Logan is on point here. You can kill someone with your bare hands for that matter. Let's not go to the logical conclusion with that one, shall we.

Not a shabby quote for a druggie/fugitive/casual murderer/slouch kinda guy. - LOL

The "peaceable citizens" component of this quote seems salient to its import. I really have no disagreement with the idea of preventing convicted felons from 'bearing arms'. I do think that "peaceable citizens" ought to be able to rely on the guarantees of our Constitution. I mean, I'm extremely careful in my handling and employment of firearms but then, I'm extremely careful in my handling of power tools, flammable liquids like paint thinner, gasoline, and diesel fuel as well. Heck, I'm extremely careful in handling table settings and household chemicals like bleach. All of these things, among hundreds of others, can easily be 'abused' or put to ill use. It's not the (infamous) Danish cartoons that killed people - it's idiots who killed people. I vote we ban idiots. Oh yeah, THAT'll happen! And who would visit Disney World if we did? - LOL

I'm generally though not always of a 'liberal' bent AND I own and use weapons when necessary, like when I surprised and held a burglar after he'd exited my house until the sheriff arrived. Trust me, had I NOT been armed, the outcome would likely have been different. If necessary, I WILL shoot someone. D. F. may wish to think that 'feeling' safe is a worthwhile pursuit. It's not. Face it, you're 'safe' when you're finally dead. Til then, I'd prefer to rely on myself for my 'safety'.

Whew! Well, now that most of that's been done away with, we can, at long last, get on with our new plutocracy. It won't be long Andrew.

Deep C. - LOL - Not much has changed in human nature since Ovid's time, has it? -but- I'm not so sure we're ACTUALLY indoctrinated with the ideas (or ideals) you list despite our lip service to the notion that we are. What's clearly absent from our curricula is the teaching of critical (Ovid-like) thinking.

It might be said that there are thoughts (synthesized results of thinking) and there is rote memorization of patterns which require no process of thinking but are regurgitated by way of parroting in hopeful pursuit of approval by the weak and feeble minded.

Frank, how right you are. The fact that our fascistic leanings are easier to see from the 'outside' is not exactly news. It may already be too late if the current approach of our 'supreme' executive is any indication.

In another entry on this site Virginia Woolf quotes: If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all. I agree.

My apologies to Teddy B.

"I believe that, before they might be permitted to comment here, anyone should first have to demonstrate a certain degree of literacy and ability to reason, .... "How could anyone in his right mind refute morality? He could not." || "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards CHRISTIANITY as the foundation of our national MORALITY, and the FAMILY as the basis of national life." - Adolf Hitler - (1889-1945) - My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933 || "Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose." Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) -- Prescience

Teddy (can I Bear this?) So. Flo: "Your position is that Hitler should not be forgotten so history does not repeat itself." - I'm not sure what you are reading but it is clear that you are close (probably indicating 'closed' - who knows?) minded and have creative reading skills (akin to those with creative recall). || "I simply don't want to read about Adolf Hitler and his gang of human waste, during the middle of my day." - Well, let's just all stop holding a gun to your head to make you click on particular links and then proceed to read the contents in the middle of your day. Let's wait till the end of the day to twist your arm, strap you to a chair, and force you to read about things you don't want to read about. || "Trust me, the world won't forget about Adolf Hitler if your service stops mentioning him; I promise. So now you have at least one less subscriber." - We all trust you, don't we, fellow ostriches? || Lord, help me in my hour of need - for I am ROFL, LMFAO and nothing in your kingdom should be THAT funny.

Just for Ian (ok, not really - LOL Mainly for myself if truth be told.): I finally took the time to locate the (or at least ONE) source of the ABBREVIATION of this quote - the NRA-ILA. The FULL quote can be found at the bottom of the page on | http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/030193-remarks-by-president-with-national-service-vols.htm | I personally fully support the guarantees provided by the second amendment. (Now, perhaps just the 'supposed guarantees'.) Here's the source I found (linked to the NRA whose general aims, BTW, I find laudable and a real service to counterbalance the usual inclinations of an overbearing government): ('Clinton') Claiming people "can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles," President Bill Clinton championed the federal "assault weapon" (AW) and "large" ammunition magazine ban, and signed it into law on Sept. 13, 1994. The ban prohibits a law-abiding citizen from possessing an AW or "large" magazine manufactured after that date. Limited to 10 years, the ban expires on Sept. 13, 2004. It should not be extended and drastically expanded, as some bills propose. In fact, it should never have been imposed. - http://www.clintongunban.com/FactSheets.aspx?i=158&a=Fact%20Sheet || "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 - August 25, 1900)

Clarification and point taken - thanks Dodge and Richard K. - and thanks Editor for the link.

It's too late. It's all in place already and "Yoo, komrat, fill laik-it bekoss vee hoff veiss too mayk yoo loff!" Hoho-hoho-ho.

What the hey-all does George Washington's personal choice have to do with the impulses of 'the State'? Is someone over-medicated here? - LOL

Case in point. No supporting text from any reference. - 'Indicates' is NOT the same as text. It's an 'interpretation' DIFFERENT from the text. Predictable. Evidently, someone is wishing I were dumb enough to do illegal (or any) drugs. FYI; you CAN lure me with a Starbuck's though - caffein and sugar - yum. I guess I know less about jails than I should. Gotta brush up on that stuff. Hmm, David, with his obsession about drugs, seems to know a lot about that sort of thing. Maybe he can fill me in. - "But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice!" - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche - 1844-1900.

Who is David addressing? If it were me (LOL) I'd respond as follows: Examples would be nice. Dictionaries are available online for those who lack one. I've not refused to acknowledge what's true and accurate. What I've provided is the definition of two words in another entry (post). Clearly, those who confuse 'act' with 'behave' and claim that they "are synonymous in certain clearly accepted usage" have either not looked the words up or they've not understood what's in the dictionaries -or - they are careless and sloppy in their use of the language. Ignore the definitions and create your own illusions as you like David. "totalitarianistic" (it's 'totalitarian') is like "conversating" (it's 'conversing') and "eckcetera" (it's 'et cetera') - they don't exist except in slob-speak. Are they on the web? Absolutely - in posts or blog entries featuring colloquialisms like 'wazzup'. I got 489 'hits' on a search of "totalitarianistic". 'Legitimate' words return hundreds of thousands of results - not 489. Are they in a reference work (outside of 'novelty' compendia displayed in the humor sections in your local bookstore)? No. I'm not denying these 'words' are in use - somewhere. They are. While it's true that English evolves, those words are not currently recognized outside of a small, select community of dropouts who speak mainly 'Ganglish' - Ganglish; it's a word - really. I read it. - I wrote it and then I read it. LOL It's also true that supposedly educated people actually use these 'words' on national news networks among other programming. It's also true that news anchors have adopted the military's term for a 'stash' (of weapons), 'CACHE' (pronounced 'cash') and are pretentiously pronouncing it as if it were 'cachet' (rhymes with 'sashay'). Euw sew continental, dewn't yew think? It's a shame the mispronunciation of the word does NOT bestow cachet on its users. Perhaps they've adopted the military pronunciation so as not to embarrass the military. We can only hope. - Awwwww, does my little hangman want warm and fuzzy? Ok, just for you; I love you my little snuggy-pooh. All better now? I don't imagine that friends of mine are so insecure as to think of calling me Ice but you are absolutely free to call me what makes you feel good. It's always illuminating to hear the opinions of others.

In the interest of addressing "I think repeat offenders should be shot." - I'd like to offer Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche's. "... But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice!"

E Archer; Trust me, it may be fun, uh, ok then, it really IS fun, but you don't really NEED to waste your energy labeling anyone - ever. That's already done FOR you by the sandwich board they wear when they unceremoniously open their raincoat to expose their judgmental shortcomings. - "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." - Albert Einstein - That said, it's soooo tempting that no one can really fault you for wanting to lower yourself to their level if only for a moment of fun. The term 'down and dirty' does sometimes have real appeal. Resisting it CAN ... sometimes leave you with a bloody tongue - LOL.

Joe, I'm going to make the rash assumption that David has not the first clue as to what the 'laws of heat' (thermodynamics) actually refers to. Here's a hint (or two) David: It does NOT refer to Einstein's assertion that "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." It also doesn't mean gasbags or soufflés inevitably rise. BTW - 'totalitarianistic' - it's not a word.

It seems (emphasize 'SEEMS') LIKELY (ditto) that the quote was, in fact, "MAN (or 'one') must have the right of choice, even to choose wrong, if he shall ever learn to choose right." It's a niggling point but it would be nice to know the source of the quote since it appears in all three forms ('men', 'man', and 'one') in various searches. Sadly, I haven't found its origin. Shame, SHAME, Josiah!!! Your MP standing will NOT absolve you from the incorrect application of the rules of grammar - even in your posthumous absence!!! Repent or you will BURN IN HELL! Mwahahahaha! - I dunno, I'm guessing Josiah had a command of the English language that would have cut all of our legs off at the knees with a word or two - just a guess. What the hey-all is act VI - from what play? - lol Surely it's not a (gasp, horror) TYPO! Let's try to use the arbiter(s) of the English language, one of the recognized dictionaries, shall we? Dolts of all ilks are always trying to make up their own self-serving definitions from 'ancient' tomes. English, like it or not, is a 'modern' language, subject to the 'rules' and conventions of current usage, arbitrary though it may be. If you want to redefine the English language, take it up with the population at large. Oh, sorry, that's what you're trying to do, is it? Carry on then. Oh yeah, what is "choose correctly"? Huh? AHD: correct - Conforming to standards; proper: correct behavior. This is true. What's also true is that multitudes of helpless, feckless, wannabe dictator-ettes long earnestly to be THE authority on what constitutes 'correct'. To defend against that sort of larcenous, timeless urge, we have agreed to abide by annoying 'laws' like the Constitution - the law of the land - not the 'law'(s) of anybody's personal God. Yes, yes, many of our laws derive from the same historical sources; 'common' or precedential law and statute or 'statutorial' or 'civil' law which does indeed have its roots deep in religious law. At the end of the day, (the) 'law' is the agreement or set of agreements by which members of a society AGREE to abide. Individuals don't get to make their own 'laws', society does get to make its own laws. 'Chaos' happens when everyone makes up their own self-serving 'laws' solely in the service of one's own interests. That's 'law-less'.

Oh my! "fame and talent"? I have an uneasy feeling there's been (just perhaps) some confusion between Isaiah Berlin and Irving Berlin. Geez I hope I'm wrong. ROFL

Huh? Well, let's just call out the behavior police then, shall we? It's a bit like the old (and tired) joke asking why certain religious sects prohibit sex while standing upright; It could lead to dancing.

Logan; You'll recall I started out my post with the idea of general sentiment. The 'family' (I use the term loosely for this particular 'non-relationship') dynamics, between Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her son William, are my idea of hell. She was coarse, abrasive, unforgiving, hypercritical, and zealous in her pursuit of giving Christianity a bad name (having failed to grasp that it needs no help whatsoever on that count - LOL) - a bit like Pat Robertson is in vilifying non-Christians. Zealotry of any ilk seems to have limited usefulness in most debates. She was clearly NOT happy with the fact that on Mother's Day 1980, her oldest son William came flouncing out of the closet revealing to the world not only that he believed in God, but that he himself was a diehard, evangelical, salary tithing, gospel singing bible-thumping Christian Baptist. (source: rotten.com). She responded by disowning him - not exactly the response of a tolerant person nor that of a typical mother nor is it admirable. William's resentment and inclination to strike back is clearly understandable in view of her dominating posture towards him. I've not been able to find any evidence to support your contentions that "She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents■ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company." I'd love to see the documentation supporting these assertions. Perhaps you could supply them. What I HAVE found is a detailing of the involvement of David R. Waters (a typesetter in AA's printing department [suspicious] with a long rap sheet) and two accomplices, Gary Karr and Danny Fry, in the theft of funds from AA (Austin Police Department, Offense #94-0991028 which was not followed up on by the authorities in the way that a church theft would have been), as well as the kidnapping and murder of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Jon Garth Murray, and Robin Murray O'Hair sometime around late September of 1995. Waters was convicted of contributing to the disappearance of the O'Hairs, and sentenced to 20 years in prison for extortion. Waters died of lung cancer in January of 2003 in a federal prison hospital in North Carolina. Danny Fry's headless and handless corpse was found in 1995 on a Dallas County river bank. The FBI's affidavit contained allegations from an Internal Revenue Service agent that former American Atheists office manager David R. Waters plotted to steal $600,000 from O'Hair's "United Secularists of America" organization. The affidavit also alleged that Waters "expressed fantasies of killing Madalyn." The treatment of the entire affair, quite frankly, reeks of an all too typical 'Christian' underhandedness when dismissing 'non-Christians' as not 'moral' enough to merit 'equal protection under the law'. You might not 'like' a person like Madalyn Murray O'Hair but the SENTIMENT of her quote holds up quite nicely. If you place 'morality' above hospitals it announces clearly what kind of 'morality' you subscribe to.