Posts Made By: James Brown

John Hales said:

Hello out there, I have a 4" F9 Vixen fluorite refractor made for Orion, purchased in the mid to late 90's. I would like to replace the whole back end as the Vixen "green" focuser assembly suffers from slop and the sags when I use a CCD or DSLR on it. Has anyone out there have any ideas? It is a great little scope. Thanks, John H

Lee Spain said:

He dies his hair. Big time!

Russ Carroll said:

Norman R. Augustine:

"Since 1995 the average mathematics score for fourth-graders jumped 11 points. At this rate we catch up with Singapore in a little over 80 years . . . assuming they don't improve."

Doug Matulis said:

I am sure liberals will be jumping all over support for this, liberalism is a mental disorder, but I think we have to draw the line somewhere. This just seems insane.

Not to mention all the lost US jobs, AGAIN!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/04/china-launches-bids-defense-contracts/?test=latestnews

Jim Moscheck said:

I'm sure you all think it's no big deal...

Greg Shaffer said:

Every now and then I run across what I would describe as profound logic, the letter below in my opinion fits the phrase "profound logic" to a T

"The Gun Is Civilization"


By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception; Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People, who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where actors take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Doug Matulis said:

* There will be pockets of resistance and unforeseen breakthroughs, still, at the rate we're growing now, to be comically precise, there would be more Christians than people by the autumn of 2032, about 8.2 billion

Just food for thought...