Radical Right Wing Zealots Wish for Revolution

Everyone who advocates for, encourages, or incites an attempted armed and/or violent coup against or democratically elected government is a traitor and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In the US, we vote them out, we don't shoot them out.

The following are examples of threats against our government made by these idiots on social media.  Let me go on record as saying I am a patriotic American who, having already spent most of my adult life serving my country, would gladly fight anyone who attempted to overthrow my government, regardless of what party or ideology occupied the government at that time.  Most of these people are wannabe's and posers who pretend to be tough online, but would never really attempt anything they spout off about.  The most they could ever hope for is to inspire or incite some mentally deranged wing nut to take up a gun and try to go down in history as a hero.   Fortunately  for us, most of these crazies have very little chance of success, like the idiot who took pot shots at the white house in 2011.  We should never take this threat for granted though.  Scott Roeder is a great example of someone who can be radicalized and inspired to action by these idiots talking about stuff they'd never do themselves on the internet.

This discussion can be found here.  

    

Whistle blower or traitor?

What's the difference between a whistle blower and a traitor? A whistler blower uses approved channels to report problems with classified or sensitive programs and is protected from retribution under federal law, while a traitor illegally releases classified information to the media and flees the country to not answer for his crimes.

Forbes Story of the traitor Edward Snowden


Approved channels include:
The employees chain of command
Osha's Whistle Blower Protection ProgramOffice of the Inspector General
The Congressional Select Committe on Intelligence

What do you want to be he's going to eventually provide some or all of the classified information he stole from the US Government to China or Russia in exchange for helping him obtain political  asylum?

What if you're wrong?

Richard Dawkins responds to the question, what if you're wrong?

This is a question to finally put to rest because chrisitans really like to use this question as an excuse to justify believing in christianity, even if you really don't.




The truth is, what religious beliefs you have really do depend on, in what country, or to what family you are born.

So what if I'm wrong?  You really think I'm stupid enough to give up the only life I know I have for an eternity that quite probably is a complete fabrication of some con man who discovered a nifty way of  separating  suckers from their money?  Not a chance!

In the gun debate, gun ownership advocates need to change tactics

This comment is in response to an article posted on the Guns Save Lives website about Katee Sackoff losing 100k twitter followers after posting a moderate view on gun control on twitter.

After learning about the four year old boy who accidentally shot and killed his father Sackhoff tweeted, “Please practice gun safety. This is horrible!”

One of her followers responded with “Here’s a radical idea folks. How about NO gun?”

If this doesn't prove to you the challenge we face is general ignorance about guns and gun ownership, I'm not sure anything will.

We must restrain our desire to look like radical wingnuts to the average, non gun owning citizens, and make a case they can understand that is based on logic and reason and empirical evidence.  Granted, they wont all be reasonable and rational in their response, but most wake up and begin to understand things in a rational manner after seeing enough of it, long enough.

We must educate the average citizen about who the responsible gun owner is, and how many of us there are.  They simply don't realize their neighbor owns a gun, or 30 guns.  They simply don't know the guy from the office they golf with on Fridays owns a gun.  If they knew there were over 84 million of us, and that there are 3-5 incidents a week across the country of gun owners legally using firearms to protect themselves and their family, and that all the gun laws in the world wont take illegal guns off the street, they may begin to lose their fear of the responsible gun owner and lose the irrational expectation of "how about this?  No guns!"

As long as we remain shut in to our little clicks, just bantering among ourselves, occasionally saying something outside our circle of back slappers about "Just try to come take my guns" or "Obama is a muslim gun grabber" or some crap like that, we'll wake up one morning to discover we are all criminals now.  Either criminals or no longer gun owners.

In addition to the average, non-gun owning citizens, there is a large number of gun owners in this country that include democrats as well as republicans, athesits as well as christians, hispanics and blacks as well as whites, women as well as men (although the NRA has obviously recently gotten the word that women shoot too), gays as well as straights, city dwellers as well as rural dwellers.   There is a huge, diverse group of gun owners that can unite as an extremely powerful force to protect our gun rights, if you'll reach out to them and not allow differences in things that have absolutely nothing to do with gun rights to divide you on the issue of gun ownership rights.

Or you can give up your guns.  Your choice.  Tolerance and inclusiveness and guns, or intolerance, exclusiveness, and no guns.

Here are some examples of the kind of comments that destroy any chance of someone changing the "anti legal gun ownership" views of average citizens who do not own guns or have much experience with firearms.

I would give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume this was meant as sarcasm, but to someone who isn't as generous and knows nothing about him, this genius is certainly going to win some hearts and minds, yes?

A discussion of the continuing relevance of the 2nd amendment

This is how you have a thoughtful, respectful discussion based on critical thinking with someone whom you disagree.

Proof and Critical Thinking Defined

Proof

For the purpose of any discussion where proof is offered, or examination of any question where proof is sought, proof shall be defined as:  A combination of logical consistency  and  empirical evidence.

These two elements (logic and evidence) are both required because theories attempt to describe what exists in our reality, and reality is both rational and material - Logic and evidence.

     Logical  Constancy: 

• The first requirement is logical  consistency.  If logic fails, the hypothesis or proposition fails.
• Logic is a necessary but not sufficient element
• If a conflict arises between logic and evidence, evidence always wins.

     Empirical Evidence:

• A source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.  
• Observation and experimentation must be conducted in accordance with the scientific method.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a way to approach problems and make decisions.  We all do some critical thinking already and we can all improve our critical thinking ability. If you study and practice critical thinking, your concept of it will continue to develop.  We should all strive to become better, more critical thinkers.

Personal Loans courtesy of Jesus Christ!