An interesting read in an article linked in this OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12626792

I started to realize that the gun control people are consciously choosing to ignore the "science", e.g. actual FBI and DoJ facts about violent/gun crime dropping precipitously, because it doesn't fit their narrative of "skyrocketing gun violence" and demands for more gun laws.

Identical to the climate change deniers, who choose to ignore any and all of the scientific facts placed before them and pointing to a heavy snowfall in the past 10 years as "proof" of their belief.

I guess science is only important to some Dems, if it matches your predetermined beliefs.

Worth noting that last week Mark Glaze, Executive Director for MAIG/Everytown USA/MDA left Bloomberg's employ and gave an exit interview to the WSJ on the current status of the gun control movement. Glaze said the gun control movement hasn’t solved one of its signature problems: Many mass shootings wouldn’t have been stopped by tighter regulations proposed by gun-control advocates.

(Emphasis mine.)

"The most attention on gun control comes after mass shootings – just look at the post-Newtown push and the brief attention paid to the issue after the Memorial Day weekend shootings in Isla Vista, Calif. Yet virtually none of the solutions gun-control groups are pushing would have prevented any of the massacres that capture public attention."

“Because people perceive a mismatch in the policy solutions that we have to offer and the way some of these mass shootings happened, you know, it is a messaging problem for us, I think. … Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”

A messaging problem? It's a freakin' challenge because you were not offering any solutions Glaze! You were offering something to make the less informed feel good and, IMHO with children's lives at risk, that's bordering on criminal.

Digustin', ain't it?

Even though it's all entirely predictable. Can't squander emotional resources on dead victims when there's cold dead steel to worship instead.

facts, logic, and reason. Nothing else. Appeals to emotion and dishonesty has no place in any public policy debate be it healthcare, guns, or anything else. No exceptions.

Thanks for clarifying.

where there isn't. Like I told villager, public policy should be based on facts, logic, and reason. Nothing else. Appeals to emotion and dishonesty has no place in any public policy debate be it healthcare, guns, or anything else. No exceptions.

gjohnston: ... one side is trying to create numbers where there isn't. Like I told villager, public policy should be based on facts, logic, and reason. Nothing else. Appeals to emotion and dishonesty has no place in any public policy debate be it healthcare, guns, or anything else. No exceptions

No exceptions, except yourself, eh? as demonstrated on a previous thread, where you wrote this:

Johnston previously: ... zip guns make up DC's 40 percent

I replied, citing gun guru kopel: .. kopel: Illegal home production of handguns is already a fact of life; a BATF study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by police in Washington, D.C. were homemade. And: From 2000 through 2012, law enforcement recovered more than 28,000 guns in the District.. D.C. includes non-firearms such as BB guns; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/dc-recovered-guns/
(me referring to kopel): So, 20% of 28,000 guns 5,600 guns, over a 12 year period is approx. 500 homemade guns per year (if kopel is correct); But 'recovered guns' is a far stretch from combined handguns & legal guns in DC those years. 500 divided by over 100,000 legal guns is about a half percent per year, but that doesn't include illegal DC guns;

back to 'now': A half percent is nowhere near 40 percent Johnston, stop creating numbers as per the top sentence you advised others.
(Johnston didn't reply back to this, just prevaricated with smoke & mirrors.)

Johnston: DC has a Kafkaesque licensing and registration that does nothing to affect the crime because the criminals buy stolen guns from drug dealers or make their own.

(my reply, having lived in DC area ~30 yrs): No DC criminals generally don't do that, you don't know what you're talking about; criminals (& potential criminals) can buy, get or bring guns in from neighboring Maryland & Virginia, often getting them from straw purchasers or friends. There are no border checks going into & out of DC, where Maryland has a land border on 3 sides and guns walk back & forth daily.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172146324#post2 --- posts 25 & 29 inter alia

and your long winded personal attack is duly noted.

Johnston: .. sorry, you disproved nothing and your long winded personal attack is duly noted.

See readers? prevarication & tapdancing today. Well if I disproved 'nothing', explain yourself then, where did the 40 percent figure you cited come from? what did you intend it to mean? it seems you 'created a number' which you admonish others for doing.
Here's another chance for you, explain where the 40% comes from.

(I wrote): A half percent is nowhere near 40 percent Johnston, stop creating numbers as per the top sentence you advised others.
(click on link & start at post 21 on): http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172146324#post2

And acknowledge you were generally wrong on this, misleading:

Johnston: DC has a Kafkaesque licensing and registration that does nothing to affect the crime because the criminals buy stolen guns from drug dealers or make their own.
('Make their own' is apparently what Johnston said 40% of DC guns were)

(my reply, having lived in DC area ~30 yrs): DC criminals generally don't do that, you don't know what you're talking about; criminals (& potential criminals) can buy, get or bring guns in from neighboring Maryland & Virginia, often getting them from straw purchasers or friends. There are no border checks going into & out of DC, where Maryland has a land border on 3 sides and guns walk back & forth daily. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172146324#post2 --- posts 25 & 29 inter alia

take your dancing shoes off.

so, you are calling ATF data clap trap?

Nonsense? Yes Burger was spouting nonsense
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/mags/crburger.htm

Johnston: so, you are calling ATF data clap trap?

Huh? another non sequitur? another false dilemma? another logic fallacy from Johnston?
Where is your explanation of what the 40% 'Saturday night special' is? You've done nothing but accomplish a trifecta: tapdancing, smoke & mirrors, & double double talk talk, all emanating from one thread.

Furthermore, the ATF demonstrates what I said was spot on, for of the 891 firearm traces it lists on pg 7 of what you linked to, 488 of them were from neighboring states of Virginia & Md, just like I said, the rest evidently from all the other states combined.
What exactly was your link to the ATF supposed to prove? don't just link to a website as a rebuttal & expect everyone to realize wtf you're referring to, thanks.

Johnston: Yes Burger was spouting nonsense
... ww.davekopel.com/2A/mags/crburger.htm

Oh vomit, & you cite a far right gunnut guru to claim that burger (my signature line at bottom) was spouting nonsense? From YOU, who generally admonishes a left wing source but has no problem citing a far right one? Hilarious, sad at the same time.

A taste of the specious fractured reasoning from gunnut kopel:
kopel: ... Justice Burger then stated that today, "sadly, we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a 'militia' by way of the National Guard..." Here, Justice Burger's reasoning stumbled. First of all, the National Guard is plainly not the "militia" envisioned by the Second Amendment.

Duh, burger never said the national gds was the 2ndA's envisioned militia, & burger definitely knows that it isn't, kopel is a sanctimonious casuistic clown.
But to wit, kopel, the national guards is indeed a militia, as defined in the Charles dick militia act of 1903; in fact nat gds is the only 'well regulated militia' in existence in America today (plus state guards which are patterned after national gds), so what burger said makes sense unless one tries to twist it out of shape as kopel did..

kopel: More fundamentally, the National Guard is a uniformed, elite force. A "select militia" was precisely what the authors of the Second Amendment intended to avoid; they instead wanted a militia made up of all able-bodied males.

Here the grand gunnut kopel attempts to make it seem that justice burger was unaware of all the simple pie he spits out in kopel's 'refutal', when it's just a pathetic attempt from kopel to denigrate burger & what he said & meant, whether to parade magazine or playboy wouldn't have mattered, it's what he said not who he said it to.

really classy.

Johnston: No, you said the time to crime was bullshit, I proved my claim.

ANOTHER of your demonstrable stinking LIES. Here is what was written: I first wrote: .. criminals (& potential criminals) can buy, get or bring guns in from neighboring Maryland & Virginia, often getting them from straw purchasers or friends.
(Johnston): Since the average time to crime for DC is over 12 years, I seriously doubt there are different straw purchases. What really happens is they are stolen from those other states. Even then, current federal laws are being violated.
I replied: This is. NONSENSE. Just more claptrap from you to avoid the issue.

Your entire paragraph was nonsense; it was evasive double double talk talk which is your inane subjective opinion - and when asked to provide facts & a source for the above, or just about anything you post as fact, you evade & tapdance & put up rot like the above to try to leave the impression that you successfully refuted your criticism.
As readers can see, I did not contend time to crime was bs, just that Johnston's evasive tapdance was nonsense.

Johnston: You have proven nothing other than your very verbose double talk. Unless your reading comprehension is very poor, you know that as well as I do.

Oh fer chryce sake what an ego you have. What does the 40% mean? this is about the 10th time I've asked you & you can't give a decent reply because what you wrote is a LIE.

Johnston: So, your derailing is to personally attack on me for something that was basically accurate shows desperation, like the lies exposed in the OP by even CNN.

... you actually believe that the *** you post on here is true & factual - what a monstrous ego you have.

Last edited Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

"It sounds like you went to the same critical thinking and debate school as iverglas and Piers Morgan."


GE, I'd like to point out that while iverglas did post mountains of text, even she knew how to spell, reply to individual posts, and use neat paragraphs.

As far as Piers Morgan, I got nothing.

Johnston: Well regulated means well equipped. It {well reg'd militia} is also can become a branch of the federal government anytime the POTUS wants it to be, therefore it is not a state militia. That is the only point you have, and it is only half way valid.

the national guard in each state is indeed a state's well regulated militia, along with it's adjunct 'state militia', you don't know squat: The respective state National Guards are authorized by the Constitution of the United States... The traditional state militias were redefined and recreated as the "organized militia"—the National Guard, via the Militia Act of 1903.
Many states also maintain their own state defense forces. Although not federal entities like the National Guard of the United States, these forces are components of the state militias like the individual state National Guards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

The president can federalize the militia (and he could circa 1800 too so you're out there as well), taking power over the state nat gd away from the state governor: Federal Duty service means full-time duty in the active military service of the United States. The term used is federalized. Federalized National Guard forces have been ordered, by the President to active duty either in their reserve component status or by calling them into Federal service in their militia status

Johnston: Well regulated means well equipped.

Is that right? According to Johnston & the far rightwing gunnuts, eh? But not according to Webster in 1828:

Webster's 1828 dictionary: REG'ULATE, v.t. 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

regulated REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,regulated

OK, equip did mean furnish arms for military service: Websters 1828: EQUIP', v. t. 1. Properly, to dress; to habit. Hence, to furnish with arms, or a complete suit of arms, for military service. Thus we say, to equip men or troops for war; to equip a body of infantry or cavalry. But the word seems to include not only arms, but clothing, baggage, utensils, tents, and all the apparatus of an army, particularly when applied to a body of troops. Hence, to furnish with arms and warlike apparatus; as, to equip a regiment.
2. To furnish with men, artillery and munitions of war, as a ship.
equipage EQ'UIPAGE, n. The furniture of a military man, particularly arms and their appendages. 1. The furniture of an army or body of troops, infantry or cavalry; including arms, artillery, utensils, provisions, and whatever is necessary for a military expedition.

Recall Paul Simon's lyrics, Johnston: "Any way you look at it, YOU LOSE".

Johnston: Instead of countering the scholarship, all you have is a personal attack of what you think Kopel's happens to be. That is the lowest logical fallacy of all.

Now Johnston is defending a rightwing gunnut, kopel. Bash some liberal cities like you often do, like DC, LA, Chicago, NY, you democrat charlatan.

Some gun control group put those words in his mouth.
You completely ignored the main point of Kopel's, who is a registered Democrat and voted for Ralph Nader, critique of your favorite Nixon appointee.

BTW, none of these are "liberal cities". They might have a mayor with a D by his name, but I wouldn't describe them as liberal. They are violent, corrupt, mismanaged, but not liberal.
the cities I listed specifically were Chicago, Oakland, NOLA, DC. I did not mention LA nor NY. By pointing out their corruption and mismanagement makes me a bad Democrat? Does that also mean calling James Buchannan a lousy president homophobic? Historians agree that he sucked as president.
When mayors of Detroit and NOLA are convicted of corruption and ripping off the city treasury, not to mention Chicago's well documented gang/alderman machine reminiscent of Boss Tweed, it is not bashing. It is speaking truth to power. I don't care what letter is by the mayor's name or who most of the people vote for. A shithole is a shithole and a crook is a crook. Only the stupidest and most dishonest ideologues would disagree. Yet another pointless personal attack.

Did you actually read Burger's article? He did not write those words in Parade magazine. Here is a quote:

it will occur to people that when they put up numbers that are this easy to knock down it invalidates the rest of their argument? Including drug deals gone bad after school hours? Just, wow.

What numbers to knock down?

fit the pattern of a "school shooting" as per Newtown or the Oregon situation. A number of the others are gang activity that happen to occur near a school; at least one was after hours over some form of illegal activity that just happened to be on a school campus.

Is that an acceptable number?

if 15 is unacceptable to you, it should be acceptable to Bloomberg and that is the number he should talk about. Right?

My point was, and remains, if AnyTown wants to have their position taken seriously they need to put up legitimate numbers. 15 since Newtown comes out to about 1/month; still a serious issue and completely legitimate.

Kinda like those numbers on legit DGU's

Janet Reno paid for the DGU study that you don't like. You are comparing surveys by criminologists vs propaganda from a public relations firm.

If the definition doesn't fit your needs go find another.

There have been 74 instances of shootings on a school campus, from elementary to college, since Dec 2012. That includes suicide, murder, and negligent discharge. Does not include shootings off or near campus by students of that campus.

Fiddle with language all ya want, there were 74 shootings on a campus since Sandy Hook.

I'll not discuss this further with you as it is pointless for either of us to continue.

Of late the terminolmogy is getting a real stir:

Mass muder (FBI: 4+ not including killer)

Mass shooting (who knows? Knives don't matter.)

School shooting

Active shooter

In all of this, does 5 killed in March by a punk in a car during Austin's South by Southwest, count for shit? The Defendant is charged with murder.

But if you just look at "school shootings" without setting a minimum number of casualties it is clear that EveryTown's numbers are greatly inflated. As noted earlier, if they want to be taken seriously they should put up valid numbers for discussion. It always amazes me how the pro-control side continue to sabotage their efforts. Some years ago it was by trying to count 18 and 19 year old adult criminals as "children" in regards to victims of "gun violence". Simply amazing.

Or am I missing something here?

who has no problems shading the facts.

That would be my comment.

the lesser of two evils is still evil in my book.

I always love it when so-called progressive NRA supporters call out proponents of public safety as supporters of Republican billionaires. Such hypocrisy.
First of all, Bloomberg is one man, who shares his concerns for gun violence with folk across the political spectrum. The fact that, at times, he has been a Republican is irrelevant. Nobody is giving him money, unlike those who feed the Walton family coffers every time they buy their guns and ammo and other junk from Walmart or Sam's Club.

Your argument is bogus.

so I understand your need to suck up to him and ignore his authoritarian bent. But then, perhaps it is his authoritarian views that make him attractive to you?

You brought him up, not me. I don't follow him and never think about him until someone like you starts making absurd comparisons.
Because he may agree with me on one issue doesn't make us partners in crime. And I have no idea no interest in knowing if he agrees with me or not.
You seem to have a problem with anyone who might share some value with a Republican billionaire. I'll take your non-answer to my question as a "Yes", you do shop at Walmart. By doing so, you are further enriching an entire family of Republican millionaires and contributing to the destruction of small local business, main street and the American middle class. But then, maybe you just like buying cheap shit from Republican billionaires.

See how it works?

Because he may agree with me on one issue makes us partners in crime - right?

Guns don't have rights. I support an individual's right to own a gun and use it, if necessary, to defend himself, his home or the life of another.
LaPierre is a piece of shit, regardless of where we might agree on something. Maybe he also likes sashimi, which I love.

I don't know what values you share with LaPierre. Maybe you both think guns have rights?

you very well know that gun rights is a shorthand reference to the RKBA. It is frequently used here in that context.

Everyone believes in individual rights. When it comes to the rights of individuals and their use of guns there is vast disagreement. So, trying to lump everyone into one corner or another is dishonest. If I make the slightest comment about extreme behavior or NRA propaganda, you immediately accuse me of sucking up to Republican billionaires.

I don't have a dog in this fight, beyond having a conversation about how to improve public safety without trampling on basic rights.
I do not agree with the "B" in "RKBA", except when demonstrated to be necessary.

Since gun rights seems to upset you.

How one goes about it is another question altogether, and often ends up with a court decision. So, one should think very carefully about what is appropriate to the situation and respond accordingly.

In the US, gun ownership is a constitutional right, as is gun carry. Personally, I think that "carry" should not be a constitutional right, but rather a licensed privilege. I'm sure this is where we disagree.

I just like to be a little more precise with language.

So, let's deal with the facts, which are 15 school shootings. Almost one a month
Then consider this http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/06/justice/seattle-campus-shooting/

Last edited Thu Jun 12, 2014, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

he got face full of pepper spray while he was reloading his shotgun. So why did the "gun nut" NRA member use pepper spray? He was respecting the "gun free zone sign" and he may or may not have a CCW.
that said, fortunately it wasn't raining, there wasn't a headwind, and the shooter wasn't high on PCP. While it has its place, it isn't a Star Trek phaser's stun setting (which I think would be the perfect self defense weapon, as long as it worked as well as on TV.)
I do think if you are going to carry a pistol, I would recommend carrying a the less than lethal option as well. I don't know if any experts would agree with me on that, that is my personal opinion. Always have options. I might carry the spray without the pistol, but I wouldn't do the reverse, at least in settled areas with humans and domestic dogs.

or at least out of touch and says stupid shit.

More!

the link: Everytown says on its web site that it gleans its information from media reports and that its list includes school shootings involving a firearm discharged inside or on school grounds, including assaults, homicides, suicides and accidental shootings.
Some of the other incidents on Everytown's list included personal arguments, accidents and alleged gang activities and drug deals

CNN determined that 15 of the incidents Everytown included were situations similar to the violence in Oregon -- a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school. That works out to about one shooting every five weeks.

15 evidently were 'planned school attacks' if you will, while the 59 others were evidently spontaneous or not intended to be an attack on school students or personnel per se. A truer representative number would be somewhere between 15 & 74, to exclude general mayhem with guns.
Doesn't include property crime committed with guns, on school property, either, to my knowledge.

Watts, being a PR expert, knows that the average blogger or reporter isn't going to look beyond the headline and the list. They knew that they wouldn't read past the list to the disclaimer, or research any of those cases.
Am I saying that bloggers and people who call themselves journalists are often lazy or less than honest? Yes.
OK, I'll give you the negligent discharge by a gang affiliated student who wounded only herself, but not the rest.
"school shooting" has a specific connotation, which is something like Columbine or Sandy Hook. When people say "school shooting" they don't think of a gang hit across the street in the middle of the night, an adult who shoots himself in the school yard at 2 AM, or self defense in a college parking lot.
The "gun lobby" didn't redefine "school shooting" MDA/Bloomberg did, or they lied out of omission.
I think this blogger puts it best.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/06/12/the-mind-of-the-unethical-advocate-41-school-shootings-just-isn't-enough-lets-pretend-there-are-more/

My question is: why shouldn't people resent being deceived? Also, if the gun control lobby can't be honest about this, why should they be believed when it comes to anything else?

Isn't it the same as calling the guy in California a "mass shooter" without mentioning the first three victims were killed with a machete?

Nail on the head. The more realistic number comes out to about 1/month; still alarming and too many. Putting up false numbers just serves to invalidate the rest of the argument.

Yet you can't dispute Kopel's scholarship?
OK, so I missed the WP article. My bad.
Gun control laws existed then, just like the US had three federal gun control laws on the books at the time (Mailing of Pistols Act of 1927, National Firearms Act 1934, and Federal Firearms Act 1938.) The latter was repealed and replaced by the Gun Control Act, which strengthened many of the FFA's provisions and added a few more.

and why wouldn't they, the Germans were already turned into sheeple. As the guncite article mentions

Johnston: I didn't say the 1938 {Nazi weapons} law didn't loosen laws...

Duh, & I didn't say you did; that was merely addendum to the refutal I made when you wrote the below, to which you threw up the smokescreen above to avoid having to confront the error you'd made:

I previously wrote: It wasn't gun control that stripped Jewish of almost all their guns, it was the nuremburg law 1935..
Johnston replied: It wasn't the Nuremberg law. It was the 1938 German Weapons

Johnston: Jewish owned gun stores were not banned until 1937

Prior to the 1938 waffengesetz but after 1935 Nuremburg; likely because jewish gun stores were obliged to sell to germans & Nazis. I suspect there were restrictions on jews selling to other jewish, but it was still a small jewish market, only about 200,000 male jews in all of Germany would even be capable of bearing arms, I doubt even 1/2 percent of Germany's population.

Johnston: The larger point of the article kind of undercuts your thesis, and I am missing any point you are trying to make.

the guncite article undercuts MY thesis????? IT UNDERCUTS KOPEL'S CONTENTION.
I've used the guncite article 'the myth of Nazi gun control' for over 15 years, & cited it often as a rebuttal to what kopel contends. You do realize that by citing 'the myth of Nazi gun control' you are refuting what kopel said, don't you? when kopel wrote this?: In 2003, Kopel wrote in National Review "Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people

the guncite article, the myth of Nazi gun control: A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance.. These {jewish} simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance...Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had. Their foul lies about Jewish perfidy would have been given a grain of substance.

How in the world does the guncite article 'undercut' any point I was trying to make? when it corroborates my point perfectly? You make me shake my head in disbelief, Johnston.

more addendum: Before the Nazis came to power in 1933, 170,000 Jews lived in Berlin (one-third of Germany’s Jewish population). When Hitler came to power, Jews throughout Germany lost many of their civil liberties.

Let me rephrase that better. The post from Free-eco that you linked to undercut your thesis.
I'm not sure why you chose it unless you were searching for anything that might remotely supports you point, although I'm not sure what your point is.
http://www.free-eco.org/about

Johnston: Let me rephrase that better. The post from Free-eco that you linked to undercut your thesis.

Well it does & it doesn't. I only posted his input regarding the Nuremburg laws of 1935, showing that those laws enabled Nazis to confiscate jewish guns, especially in berlin.
.. Yes he (& kopel) contends armed jews could've prevented the holocaust, which is bunkum & refuted by guncites 'the myth of Nazi gun control', but he did provide the substance for refuting your claim that it was the waffengesetz of 1938 which first disallowed jews from guns. Which you conveniently continue to disregard as if you'd never said it, tossing out red herrings like a fishmonger.

Johnston: I'm not sure why you chose it unless you were searching for anything that might remotely supports you point, although I'm not sure what your point is.

Duh, again, I chose it since it backed my contention that the Nuremburg laws first enabled Nazis to confiscate firearms from jews in Nazi Germany.
Are you that duplicitous that you fake it that you can't see why I chose the link?
Your double double talk talk & smoke & mirrors are appalling.

If it really matters, since it is really academic, how about trying something more scholarly than Eco-free or Wikipedia.
His article doesn't prove substance because there is no evidence that he actually knows what he is talking about, nor does he cite anything to back up his claim. Most people have heard of the Nuremberg Laws, not so much about the Weapons Law.

johnston: BTW, none of these {DC, LA, NYC, Chicago} are "liberal cities". They might have a mayor with a D by his name, but I wouldn't describe them as liberal. They are violent, corrupt, mismanaged, but not liberal.

This is REALLY getting embarrassing for you Johnston. Los Angeles is not listed below, but it's still a liberal city, and you are saying DC, Chicago, & NYC are NOT liberal cities?
Sheesh:

Study Ranks America's Most Liberal and Conservative Cities
Most Liberal Rank City State
1 Detroit Michigan
3 Berkeley California
4 Washington, D.C. Dist. of Columbia
5 Oakland California
8 Cambridge Massachusetts
9 San Francisco California
14 Baltimore Maryland
17 Chicago Illinois
21 New York New York http://americancityandcounty.com/content/study-ranks-americas-most-liberal-and-conservative-cities

J: the cities I listed specifically were Chicago, Oakland, NOLA, DC. I did not mention LA nor NY.

Didn't you knock the NYC cops in that weird one you posted about some guy for a rightwing cops magazine, who was on parole for wiretapping?

I was using criteria like race relations, which LA fails at, strength of public unions, public education not being sold out to private charter schools, and honest and transparent government. They pretty well fail at that.

Johnston - the tapdancing continues: it {liberal/conservative city study}uses voting patterns as the only definition ... I was using criteria like race relations, which LA fails at, strength of public unions, public education not being sold out to private charter schools, and honest and transparent government. They pretty well fail at that.

.. wow - the study adjudged that the way to segregate liberal & conservative cites is by whether they tend to vote democrat or republican - who'd a thunk this was faulty reasoning? Johnston, you make me laugh.

Furthermore, what difference does it make what 'you' were judging the cities by? because I first cited them here:
I wrote: Johnston is defending a rightwing gunnut, kopel. Bash some liberal cities like you often do, like DC, LA, Chicago, NY, you democrat charlatan.
Johnston replied: BTW, none of these {DC, LA, NYC, Chicago} are "liberal cities". They might have a mayor with a D by his name, but I wouldn't describe them as liberal. They are violent, corrupt, mismanaged, but not liberal.

Since I first properly called them liberal cities, rightfully so accd'g to common wisdom & the study above, I first said you bashed them which you readily admit. That 'you' think they aren't liberal is irrelevant & ridiculous - using your own particular criteria.
Show some study or source which backs you up. Ha.

And btw, readers will note that Johnston indeed bashed these liberal cities above, by saying: They are violent, corrupt, mismanaged, but not liberal

No reply on your contention here?: Johnston: Well regulated means well equipped.

Point out where Webster in 1828 defined 'regulated' as 'equipped':

Webster's 1828 dictionary: regulated REG'ULATED, Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,regulated

Websters 1828: EQUIP', v. t. 1. Properly, to dress; to habit. Hence, to furnish with arms, or a complete suit of arms, for military service. Thus we say, to equip men or troops for war; to equip a body of infantry or cavalry. But the word seems to include not only arms, but clothing, baggage, utensils, tents, and all the apparatus of an army, particularly when applied to a body of troops. Hence, to furnish with arms and warlike apparatus; as, to equip a regiment.
2. To furnish with men, artillery and munitions of war, as a ship.

Had james Madison intended 2ndA to apply to equipping the militia, he'd have rather said 'A well equipped militia, being nec for the security of a free state, rkbasnbi'.

But Johnston, that logic fallacy buster, makes the 'moon is cheese' logic fallacy. The moon is white, cheese is white, thus the moon is made of cheese (one version of it).
A militia is well equipped when it goes to war, 2ndA says a militia is well regulated, thus, well regulated is well equipped.

What kind of logic fallacy is that Johnston? cheesy hoc, moony hoc?

Johnston: Well regulated means well equipped. It {well reg'd militia/national gds} is also can become a branch of the federal government anytime the POTUS wants it to be, therefore it is not a state militia. That is the only point you have, and it is only half way valid.

No reply to this contention of yours either?

Because the Army National Guard is both the militia of the several states and a federal reserve component of the Army, neither the Chief of the National Guard Bureau nor the Director of the Army National Guard "commands" it.
The President may also call up members and units of the Army National Guard, in its status as the militia of the several states, to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or enforce federal laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_National_Guard

The National Guard is a joint activity of the US Department of Defense (DoD) composed of reserve components of the US Army and the US Air Force: the Army National Guard of the US and the Air National Guard of the United States respectively..
.. Combat Arms[edit] (today): The Army National Guard consists of 28 fully capable brigade combat teams with combat support and combat service support components. The Army Reserve is mostly Combat Service Support and Combat Support with only one infantry unit (the 100th Infantry Battalion

One is too many.

Lying for a good cause is still lying.

the discrepancy tends to "suck all the oxygen from the room" so to speak and all attention is focused on the discrepancy of the numbers and not the original issue. Groups that tend to do this repeatedly appear to wish to engage in a "culture war" instead of honestly attempting to craft a solution to whatever crisis was originally being discussed.