<font color=deepskyblue>"Weight" does not depend entirely on "influence", <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>. The vast majority of people listening to Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, or any other political talk show host already agrees with the political views of the host - so the "influence" that host will have on thier viewers or listeners would not be that dramatic as far as changing their votes.

Besides, the point I was making is that you have every right to voice your opinion on any subject you wish to. But until you can back up that opinion at the voting booth, your personal opinion simply will not carry as much weight as those that are on the electoral roll.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, but Murdoch DOES change peoples votes Cerek. The power of the media is huge. It's happened time and again the world over. The only information you receive about political candidates is through the media. That's why there are media ownership laws. If one person owned the lot, you've got a frightening scenario indeed.

Despite the mooning-smiley, this would be a fine statement in a pure democracy with simple majority rule. However, we in this country strive to preserve the rights of the minority viewpoint -- thus the constitution. Whether it be New Yorker City folk hijacking a New York State issue or Burlington folk dominating a Vermont issue, in this country the big city full of lots of folk dominating the much greater land space around them is a bit repugnacious to us.

So, to that end, it's a bit of an asshole-ish or asshole-esque (take your pick) comment to toss out there, Y-man. </font>[/QUOTE]But my comment is irrelevent because I don't vote. I'm not hijacking or dominating anyone. ;)

However, cities have dominated the world for thousands of years. Nomads and pastoralists have wept dry. He can either deal with it, or live a life of ulcer ridden angst.

It's a tradeoff anyhow. In the country you get land and few people (influence). In the city you get influence and no land. We all make our decisions. The land around a city serves to support it, whether it be food, water, recreation, or housing. To view the two as seperate competeing entities is wierd.

In New York State, the majority of people want tighter gun laws. C'est la vie.

<font color=deepskyblue>I disagree with your assertion that I always open my posts by saying I am disagreeing with you. :D </font>

LOL, in my mind I have started reading your posts (and in particular your favourite words) in the style and timbre of one of the most powerful orators of our time - Martin Luther King.

Instead of that wonderfully powerful voice belting out "I have a dream" I substitue Cerek's "I disagree". [img]smile.gif[/img]

Lol. Thanks. I needed that voice in my head.

<font color=deepskyblue>Why thank you, <font color=orange>Davros</font>. I am very flattered. [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] </font>

Except, Upstate NY is practically a different state of affairs, and very little of what Upstate NY does actually affects NYC. For all intents and purposes, they could be autonomous, and the Republican voters of upstate wouldn't be getting shut out by the Democrat voters of NYC. Furthermore, this is not a Democracy, it is a Representative Republic, and in this case a large group of individuals are muscling out a small group through the district concept, which marginalizes the individual vote.

Except that they haven't been proven to work, whatsoever, and were in fact knee-jerk responses to phenomena that didn't exist (including fear of an Anarchist tidal wave, which never came, or a Black uprising, which never happened. In both cases, the laws were passed by racist xenophobes/bigots who wanted to maintain their prestige) and you can't solidly state, with demonstratable, factual proof that the gun control laws have made you any safer.

That's an invalid question, for one, as it doesn't matter whether I've been to a place that statistically fits well within the categorical notion of more guns, less crime (not that I'm standing by Lott, whose position I consider specious) and also considering what kind of 'insight' you've gained about America from being here, I fail to see how that's even important enough to bring up.

Wrong. The city as we understand it, or anything like it, is a relatively new notion, post-medieval at the very least, where as cities themselves are thousands of years old, but those cities were usually whole nations.

Are you picking at my health problems, or just looking for a low-brow place to shoot feces at the crowd?

That's not true. A city emerges as a localization of economic opportunity, the pastoral land was there first, and most probably, it will endure long after a collapse. What's more, the legal needs of a pastoral area like where I live are far different, and to enforce identical policies on them both would yield exploitable inconsistencies. Does a small town like Nunda (pull up a good map of New York State, and you might find it, sometime)

Except when one dries the other out (and both have happened more than once) and you fail to account for the suburbs, which stick thorns in both sides.

Hasty Generalization... Less than 50% of the voting populace ever votes on anything.

The city policy is inappropriate for Upstate (and, ironically inappropriate for New York City, or anywhere in the US for that matter) and shouldn't be enforced upon it. Not to mention its illegality. The constitution instantly null-and-voids all gun control laws before they even get past The House.

And before anyone tries any funny business, I point to the two pieces of legislature in question:
----------
Ammendment 2:

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
----------
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(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
----------
These two, taken together, clearly establish that the average citizen is to, in some capacity, be at all times able to serve in the defense of the nation (his nation, as defined by the definition of the militia) at his own thrift.

This would imply that at a given time period, that man be able to operate, more or less, as a soldier. That includes armaments. For this reason, all 'reasonable' gun control, is in fact an impediment to national security. Certain people are putting their misguided sense of morals ahead of your safety. Stop them before they do something really dangerous.

Yorick, if you think you're absolutely certain that Gun Control is the right policy, I suggest you go here and fight it out on unfriendly ground. They won't censor you. They won't be anything less than civil. However, they will mercilessly hold you to certain standards, and failure to meet them will kill your argument before it gets started. This is my glove, I've thrown it down.

Davros, you are the man :D ;)

John, the laws in NYC affect me far more than they do Oblivion, so yes, they are my business than his. I support the laws, obviously to the point of moving here.

As far as not having a voice, that is simply untrue. Only 50% of Americans vote. If I through conversation, song or public speech influence just one voter, then I've "had my vote" percentage speaking.

"One vote one voice" is clearly a myth. Does Rupert Murdoch only have one vote? Or, through media manipulation, does he have millions? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I didn't write that the laws have no effect on you or make a comparison to the amount of effect. In fact I state there is an effect and you are effected by laws. That's what is meant by "you takes what you gets", "and you only have what the voters have said you can have through the laws their elected pukes have writen." The same in true for me if I went to another country, or Heaven forbid to NY or another yankee state, I'm not a voter in those states so until I become one I has to take what I gets.

Well you can put your hope on an "if" all you want I put my hope on marking my ballot on election day. ;)

Is Rupie a citizen? If not he has no vote, but he does have the right to speak and influence others the two are not the same thing. Politicains try to influence voters all the time but they have only one vote in an election. The press and Hollywood try to influence voters, as does the tree huggers and gun toters, but them that get off their rear ends and vote are the only ones that had a say in the matter.

I make no statement to rightness or wrongness of the way things are just that they ARE. It is not the busines of either if they are not voters in NY, I live and vote in Alabama and could careless what the Voters of NY do on anything. They don't effect me in the slightest, sure as feeces stinks it won't be a NY peace officer that knocks on my door.

I didn't say the laws of NY have no effect on Yorick in fact I stated the exact opposite when I used the phrase "You takes what you gets" Please show me what word or combination of words I wrote that equal Yorick doesn't have the right to voice his support or nonsupport for anything? But voicing and doing are not the same thing. We got some sayings here TALK is CHEAP and Actions speak louder then words, in other words yapp all'ya want it don't matter until you pull the lever, which is an action not a talk. ;)

Oblivion. Sounds like sour grapes to me. If you won't visit Australia to see how the land lies, the least you can do is come down to New York City and see why the gun laws are in place.

Re. cities, I stand by the historical FACT that cities have dominated. And yes, I mean cities from Ur, Aleppo, Mohenjo-Daro and Sparta, to Rome, Alexandria, Carthage and Tyre.

I'm interested to know
a) Where are you getting your history information from?
b) Why you didn't seek to understand my definition of "city" as" I understand it", before choosing to disagree with my statement?

Alexandria and Rome are pertinent examples, where Alexandria absorbed vast amounts of wheat from the nile floodplains (rural areas) That wheat was in turn consumed by Rome - oh look, a city - in vast amounts.

The needs of Rome, dictated the lifestyle of farmers on the Nile.
Interesting that.