source when one wants to find someone that indeed thinks “Gays are evil”. The issue with using the WBC as an example is that the WBC is so far out there politically as to not represent either political wing in the American polity.
“Remember, at this point we have a conservative pope” is true only in the taxonomy represented by the website you site, which does not correspond with any other political taxonomy I’ve seen. As a Catholic, Pope Francis is politically more Progressive than earlier popes, and socially has been perceived as more liberal (my personal take is that he is more diplomatic when it comes to social issues but has the same essential take as previous popes on things). He is less conservative than other popes, which is why some in the right wing are unhappy with him.
Is that website you keep citing your website? I’ve skimmed it several times and each time I get more confused with the taxonomy it describes as ‘right-wing liberal’. One of the reasons I relish this discussion is that the confusion shown between Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians, the amalgamation of all three and the creation of a mythical ‘right-wing’ in lock step agreement definitely shows behind the website.
As a simple example:
This country was founded by my view of my god, My god must be worshiped by everyone the same way (Social Conservatives, NOT Libertarians)
Religious decisions in government are required (Social Conservatives, NOT Libertarians)
I will protect myself and anyone around me anyway I want and I will have any and every gun and any other weapon that I want (Libertarians)
Taxes must be cut and then cut again because taxing people because they have money is theft (Libertarians)
Government must be hacked to a stub, and then hacked ever further, because government just gets in my way (Libertarians)
Drugs must be stopped and are illegal because if they were legal, everyone would be using them (Social Conservatives, NOT Libertarians)
Right there, the first six entries (all of which are poorly generated caricatures of actual arguments), three are caricatures of Libertarian statements and three are caricatures of Social Conservative statements that a Libertarian would never agree with.
I can definitely see why the author describes him or herself as a conservative, but in doing so falls victim to the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy in casting out others that claim to be Conservative whose opinions differ on any issues.

While there is a tendency towards correlation with established political parties, one can hold either position on abortion and be ethically consistent with either Progressive or Libertarian politics and theories about how rights work.
Exactly so.

In all of this here described, at all times, the conservative acknowledges that many aspects of being are subtle, detailed, and require careful, reflective, conservative balance of individual and general decision. There is no one decision, and there never will be. Only the liberal, whether right wing liberal or left wing liberal, claims that there is only one choice to ever be made, and that is how the liberal fails.
The principle of conservative democracy is that all government exists solely for the good of the governed; that the branches of government, and all other public institutions are to be maintained so far, and so far only, as they promote the happiness and welfare of the common people; that all who are entrusted with any public function are trustees, not for their own class, but for the nation at large; and that the mass of the people may be trusted so to use electoral power, which should be freely conceded to them, as to support those who are promoting their interests. It is democratic because the welfare of the people is its supreme end; it is conservative because the institutions of the country are the means by which the end is to be attained.
The practice of and inevitable success of conservative government will continue to supersede and exceed any and all attempts or proclamations by right wing liberals or left, because such success is predicated upon the inevitable success of the practice of the conservative individual and individuals.

I can see why you’re so fond of Minnow, given that you’re basically related.
Your hypothetical “conservative” . . . .
The actuality of the non extremists being between between the right and left wing extremes remains an actuality, regardless of your attempt to claim otherwise.

Two of the groups are merely mirror images of each other, screaming and posturing at each other in perfect unison, always remaining in perfect and complete contrast with the measured thought and decision of the third group. The two groups which waste their time glaring past the center of reason are today known as the right wing and the left wing. Absolutely centered between these right and left wing extremists and permanently in their lead is the conservative.

and

In all of this here described, at all times, the conservative acknowledges that many aspects of being are subtle, detailed, and require careful, reflective, conservative balance of individual and general decision. There is no one decision, and there never will be.

and also

Why yes, for the conservative, watching the right and left wing liberals screaming at each other does sometimes get entertaining. Sometimes. Usually it’s more boring. The entertaining bits tend to come up when asking for an assessment of the Pink Pistols, and watching the realization sink in that the right and left wings are indeed the extremes, and the rest of us are in the middle . . . .

I can see why you’re so fond of Minnow, given that you’re basically related.
On one axis, sure, we both believe some things are absolutely moral or immoral. But that’s a rather broad axis. I could argue that your dogmatic zeal for a ‘moderate’ world places you perilously close to us on that axis. When it comes to questions like the role of the individual vs the state, I’m probably pretty far distant from you or Minnow.
The actuality of the non extremists being between between the right and left wing extremes remains an actuality, regardless of your attempt to claim otherwise.
But I have not denied the existence of moderates, merely indicated my belief that:
1) most people believe they are moderates, and probably are by most ways of measurement.
2) most people that believe themselves to be moderate have one of more beliefs or values that are not necessarily shared by the majority.
3) linear political axises (such as left – center – right) do a very poor job of representing the complicated political beliefs of real people.
4) both the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of ‘moderation’ can lead to poor long-term outcomes. If one side wants to build a bridge and the other side doesn’t, building half a bridge can be worse than either side’s options.
5) It’s hard to converse with someone when that person’s understanding of your side of the debate is a very thin caricature.
In the interests of returning this to a dialog and understanding what you actually believe, I’ll offer my stake (and none of these are intended as trick questions):
There are a lot of definitions of conservative floating around. You’ve linked one. Are there any more mainstream sources you’d take for defining what you consider conservative? Personally, I would take the American Conservative Union (http://www.conservative.org/) as a good litmus test for what a Conservative means in the American sense, as their ratings of Congress seem to match with both my and popular opinion as to who is Conservative. Is that a valid measurement? If not, why not?
What is wrong with Wikipedia’s definition of Conservatism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) (Personally, I consider Wikipedia a progressively biased source, but it’s still valid as a quick self-check).
What’s the difference between your definition of Conservative and a moderate?
Can you name some public figures that you think are ‘right-wing extremists’?

I wish I had been able to stick around for this discussion. I should just opoint out though that that Lott paper has been pretty thoroughly debunked by, well, just about everybody who has looked at it. He seems to have misread some of the data and actively misread some more of it, if you know what I mean.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/

Perhaps I can offer a Hal translation service. He appears to have his own idiosyncratic definition of the word “liberal” as meaning “statist” or “authoritarian”
This is a UK/US interference problem, isn’t it?