<p>Sorry, afruff, I consider it beneath me to debate gun control and many of the other views you espouse that are just not true.</p>
<p>Especially on a bulletin board read by impressionable high school kids and college kids I find it offensive to debate such topics. I think the things you want to debate are despicable and not worthy of debate. I’m sorry. Allowing guns on airplanes to kill the terrorists? Give me a break!</p>
<p>Allowing guns on airplanes to kill the terrorists???/</p>
<p>Ok… let’s say we let people on airplanes with guns….how do we keep terrorists from saying I’m a good guy I just want to kill terrorists ???</p>
<p>Say a terrorists is a dues paying member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) how can we take his gun away from him …I mean if the feds come for the terrorist’s gun next the feds will come for my gun……</p>
<p>So now we have a situation of where we have to let terrorists on the plane with guns……I am not sure that makes any sense</p>
<p>Can an NRA member out there help me on this???</p>
<p>Higherlead - a more thorough response to the flouride issue and your article. </p>
<p>It refers to flouride poisoning, not acknowledged safe doses in the drinking water. It is about children who are unsupervised and overingest toothpaste. </p>
<p>It also does not appear to me to be a reliable source.</p>
<p>Dental disease and gum disease have recently been linked to an increase in placque and coronary artery disease. Dental disease was always considered a possible danger for those with know heart disease, but this is different.</p>
<p>My children have no cavities. I grew up during the pre-flouride era and have had many.</p>
<p>How tiny do you imagine a coronary artery to be?
They are tiny. Any amount of occlusion is dangerous. MI’s occur with very little narrowing. Heart disease is the leading killer of women, and one of the male leaders.</p>
<p>@tommybill
"Whether Congressman Paul is a member of the John Birch Society (JBS) or not, is irrelevant.</p>
<p>Logical Argument:</p>
<p>If
The JBS membership is made up of right wing nut cases</p>
<p>And
Congressman Paul is a right wing nut case</p>
<p>And
Congressman Paul is not a member of the JBS</p>
<p>Then
Not all right wing nut cases are members of the JBS</p>
<p>But
They are still right wing nut cases"</p>
<p>Except Ron Paul is not a right wing nutcase. You need to see beyond party lines and view people for their views and not their favorite animal.</p>
<p>"Post # 130</p>
<p>“He voted against giving a medal to Mother Theresa whereas everybody else voted for it. He did this because he thought it to be a waste of taxpayer money (the minting of the medal and the presentation is expensive”</p>
<p>Did Ron Paul oppose giving a medal to Jerry Bremmer?(sic)"</p>
<p>I have no proof(where can i find the roll call for this?) but I am very confident that he voted against giving him a medal because he opposes giving medals due to the waste of taxpayer money.</p>
<p>@merrymom</p>
<p>See, you just dismiss an idea without even thinking about it? At least tommy tried to criticize it rather than saying it is “beneath him”.</p>
<p>@tommybill</p>
<p>"Allowing guns on airplanes to kill the terrorists???/</p>
<p>Ok… let’s say we let people on airplanes with guns….how do we keep terrorists from saying I’m a good guy I just want to kill terrorists ???</p>
<p>Say a terrorists is a dues paying member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) how can we take his gun away from him …I mean if the feds come for the terrorist’s gun next the feds will come for my gun……</p>
<p>So now we have a situation of where we have to let terrorists on the plane with guns……I am not sure that makes any sense</p>
<p>Can an NRA member out there help me on this???"</p>
<p>Can you please rephrase this post? It’s a little incoherent. Obviously if a guy shoots somebody else on a plane unprovoked, that is a felony.</p>
<p>As for the feds coming for your gun, that’s a slippery slope argument which makes little sense. If a terrorist brought a gun, then somebody else would shoot him before he got to harm more than one person. Everybody would realize how effective of a measure allowing guns would be, and the chances of terrorism on a plane would become nil.</p>
<p>So let me play out your scenario:</p>
<p>A plane of 200 people has 10 terrorists with their own guns. 39 percent of Americans have a gun (not made up). That would mean out of 190 civilians, 74 would have guns if all gun owners brought a gun. Of course, not that many would bring guns, so let’s just say 30 people bring guns (reasonable number).</p>
<p>All 10 terrorists shoot and hit somebody. The 30 civilians with guns take out the terrorists within a few seconds. Crisis averted.</p>
<p>Now with the current system: all 10 terrorists smuggle a gun onboard. And don’t tell me the TSA can catch all weapons. That’s BS and you know it. They can smuggle it in through the tarmac and other means.</p>
<p>8 terrorists now hold the passengers and crew hostage while 2 fly the plane and complete whatever objective they had in mind. Everybody dies.</p>
<p>I am not an aeronautical engineer so would someone tell me what would happen to an airplane at 30,000 feet if 40 people started to shoot guns and some of the bullets missed their target and put holes in the plan’s fuselage.</p>
<p>I"m no engineer either, but I’m pretty sure the fuselage is well protected and immune from bullets.</p>
<p>Even if it’s not, it’d have to travel through “plane material” to get to it and by then it would be too slow or be trapped in the “plane material”.</p>
<p>But why are you not considering the possible outcomes of both situations? Terrorists have guns and crash ariplane killing everybody and people in the building OR few or no casualties on the plane.</p>
<p>Best case scenario: the plane has a sudden depressurization, the oxygen masks drop, and the pilots do an emergency descent.</p>
<p>Worst case scenario: bullets hit hydraulic lines or electrical connections and the pilots lose control capabilities.</p>
<p>"Best case scenario: the plane has a sudden depressurization, the oxygen masks drop, and the pilots do an emergency descent.</p>
<p>Worst case scenario: bullets hit hydraulic lines or electrical connections and the pilots lose control capabilities."</p>
<p>You people just like to skew things don’t you? Why not compare to a scneraio where people are not allowed guns?</p>
<p>Let me show you how illogical your argument is:
Illogical Argument
If A, then C.
C is bad.
Therefore A is the worse of the 2 options (the other option being B).</p>
<p>Here’s an unbiased comparison.
Allow guns on planes during a terrorist attack
Best case scenario: No casualties, cosmetic damage to airplane, and that’s it.</p>
<p>Worst case scenario: Some casualties, and main systems go down. Auxiliary systems come on and emergency landing (or jump out if over an ocean and systems cannot be sustained for that long). Aren’t hydraulics made of metal? Bullets from handheld weapons can’t penetrate metal.</p>
<p>Disallow guns on planes during a terrorist attack
Best case scenario(highly unlikely): Passengers overpower gun-toting terrorists.</p>
<p>Best case scenario(likely): Plane is shot down and everybody onboard dies.</p>
<p>Worst case scenario: Plane crashes, kills everybody onboard as well as the people in the target.</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that your worst case scenario can still happen in a case where people are not allowed guns onboard.</p>
<p>If you want to get a better idea about Ron Paul, then consult this video:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg</a></p>
<p>He addresses a lot of issues, including birth control, allowing guns on planes, and getting rid of the Department of education. His platform is very easy to understand. I hope you all watch it.</p>
<p>Also allow me to revise the best case scenario for allowing guns:</p>
<p>Best case scenario: No terrorist attack in the first place since terrorists know that their plan would never work on a plane with people with guns.</p>
<p>EDIT: The specific part about guns on planes is mentioned starting at 15:18.</p>
<p>afruff23:</p>
<p>I admire your enthusiasm. But, to save your keyboard, I should probably just tell you up front that I never have been, am not presently, and will never be interested in any John Bircher candidates.</p>
<p>To those who haven’t noticed, Afruff identifies himself on another thread as being in high school.</p>
<p>Let me tell you a few more reasons why Paul is the best candidate:</p>
<p>-The only candidate supporting hemp as an industrial crop.
-The only candidate with a short and long term plan for ending national debt
-The only candidate in support of free trade.
-The only non-neocon GOP candidate.
-The only candidate who upholds the constitution.</p>
<p>@merrymom2</p>
<p>I was hoping you’d eventually bring that up.</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem</a></p>
<p>@interesteddad</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Ron Paul is not part of the JBS. If he supported it, then he would have joined it. If you see his voting record and his talks, then you’d realize he is the most honest politician ever. Even John McCain (yuck!) said that he is the most honest politician he’s met.</p></li>
<li><p>Your whole argument is based on a single quote which isn’t supportive of your position in the first place. If I say that I like socialism’s large government system (which I don’t), then does that make me a socialist?</p></li>
<li><p>Ron Paul has never, directly or indirectly, supported any conspiracy theories. Hillary Clinton on the other hand started a conspiracy theory about republicans being out to impeach Bill Clinton.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>mm2</p>
<p>What’s your point?</p>
<p>Your arguments are so silly and lacking facts and unadultlike - now I understand why.</p>
<p>When I asked you before Afruff for your qualifications you refused to answer me, so I doubt you are glad I brought it up.</p>
<p>Enjoy!</p>
<p>First of all, did you even click the link I gave you? Looks like you fell right into the trap that I so kindly tried to help you avoid.</p>
<p>Second, why do you have a duplicate account? You do know that is against the forum rules?</p>
<p>Third, I hope you realize how much irony is in your post.</p>
<p>“Your arguments are so silly and lacking facts and unadultlike”.</p>
<p>Yep, logic is silly. Giving facts is silly. In fact, any non-subjective argument is stupid. Calling things silly are more important than resorting to facts.</p>
<p>“Unadultlike”</p>
<p>What does that even mean?</p>
<p>“When I asked you before Afruff for your qualifications you refused to answer me, so I doubt you are glad I brought it up.”</p>
<p>You never explicitly asked for my “qualifications” which are irrelevant at this point. You only asked: "Are you in a symbolic logic class, a law student, a lawyer? "</p>
<p>To which I replied: “I have not taken any classes on logic other than basic geometry.”</p>
<p>“I doubt you are glad I brought it up”</p>
<p>Actually, I’m glad you brought that up seeing as how you’ve committed the most prominent and well-known fallacy.</p>
<p>In fact, your entire post doesn’t have a single valid point which is quite funny considering the fact that you titled your post My Point.</p>
<p>The discussion about Ron Paul and the John Birch Society is really quite entertaining.</p>
<p>John Birch Society!! Is Barry Goldwater still around?</p>
<p>Bill Moyers is up to his old tricks!!!</p>
<p>Speaking of Bill Moyers how is that old gasbag still able to pull down dollars via PBS from the public trough? What a country!!!</p>
<p>Funny boys. You are cute - I like you. Hope you are those well educated liberals who know how to think.</p>
<p>“Funny boys. You are cute - I like you.”
Great argument there.</p>
<p>“Hope you are those well educated liberals who know how to think.”</p>
<p>Generalizing now, are we? Ron Paul is a statesman who stands for liberty. Liberty doesn’t recognize party lines. So far, only Paul has committed himself to upholding liberty, which makes him well-educated in my book.</p>
<p>Go ahead and dismiss an entire political party. Just so you know, I would vote for a democrat if Ron Paul was not running for president, since they are more akin to liberty than neo-cons.</p>
<p>If you think that only liberals know how to think, then tell me why you support Hillary Clinton? She obviously doesn’t know how to think. She changes her position around election time to get the votes.</p>
<p>In case you missed it, here are the things Clinton supports:
-death penalty (I thought liberals hated this?)
-No Child Left Behind (an inefficient pointless testing procedure)
-Patriot Act (I thought liberals like the right to privacy?)
-Military Action Against Iran as an option (I thought she was anti-war?)
-Against same-sex marriage</p>
<p>Paul is the exact opposite on all of those issues except for same-sex marriage which he believes should be legislated at the state level. So, can you see how liberty has no party lines?</p>
<p>For he’s a jolly ol’ bircher, for he’s a jolly ol’ bircher, for he’s a jolly ol’ biiiiiircher…which nobody can deny!!!</p>
<p>This really is quite a country. Think about it. Look at all of the people who are running for President and then think about all of the other people that you either know, have read about, seen on TV, admire from a distance, admire from a close distance, work with, play with, yada yada yada…and these are the clowns that we end up with.</p>
<p>Be honest. They’re clowns. Why would anyone in their right mind want any of them to be elected President?</p>
<p>Thank you for informing me of your clairvoyant abilities. Hillary Clinton hasn’t been nominated and I really have no idea for whom I’m going to vote.</p>
<p>I love music. Keep singing!</p>