Cherry picking data is the most usually manipulation of statistics and it says more about the integrity or competence of the researcher than the data itself or its statistical treatment. There are biases that enter research data through the experimental method as well in addition to the influence of expectations. The global warming "hockey stick" graph is a perfect example of cherry picking. I am not sure what combination of expectations, incompetence, or obfuscation led to that.

More applicable to lies I would say.

The Jews would have fought if they had not been disarmed first. Some did fight with a handful of guns that had not been turned over to the government. Unfortunately, too many Jewish citizens obeyed the government and allowed themselves to be disarmed and it led to disaster. Don't repeat the mistakes of history.

Pax superiore vi telarum.

When the stormtroopers marched into the Jewish ghetto to round people up for the concentration camp, should they have simply assumed the position and take what is coming to them? Was that their duty? The stormtroopers were the government after all. When governments lose their moral authority, they have no authority at all. According to some, I suppose, our own revolution was illegitimate because the British were not threatening lives so much as property and freedom. Would a slave be justified in rebelling against his slave master, even killing him, to gain his freedom? As a slave his life is not threatened, only his freedom. Your freedom is your life. They are inseparable.

The most dangerous weapon is the human mind and the nature of humanity. We can ban nukes, guns, knives, pointy sticks, rocks, and some people will still maim and kill one another for fun and profit. Those of us who choose to be more civilized would like to defend ourselves against the inevitable evil that arises from time to time. Those who want to control human behavior by banning inanimate objects forget that scientia est potentia (knowledge is power). As long as the knowledge exists, so will the object. As long as a savage nature exists, so will savagery.

This is the crux of the problem: a political judiciary. No man can completely divorce himself from his own political beliefs, but those that are honest with themselves and others will acknowledge it. They will also try to stick to a strict, disinterested interpretation of the law and not allow themselves to be bought with cash, flattery, or anything else. Why are there so many lawyers? Because so many judges can be bought.

What if were as easy for the mortgage company to change the terms of your contract as some here would like our Constitutional contract to be changed. I'm sure most would not be pleased to find that their 30 year mortgage has now become a 10 year mortgage, or the interest rate doubled overnight. Yet some would like to circumvent the clear language of the Constitution because they don't like the terms and they know they can't get the necessary parties to renegotiate the terms to their liking. All you need to do to repeal the second amendment or any other is to convince the rest of us we don't need it. Get to work.

I've got no problem working for the Pentagon, Waffler. I've been doing so for the last couple of decades and change and have found most everyone, active duty and civilian, to be good men and women who are there for more than just a paycheck. The unorganized militia certainly is part of the military reserves of the country and comes under the authority of the duly constituted government. However, just as is laid out in the Declaration of Independence, there can come a time when a government can lose its legitimacy through misbehavior and the militia must rebel. This was an extreme circumstance in our own history and was not, and should never be, taken lightly. The option and right must always be there for our own protection and the only way to retain that right is for the people to retain arms.

In a pinch I'll loan you one of my guns, Archer. It's the neighborly thing to do. Speaking of neighborly, it is a good thing to look out for one another and defend those who don't quite have the ability to do so themselves. That's a hard thing to do when you don't have the necessary tools to do it. Personally, I consider being armed a civic responsibility. I understand and will certainly not condemn anyone who doesn't agree, but it is an understanding I have come to for myself.

Should the "militia" have guns? Robert thinks so. So what is the militia? According to the Code of Federal Regulations it is: TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES Subtitle A - General Military Law PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes -STATUTE- (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You mean you guys don't have nukes? Bunch of lightweights. The thing about MLK and Ghandi is that their slave masters weren't willing to kill them. That is the only reason their non-violent tactics succeeded. If you happen to have a slave master like Stalin, Mao, or lately Mugabe, then a gun would surely come in handy don't you think? I'm sure the Tutsis in Rwanda would have thought a gun would have been a very useful tool when the Hutus were hacky them apart with machetes. If you think something like that can never happen here in this more civilized part of the world, just remember, people are very alike the world over. Our civilization is just a thin, fragile veneer that covers our natural savagery and given enough stress on society, the sharp, pointy objects come out. I intend to have the sharpest.

"So?" Jack? Let's say for some wild reason you had a disagreement with your Utopian socialist government and you decided to publicly criticize it. I suppose you wouldn't mind if a government agent showed up at your door and told you to keep quiet, your disturbing the peace. The People's representatives have decided you don't need freedom of speech anymore. It's too disturbing and troublesome. I would guess that most of us here live in pretty comfortable conditions with extra space. What if a government agent showed up at your door with ten homeless people and told you to make room for them. They're living here now. You wouldn't mind would you. The People have decided, you don't have a right to your property anymore and since everyone has a "right" to a roof over there head, your's will do just fine. A right to a jury of your peers? It's much to troublesome and costly to the People. Sorry, that right is gone too. The People have spoken. Why should rights be beyond the touch of human hands? If you want to keep your rights, you'd better hope they are.

Under socialism you have no rights, only privileges. You have no income, only an allowance.

Isn't everyone glad that they're only a part time slave?

Treat a man like a man and he'll behave like one. If you treat a man like a child, don't expect anything but childish behavior.

To a socialist all rights are granted by the government to the citizen rather than each individual being endowed with their rights, enumerated in a constitution or not, by a Creator or Nature's God, or some other idea that is greater than the government of the day. When government grants you a right, government can take it away at a whim, and does so at its convenience. Property is not the only right that is at risk under socialism; all are.

Mike, the author of this quote is talking about people who make "careers" out of their charitable work. In other words they are not so much helping others as helping themselves at the expense of someone else. He is not talking about charitable people who freely give to those who freely accept. He is more likely talking about the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world, who would turn perfectly able and competent people into victims for their own benefit.

The warm and affectionate State? This is a purely Fascist statement made before Fascism even had a name. You'll see how warm and affectionate the State is when you don't do as you're told. George Washington knew what the State was. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."

Isn't it funny how the dictator always knows what society needs too? As always, when a socialist official takes away your choice "for the good of society" it always seems to work out better for him than society. Individuals make up society. Without the individual, what is the point of society?

Citizen disarmament was as wrong then as it is now. Owning and carrying a gun is a great responsibility, and only the responsible should exercise that right. I would encourage everyone to be responsible. Lack of responsibility and a sense of duty leads to childish behavior, which leads to more irresponsibility. Denying people their rights for their own good never seems to work out (at least for the People). People can say horrible, destructive words. Should we then cut out everyone's tongues?

I can almost imagine Nathan Hale saying something like that. Hale was both traitor and patriot. It just depends on who's side your on. Being an American does not mean you are necessarily a docile taxpayer, producing revenue for the government like a farm animal. An American believes liberty is the ultimate goal of life because if you have liberty, anything is possible.

The very concept of honor has almost disappeared in today's society. Consider the founders who risked their lives, property, and their sacred honor. Now we'll risk nothing if it is not backed by some government guarantee. Too many have become so comfortable in their cages and tamed that they might as well not have teeth or claws. The zoo keeper has no need to fear.

Bleeding hearts and crocodile tears can usually be found in the same person. Why has government worked so hard to create a dependency society? It is all about control. Eliminating the individual's sense of responsibility and duty goes hand in hand with the dependency. When people no longer consider it their duty to defend their neighbor from injustice, an unjust government can do whatever it wants. Why do so many "liberals" want the rest of us disarmed? To create dependency and to take away our sense of duty to defend justice. It is not that they just want us disarmed physically, they must have us disarmed spiritually and mentally as well.

Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin. You just have a dictator's head on one side and his ass on the other.