<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=IndigoiMac</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=IndigoiMac"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/IndigoiMac"/>
	<updated>2026-10-10T15:11:53Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Was_President_George_H._W._Bush_wrong_to_leave_Saddam_in_power_in_1991%3F&amp;diff=483888</id>
		<title>Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Was_President_George_H._W._Bush_wrong_to_leave_Saddam_in_power_in_1991%3F&amp;diff=483888"/>
		<updated>2008-06-29T17:37:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==He was right==&lt;br /&gt;
He was right.  Though it might have cost him the 1992 election, he had no desire to involve America in a war that he knew would drag on for years and cost thousands of lives. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==He was wrong==&lt;br /&gt;
Saddam had to be removed at some point and NATO was on a roll so they could have gotten it over and done with then. [[User:IndigoiMac|IndigoiMac]] 13:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Was_President_George_H._W._Bush_wrong_to_leave_Saddam_in_power_in_1991%3F&amp;diff=483886</id>
		<title>Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Was_President_George_H._W._Bush_wrong_to_leave_Saddam_in_power_in_1991%3F&amp;diff=483886"/>
		<updated>2008-06-29T17:36:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==He was right==&lt;br /&gt;
He was right.  Though it might have cost him the 1992 election, he had no desire to involve America in a war that he knew would drag on for years and cost thousands of lives. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==He was wrong==&lt;br /&gt;
Saddam had to be removed at some point and NATO was on a roll so they could have gotten it over and done with then.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_it_tasteless_for_Conservapedia_to_critique_the_Virginia_Tech_poem_on_the_Main_Page%3F&amp;diff=483874</id>
		<title>Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_it_tasteless_for_Conservapedia_to_critique_the_Virginia_Tech_poem_on_the_Main_Page%3F&amp;diff=483874"/>
		<updated>2008-06-29T17:09:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{debate-project}}&lt;br /&gt;
==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000CC&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;00FFAA&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there.  It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The &amp;quot;Poem&amp;quot; is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people.  Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University.  --~ [[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;code&amp;gt;([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the notes in brackets &lt;br /&gt;
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the &amp;quot;poem&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
The poem is a feeble attempt &lt;br /&gt;
on the part of VTech's English Department &lt;br /&gt;
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]&lt;br /&gt;
to hang their liberal agenda on.&lt;br /&gt;
Andy's just calling them out on this.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}}  This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation.  {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start.  Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again.  We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::And this site's response (plastered all over the front page) isn't also political and self-serving? This smacks of '''hypocrisy''' somewhat. The lack of compassion that you're showing here is also rather distasteful. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The &amp;quot;poem&amp;quot; expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Moreover, not all &amp;quot;feelings&amp;quot; are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the &amp;quot;expression&amp;quot; of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we &amp;quot;approve&amp;quot; of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? &amp;lt;s&amp;gt;Get real, mister.&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt; --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I didn't say that. I said that not all &amp;quot;feelings&amp;quot; are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to &amp;quot;validate&amp;quot; their feelings?  --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways.  This is not about how &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; the poem is.  This is not about whether or not its &amp;quot;political.&amp;quot;  What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky &amp;amp; tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning!  I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect &amp;amp; compassion, not politicization.  Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy.  I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Hello, pot. This is kettle. I wish to discuss with you your hue. On this very site, the day after the massacre, Andy was trying to pin the blame on porn (Apparently it's fine to write non-family friendly gossip, as long as your name is Aschlafly.) If that's not attempting to exploit the event to score political points, I don't know what is. Shame on you for reading subtexts which aren't there in to the acts of students who have recently lost friends in a sudden and brutal manner, and using it to attempt to score a cheap hit on &amp;quot;liberals&amp;quot; --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 23:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ed, the &amp;quot;liberals&amp;quot; aren't politicizing this!  We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization!  Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot.  I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page.  I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency.  There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them.  Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot.  From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this &amp;quot;pull the poem or I'm going to tell&amp;quot; garbage.  Go ahead and notify them.  They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Well, when you put it like that, perhaps I've made a mistake. One of the things I really like about working with you on this project is that you have such a mellow way about you. Your remark just now was like a refreshing drink of cool water, just when I was feeling parched. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks, Karajou, I think?  It's the educated one.  I'll give Andy a chance to reply first.  I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#007FFF&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Ames&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#FF0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;G&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;'''&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ames, we don't allow baseless namecalling here.  Calling anyone a &amp;quot;bigot&amp;quot; here, particularly when it is baseless, results in blocking of the account.  In your case, I've warned you repeatedly about wasting the time of productive editors.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ideas do matter, and Conservapedia will continue to criticize liberal notions here.  The poem on the main page is an example of that.  The liberals here protest too much the valid criticism of that political, self-serving poem that is officially posted on the front page of the Virginia Tech website.  Virginia Tech officials should hear criticism, and it is not just Conservapedia's main page that is criticism them.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: People who threaten to stifle Conservapedia's free speech by threatening it will obviously also find their accounts blocked.  Wikipedia will welcome your political correctness with open arms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site.  I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way.  '''LEAVE'''.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something.  The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it.  But the fact that &amp;quot;Christians&amp;quot; like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating.   Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This may be news to you, but AmesG, Myk, WhatsGoingOn, and many others have spewed their own brand of hatred, and THAT is wrong.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:And how are your responses here (and your threats of blocking, and erasure of their edits) not hatred? They post something that you disagree with, so you reply with personal attacks and slanders. Or don't you realise that it's '''wrong''' for you too? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::First and foremost, I have neither slandered nor attacked anyone.  Second, I blocked users who deliberately and willfully harmed or threatened to harn Conservapedia, and I have blocked users who refused to let a debate be a debate and instead allowed it to become hostile. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Namecalling against editors and/or Conservapedia is not allowed here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Please cite the examples of my ''own brand of hatred'', explain what was hateful about it and, if justified, I will try to mend my ways.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::fair enough...the above line, mocking the &amp;quot;trustworthy encyclopedia&amp;quot;.  Your own mockery of this site is on about every posting you have made since you got here, and you could very well be taking steps to help make this a better encyclopedia, but you're not, are you?  I would call that hatred.  If you do not like this site, you are free to edit elsewhere.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Others would call my contributions [[constructive criticism]] and welcome them as part of a drive to improve overall encyclopedic quality. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Simply phrasing something as a question does not mean it is respectful of free speech here.  I'm not inclined to block your account like the others, yet, but it's a close call.  Name-calling against editors or Conservapedia in an attempt to stifle something will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Wow. I thought you were for free speech, against censorship, and against 'stifling something.'&lt;br /&gt;
:::#13:12, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked &amp;quot;AmesG (contribs)&amp;quot; with an expiry time of 1 week (namecalling (&amp;quot;bigot&amp;quot;), also an attempt to stifle free speech by making a threat) &lt;br /&gt;
:::#13:07, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked &amp;quot;Myk (contribs)&amp;quot; with an expiry time of 1 week (for comment &amp;quot;hate spewing toy&amp;quot;; also may violate 90% talk/10% edit rule) &lt;br /&gt;
:::There is no commandment prohibiting 'namecalling' or 'hate spewing toy comments'. I dont know how your rules are more concise than wikipedia's when you have like five unwritten rules. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 13:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Free speech contains responsibility.  Just as you don't claim a right to free speech when you walk into that theater and scream &amp;quot;FIRE&amp;quot; when there is no fire, you don't claim it by name-calling here (or worse) anytime you please. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], have I somehow not been ''respectful of free speech''? &lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm not going to say you've been disrespectful of free speech, but you have been disrespectful of this site.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: In addition to Karajou's observation, the following statement (copied from above) by WhatIsGOingOn was an apparent attempt to censor Conservapedia's criticism of the official Virginia Tech poem:  &amp;quot;Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this Trustworthy Encylopedia sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?&amp;quot;  WhatIsGOingOn, if you want to censor conservative criticism, then please go to Wikipedia for that.  Don't try to censor such speech here.  And don't distract productive editors further here.  Build some good entries before more talk, talk, talk.  Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I wasn't trying to ''censor'' anything'' - I was exercising ''free speech''. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Free speech comes with responsibility.  If we here on this site are indeed doing something wrong, then be constructive about it, show us where, and offer suggestions as to improving it...don't be destructive!  We most certainly do not come into your house and rant and rave about how your house looks and expect to get away with it under the guise of free speech.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can I suggest that someone offer a definition of free speech?  I think, from reading this debate that both sides are operating under a very different definition of the term, and I suspect that if it were clear what both sides mean by the term there might be less disagreement. Those criticizing the posting of the poem see the post as an abuse of the free speech of those who posted it and see themselves as using their free speech to correct this wrong, those defending the posting of the poem see the posting of the poem as a use of free speech and the criticism of it as an attempt at censorship and/or an abuse of free speech.  (I intend that to be descriptive of the broad positions I am seeing advanced here, not as an attempt at a definition) I hope/believe that if everyone understood what the other side meant by free speech this argument could become a discussion.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Darn good request. Our article on [[Free speech]] is minty fresh, having only been started yesterday morning. Perhaps it was sparked by this feisty debate, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:23, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If I may say so, Reginod's post was a needed breath of fresh air.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let's please not get off-topic.&lt;br /&gt;
#First of all, on the main page, it is listed as the &amp;quot;official reponse&amp;quot; of the English department. This is plainly not true. This is a poem that Nikki Giovani, an extremely famous poet, said. The English Department just printed it on their webpage, that's all. Take that down.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;Denies accountability&amp;quot; Are you suggesting that the English department might be accountable for the events that transpired? Are you seriously suggesting that?&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;Environmentalism&amp;quot; Of course, not wanting Elephants killed for their ivory is indeed environmentalism, but come on, she's not trying to push that killing elephants is bad. I'm not completely sure what she's doing, but it's definitely not pushing liberalism.&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;anti-Bush&amp;quot; No. It's not anti-Bush. It's just anti-war. That's all it is, and if it's indirectly criticising Bush because he invaded Iraq, then that's fine, put &amp;quot;anti-war&amp;quot;, but don't put &amp;quot;anti-Bush.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;environmentalism&amp;quot; Okay, this is really stretching. Destabalized land is bad, that's fairly standard. I don't think that anyone here is for destabalizing land.&lt;br /&gt;
I honestly don't see anything that's agenda-pushing for anything majorly liberal, and they definitely aren't hijacking the shootings like they might have Coretta King's funeral.&lt;br /&gt;
Not only that, but you have to remember: '''this is one person'''. Just one poet. She doesn't represent every liberal in the world, and therefore, if she does something bad (which she hasn't), you can't look at it and say &amp;quot;oh, look what the liberals are doing now.&amp;quot; K, i'm done. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG|&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;|&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;|&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;|&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 14:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: GofG, I'm not ignoring you, but I'm here to build an encyclopedia and I hope that's why you're here also.  I've reviewed your edits and you seem to violate the 90%/10% [[rule]].  Please correct first and then let's talk, talk, talk.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;This is a debate page, not an article. Opinions are welcome.&amp;quot; Apparently not those who are disgusted by the way conservapedia is displaying this poem.  Like I said before, it's sad to see people who call themselves good christians acting in such a way. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Have people been blocked because of this discussion? [[User:DoonTheWater|DoonTheWater]] 23:09, 21 April 2007 (BST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:yes, [[User:AmesG]] and [[User:Myk]] ... if you scroll up a bit someone posted the block logs. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::  + This is simply another move by Mr. Schlafly to capitalize on this tragedy for his own political ends, nothing more, nothing less. It is in poor taste at best and morally bankrupt at worst. We should be ashamed. [[User:NothingVentured|NothingVentured]] 19:41, 21 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I think that it's awfully paranoid to assume some conspiracy theory after a tragedy like this. Virginia Tech did not seek to rid the world of christianity after this event (as proved by the numberous crosses/banners provided by the college) - they were a bit too busy mourning.[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:And saying &amp;quot;We did not deserve this tradgedy&amp;quot; was saying that the students weren't responsible - it's pretty low to politicize something like that. And the other remarks are true - regardless of whether your for the war or not - it's a fact that teenagers do have to avoid bombs - bombs thrown by both sides - but it's not the teenagers fault. Elephants are massacred for ivory - but it's not the elephants fault for being an elephant. And boulders are destabilized - it's hardly environmentalism. [[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Why don't we get up the full poem - just so everyone can see how biased it is. (By the way - just because god is not mentioned (p.s., he was mentioned by many speakers before this one), doesn't mean it's a secular propoganda machine)[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Poem ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Read for yourself the official response by Virginia Tech's English Department.  '''No mention of God or prayer, but many invocations of unrelated liberal causes:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are Virginia Tech&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are sad today&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We will be sad for quite a while&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are not moving on&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are embracing our mourning&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are Virginia Tech&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are brave enough to bend to cry&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;And we are sad enough to know that we must laugh again&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are Virginia Tech&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We do not understand this tragedy &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We know we did nothing to deserve it [denies accountability]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;But neither does a child in Africa&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Dying of AIDS &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Neither do the Invisible Children &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Walking the night away to avoid being captured by a rogue army [globalism]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Neither does the baby elephant watching his community&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Be devastated for ivory&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Neither does the Mexican child looking&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;For fresh water&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Neither does the Iraqi teenager dodging bombs [anti-Bush]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Neither does the Appalachian infant killed &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;By a boulder &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Dislodged &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Because the land was destabilized [environmentalism]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;No one deserves a tragedy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are Virginia Tech&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;The Hokie Nation embraces&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Our own&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;And reaches out&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;With open heart and mind&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;To those who offer their hearts and hands&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are strong&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;And brave&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;And innocent&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;And unafraid&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are better than we think&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;And not yet quite what we want to be&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are alive to imagination&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;And open to possibility&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We will continue&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;To invent the future&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Through our blood and tears&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Through all this sadness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are the Hokies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We will prevail&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We will prevail&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We will prevail&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;We are&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Virginia Tech&lt;br /&gt;
...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; [http://www.english.vt.edu/ here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Our prayers continue to go out to the victims' families of the Virginia Tech massacre.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Wow.... Just Wow..... I'm simply amazed... for crying out loud.... Since when is mentioning facts a liberal cause.... Really.... Do you deny that teenagers are dodging bombs in Iraq?  And Note, America is not the largest cause of bombs... you may have heard of Islamic Terrorists that seem to be doing a bit of detonating these days.  and Please, PLEASE explain to me what Virginia Tech did to cause the tragedy and specifically, How they deny their accountability... By the same Logic, America deserved to be attack on 9/11 and saying that we didn't makes us all liberals.... Also, please tell me how pointing out that children are being abducted and conscripted into armies in Africa is a liberal cause..... Again, using your own logic, conservatives caring about and supporting Isreal is globalism and we're all liberals. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 01:48, 13 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think its rdiiculous to criticie the poem on a site like this. The facts stated are real problems, and if you wnat to complain about them do so elsewhere. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:42, 18 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is an incorrectness in this poem. Where it says &amp;quot;the iraqi teenager dodging bombs&amp;quot; is incorrect. As the Iraq war is mostly an urban war, the main air support is attack helicopters, and helicopters don't drop bombs they fire missiles and 30mm chainguns, and as these weapons are more precise iraqi teenagers do not doge much as pilots do not deliberately fire on them. --[[User:IndigoiMac|IndigoiMac]] 13:09, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:How_should_we_view_the_fact_leading_scientists_do_not_believe_in_God%3F&amp;diff=482788</id>
		<title>Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:How_should_we_view_the_fact_leading_scientists_do_not_believe_in_God%3F&amp;diff=482788"/>
		<updated>2008-06-27T16:33:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{debate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html &lt;br /&gt;
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps one thing could be a feeling of pressure from other scientists to disclaim god?  However personally I don't think that this could fully explain these results to any degree. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 06:30, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
: I think that this is the result of evolutionary indoctrination for the last century or so.  Despite many Christians claiming that the Bible and evolution are not incompatible, I believe that it's clear that evolution (supposedly) does away with the need for God.  Add to that the peer pressure that you mentioned, and other factors, and I think it can be easily explained.&lt;br /&gt;
: In any case, your point is a fallacious argument from authority.  Evolutionary scientists keep telling us that creation is unscientific because it invokes a supernatural agent that is beyond the ability of science to study, which, if nothing else, means that these scientists cannot be authorities on the subject.  So invoking them as some sort of authority is, as I said, a fallacious argument from authority.&lt;br /&gt;
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I don't believe evolution does away with the need for god, however it does indeed attempt to refute the idea of a young earth (but then many other older beliefs do this previously, evolution merely attempts to fill in the gaps of an already presumed old earth).  If you believe an old earth scenario, then evolution does not necessarily do away with god.&lt;br /&gt;
:: As for your argument about not being able to invoke them as an authority, I do it less from the idea of them being scientists, but more from the idea that these are people who are exceptionally intelligent.  They not only have a wealth of knowledge from memory, but also have an ability to understand concepts and the application of these concepts, those in the top science academic groups are also those that can often use the concepts in new ways, invent new concepts, or bring together different concepts.  They are very likely some of the most intelligent people, and have an overwhelming disbelief.&lt;br /&gt;
:: Indoctrination of evolution just disproves a YEC view. And a lot of christians (and jews since they use the old testament too), do not see this as the truth, and that the Old Earth scenario is the truth (regardless of what is stated in the bible).  So since in the majority, old earth and belief of god (be it from merely a first cause god, a tinkering god etc etc), is the common belief, I do not believe that evolution alone can be used as this explaination.  I agree that evolution can be used to help people disbelieve in god, it doesn't do it sufficiently to any thinking man (and that is certainly what these men are).  It doesn't attempt to answer abiogenesis, the beginnings of the world, etc etc, and even if you accept evolution to a large point, there are stages that still raise questions, like how did humans become so successful, complex animals from multicelluar clumps of bacteria etc.  These are not gentlemen to just take things on faith for the most part (possibly the problem?).&lt;br /&gt;
:: Perhaps my last point leads us to another possible answer?  The scientific method is one of purely naturalistic causes, it has to be they are the only things testable by us.  Perhaps after a lifetime of living a life such as this it just leads you to believing in only the natural?  The reason the top scientists have the highest incidence of atheism is because they are the people who have followed the doctrines of science so rigorously for so long?&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:13, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: No, evolution does not do away with the need for &amp;quot;a god&amp;quot;, or as you put it, a &amp;quot;first cause&amp;quot;, but it does, as you indirectly indicate, do away with the need for the God of the Bible, which is the only real candidate that many would consider (in western society at least).&lt;br /&gt;
::: The problem with your argument that you use scientists from the point of them being exceptionally intelligent is that science was [[natural science#beginnings|founded]] (&amp;lt;-- read that if you disagree) in a Christian (creationary) world view, and most of the early scientists, in many cases the ''founders'' of various scientific fields, were creationists.  The point is that these blokes were also &amp;quot;exceptionally intelligent&amp;quot;, and not only did this not cause them to reject creation, their Christian (creationary) beliefs were the basis for their science.  So what changed?  Did the scientists after them become more intelligent?  Or did the ruling paradigm change to an evolutionary one?  The latter is the case, although in saying that I acknowledge that it is not just evolution, but the entire naturalistic view.  The idea of a Earth much older than the biblical record describes did come before Darwinian evolution, so it wasn't evolution per se that was the problem, but evolution did provide much of the justification for rejection of the creationary view.&lt;br /&gt;
::: I dispute that the scientists are not ones to take things on faith.  Microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed, yet they take it on faith that such evolution has occurred.&lt;br /&gt;
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available. I have no arguments whatsoever that the greatest scientists up until fairly recently have been creationists (young earth or old earth). It was the priesthood in victorian times that really advanced science. Sons of rich men took to the clergy and pottered around in their country villages etc observing stuff. Darwin had been fascinated with beetles and naturalism, long before he started training for the clergy (didn't find any new species, but did get the first recording of a species in england). He was training to become a priest until he stepped onto that ship, he was a big supporter of Paley. He spent 10 years after returning to england fighting with himself about his idea, knowing what implications it could lead to. Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes. Evolution seemed to give a helpful encouragement to help push this deep time, supporting it, and in turn being supported by it.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Another nice bit of trivia is that Newton, recognised by a lot as a superb scientist, spent the majority of his life not on good scientific discovery, but working on alchemy, attempting to turn lead into gold. You think he'd practice alchemy these days? Maybe fusion/fission. More knowledge = changing of opinions.&lt;br /&gt;
::::I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much. Primate specialists believed chimps were vegetarian, they also beleived pottos and lorises were all very slow-moving, where in fact it's just not true. I'm sure we could both supply a lot more examples of scientific consensus changing when new evidence is supplied.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible? The first designs of many many machines on paper do not show the actual machine working, but someone capable of understanding the design should be able to see if and how it would be possible for the machine to work.&lt;br /&gt;
::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?&lt;br /&gt;
::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available.''&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;''Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.''&amp;quot;:  True, they did gain more knowledge, but you've already claimed that this is not about their ''expertise'' in the subject, but their ''intelligence''.  This argument about having more knowledge is a reversion to the &amp;quot;scientists as an authority&amp;quot; argument that I rejected and which you said was not your point.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes.''&amp;quot;:  No, &amp;quot;deep time&amp;quot; was not based on the evidence, but on the ''assumption'' of uniformitarianism.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Newton actually spent ''most'' of his time on theology. But yes, I think you are correct in saying that he did spend time with alchemy as well.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much.''&amp;quot;:  Which misses the point that you said that your argument was about their ''intelligence'', not their knowledge of the subject.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible?''&amp;quot;:  Yes.  Faith is trust ''based on evidence''.  If they have supporting evidence, then the trust may be warranted.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''...how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?''&amp;quot;:  Some of the main proponents of evolution were ardent atheists, and not necessarily scientists, and in any case scientists are fallible human beings who have their own beliefs, and are not always following the scientific method.  To be more specific, this issue, unlike most other disputes in science, goes to the core of what people believe about who they are and whether or not they are answerable to their Creator.  Obviously they are not answerable if there is no creator, and this is what many people, including scientists, ''want''.  The pseudo-scientific theory of evolution appears to give them justification for rejecting God, and this is a large part of the reason why evolution came to be accepted.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course &amp;quot;microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed&amp;quot; - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Most of that post is simply assertion.  When Darwin proposed it, much of it's opposition came from scientists, so I'm not sure that they ''were'' convinced that quickly.  Of course it has never been observed&amp;amp;mdash;but as it hasn't been, then it's taken on ''faith''.  The &amp;quot;extrapolation&amp;quot; may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's time, but genetics actually shows that the extrapolation is invalid.  All the ''observed'' mechanisms for variation do ''not'' introduce new genetic information, but tend to destroy it.  Yet scientists &amp;quot;extrapolate&amp;quot; from this destruction of information to ''generation'' of information!  That's not extrapolation&amp;amp;mdash;that's ''blind'' faith (i.e. faith ''contrary'' to the evidence).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I have to disagree here - genetic variation rarely introduces or destroys genetic information - it, more accurately, mangles it. Usually you get two results - missense and nonsense. Missense is something that reads incorrectly - usually something small, like a substitution of one base pair for another. It can have no effect, or be harmful or beneficial. Then there's nonsense. Nonsense is when the resulting genetic code is totally, completely unreadable. This usually occurs when you get a frameshift mutation - since genes are read in codons of 3s, adding one or two base pairs or deleting one or two will 'shift' every single base pair down the chain. This results in more dire genetic disorders. Now, how this relates to evolution: missense is actually a good thing: it can introduce new alleles (variations of a gene - usually just dominant/recessive) into a population, add new genetic strings, duplicate a chromosome, etc. So long as it doesn't result in that organism being infertile or dying, it will cause a change that can be compounded in its successors. Lots of evolutionary trends can be explained by gross mutations that, by a quirk of luck, did not end up killing the organism. The best example I can think of is the duplication of the hox gene (a homeobox gene; it determines how body segments develop) in invertebrates. As you go from invertebrate to vertebrate, you find more and more copies of the hox gene; invertebrates have one, simple vertebrates have two, vertebrates with seperate, complex jaws have three. These large mutations, when they don't kill the mutant, can be passed on and slowly, gradually edited via trial and error until you have an astonishingly interesting result. The best example of genetic information being &amp;quot;introduced&amp;quot; and resulting in a beneficial (to the organism) evolution are antibacterial resistant disease strains; bacteria reproduce at an incredibly fast rate, and as such a bacterial population has quite a few different mutations and alleles in its gene pool at any given time. As such, when you expose the population to waves of antibiotics, the tiny fraction of bacteria that survive by a combination of luck and good genetics pass these genetic changes onto their offspring. Not only this, but bacteria can also pass the genetic changes on to other, non-related bacteria by conjugation and plasmid exchange. Anyways...Yeah. Kinda run out of steam, but there's a shortish explanation of the mechanisms I believe power evolution.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 00:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't see where the &amp;quot;assertion&amp;quot; is. I'm probably wrong about &amp;quot;quickly&amp;quot;, I concede, but the fact is that evolution has been accepted, and for the reasons I state. Plus of course the evidence in the form of fossils. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::: Your first four sentences are nothing but assertion.  And how are fossils evidence in support of evolution?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal. There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's (is it rhinoceri or rhinocerus's?). They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species. Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating show these fossils to be linear such as pro-sauropods into sauropods, or diverging in the case of birds and raptors. There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation' or 'flood extinctions', and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years. &lt;br /&gt;
::::Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:37, 10 March 2008&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal.''&amp;quot;:  In order to &amp;quot;support evolution&amp;quot;, the evidence (fossils in this case) has to favour one view ''over another''.  Creation also predicts a &amp;quot;rich history of different species of animal[s]&amp;quot;, so fossil are ''not'' support for evolution (over creation) in that respect.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's...''&amp;quot;:  [[Transitional form|Not according to]] people like Stephen Jay Gould, Colin Patterson, and David Raup.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species.''&amp;quot;:  They show no such thing.  Being able to arrange objects in a sequence that supports your theory doesn't mean that they &amp;quot;show&amp;quot; that that's what actually happened.  That's a case of reading the interpretation into the evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating ...''&amp;quot;: Carbon dating is unable to date back far enough to show any such thing for the examples you gave.  And all such [[radiometric dating|dating methods]] are unreliable (with some exceptions with carbon dating) and often ''presume'' the biblical history to be wrong ''a priori'', so cannot then be used to support the evolutionary view ''over'' the creationary view.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation'...''&amp;quot;:  Huh?  What's that?&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''...or 'flood extinctions...''&amp;quot;:  How are there &amp;quot;too many&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''...and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.''&amp;quot;:  See above about the unreliability of the dating methods.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: &amp;quot;''Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence''&amp;quot;:  They also provide corroborating evidence for creation and the Flood.&lt;br /&gt;
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Actually, I'd say fossils pretty well _DIS_Prove the [http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm Whole Silly Flood Story].  If all those animals really had died at once, you'd expect they'd be a lot more mixed-up, with whales and stonefish next to trilobites and Devonian fishes, instead of being neatly arranged in strata, with the animals that the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy tells us are the oldest at the bottom, and more recently-evolved ones higher up.  --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: So you know enough about flood geology to know the processes involved well enough to make predictions about how things would be buried?  The ones at the bottom are generally the ones that lived on the bottom of the seas and would have been buried first.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:09, 17 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::Actually, I'd expect the first ones to be buried would be LAND ANIMALS, who '''can't swim'''.  But instead we find invertebrate water-dwelling animals at the bottom-most layers, with the vertebrate fish appearing further up, then the amphibians, then the reptiles, THEN mammals.  A result that looks to me like it makes more sense from an evolution-based model than a Genesis-based one.  Go read the article I pointed to, it goes into a LOT more detail than I can. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:08, 18 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::: Massive undersea landslides have been noted travelling at high speeds that quickly bury anything in their paths, whether they can swim or not.  Land animals could initially escape to higher ground before being buried, particularly the larger, more mobile animals, whilst amphibians and reptiles, which can't move as fast, would be buried sooner.&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::: As far as your linked article is concerned, it has so many misrepresentations in the first two paragraphs that I didn't bother reading any further.&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::Wait, wait.  These undersea landslides move so fast that nothing can escape them.... escept the things that moved to higher ground.  Which is why we find Devonian-era giant dragonflies in the same strata as modern birds.... oh, wait.  No we don't. &lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::I am totally unsurprised you didn't read it. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One can believe in evolution and God. If we look at the theory of evolution, it is widely believed that life started from extremely simple almost non-living organisms in the thermal vents of the oceans. Who created these thermal vents? Who created the earth? Who created the sun? who created the solar system? Who created anything and everything in our universe? There has to be something. Evolution could just be a part of the way things happen. The same way an egg hatches or ice melts. It's all science.  {{unsigned|Jmela09}}&lt;br /&gt;
: See [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Are evolution and the idea of God contradictory?|here]]  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Okay.  Now, how does one go about ''scientifically'' testing for God? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 18:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::It is not possible to test for God. The only thing people have is what they read and are taught. For all we know, God may have been produced to explain the unexplainable, to take away some of the natural curiousity that comes with human nature. People have the need to believe that there is something more to life than just what we sense. We need a reason for what we do in this life and most humans need the comfort of knowing that there is a place for them when they die. Whether you believe or not, God is the only thing we have to explain the creation of our surroundings. Science is what we have to explain the ways of our surroundings.  {{unsigned|Jmela09}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I missed Gulik5' question.  My answer would be contained in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]], the section about &amp;quot;Proving God&amp;quot;, although that assumes you've read the sections prior to that.&lt;br /&gt;
::: Jmela09, I think you go too far the other way, seeming to say that we have no way of knowing.  Also, it overlooks the possibility that perhaps the &amp;quot;need to believe&amp;quot; is because God created us that way.  Why, otherwise, is there a need to believe?&lt;br /&gt;
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:36, 25 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::This is very possible, however, how can we explain the origin of the &amp;quot;need to believe&amp;quot;? What scientific evidence do we have? It seems God is proven by the individual and not by science. Some people believe their whole life and others begin believing when they feel the &amp;quot;need to believe&amp;quot;. What triggers this &amp;quot;need to believe&amp;quot;? I think it has to do with the way you view your life and experiences. The people that believe are the people that feel God has somehow touched their life or society. The idea of God is very personal and can only be explained by the individual.  {{unsigned|Jmela09}}&lt;br /&gt;
::::: I would think that everyone has a &amp;quot;need to believe&amp;quot;, but some satisfy, at least partially, that need with other answers.  It is true that many people believe in God for purely personal reasons, but it's false to say that personal feeling is the only basis for belief.  God can be deduced logically, and quite a few people have come to believe in God not because of personal experience or feelings, but because of the overwhelming evidence.  See also my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]], down to the section about proving God.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:12, 29 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Economists and people invloved in the Medical field are some of the most intelligent people in our country and they are more likely to believe in God then people of other academic fields, also most professors believe in God--&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;margin-top: -3px;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;&amp;quot;&amp;gt; [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;gray&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(contributions)&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] [[User_talk:Deborah|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;darkslategray&amp;quot;&amp;gt;(talk)&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; 18:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is not relelvant to some poeple. Personally I believe in the evolution theory and God at the same time. I think that there is already enough evidence to support the evolution theory. But I follow God's teachings on life, not where life came from. Please do not be offended but there is no evidence of God's existence. It is only a matter of faith. But for &amp;quot;scientific&amp;quot; topics like evolution I think I'd rather believe in science. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Disagree?]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: I'd say that God's existence ''is'' relevant to everyone, although not of ''interest'' to some people.  Which &amp;quot;God&amp;quot; do you believe in?  It can't be the God of the Bible, as that God is inconsistent with evolution.  And if you don't believe what God said about where life came from, why believe His other teachings?  If He got one part wrong, why think that He got another part right?  As for no evidence for God's existence, don't be offended, but you are quite wrong.  The very fact that we exist is evidence for God's existence, as naturalism, the only alternative, has no coherent explanation for it (the Big Bang:  First there was nothing, then it exploded!).  Claiming that evolution is science is begging the question, as science is about observing, testing, and repeating, things, none of which can be done with molecules-to-man evolution.  Rather, evolution is a story about the ''past'', a claim about ''history'', not science.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it's just that the scientists who do not believe in God have the thinking that if you can't see it, then it can't be real, or that they lack the depth of thought to actually believe in something. It is almost like they are intimidated by something that they can not grasp or fully understand. Either that or they don't have the full facts on the Bible and the evidence supporting it. --[[User:IndigoiMac|IndigoiMac]] 12:33, 27 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=457104</id>
		<title>Bell UH-1 Iroquois</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=457104"/>
		<updated>2008-05-20T13:29:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: Added information about the UH-1B variant. Will add more variants soon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Bell UH-1 Iroquois''' is a utility [[helicopter]] manufactured by Bell helicopter, commonly called the &amp;quot;Huey&amp;quot;. It first flew in 1956 and since then over 16,000 have been produced, making it the most produced western helicopter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier helicopters such as the Sikorsky R-4 and the Bell 47 had used piston engines. By the early 1950s turbine engines were being used in fixed wing aircraft and a turbine engine that could turn it's trust into shaft power had been developed, called the turboshaft engine. A major advantage to using a turboshaft engine in a helicopter is that they have a higher power to weight ratio, provide more power for the equivalent size and require less maintenance. the first bell helicopter to use a turboshaft engine was a modified version if the Bell 47, designated the XH-13F and first flown in October 1954. The in 1955 with United States Army needed a MEDEVAC helicopter to replace the Bell H-13 Sioux that had been used in the Korean war, and as a result the United States Army awarded Bell a contract to develop a turboshaft powered MEDEVAC helicopter, designated the XH-40. The first prototype of the XH-40 was flown by Floyd Carlson at Fort Worth on 22 October 1956. Two more prototypes were made the year after, and 18 YH-40 test aircraft were made in 1958. The Bell UH-1 soon entered service under the designation HU-1A, which is where it gets it's nickname, the &amp;quot;Huey&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Variants ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== UH-1A ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The UH-1A was the first variant of the UH-1 and had a company designation of Model 204. The UH-1A has a 44 foot diameter rotor and is powered by a Lycoming T53-L-1A turboshaft which put out 860 SHP. The Army requested 183 UH-1As and deliveries began in June 30, 1959 and were completed in 1961. The UH-1A was used for MEDEVAC in Alaska, Europe and Korea, and fifteen were deployed to Vietnam in September 1962. The fifteen that were deployed to Vietnam were fitted with an M60 machine gun on each side and a 2.75 inch 8 round rocket pod on each side making a total of 16 rockets.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== UH-1B ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The UH-1B was an improved version of the UH-1A with a more powerful Lycoming T53-L-5 turboshaft engine which developed 960 SHP. The UH-1B started its user evaluation testing on 28 November 1960 and by June of 1963 it had most light helicopter companies had transfered from the Piaseki CH-21 to the UH-1B, it also going on to eventually replace the less powerful UH-1A. It could carry a crew of 2 and 7 troops or 3 stretchers, or 2998 pounds of cargo. The UH-1B was also used as a gunship to protect the unarmed troop carriers, these gunships were fitted with four M60 machine guns and clusters of eight 2.75 inch rockets.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=438638</id>
		<title>Bell UH-1 Iroquois</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=438638"/>
		<updated>2008-04-24T05:44:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: Put in information about UH-1A. Will put in more variants soon.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Bell UH-1 Iroquois''' is a utility [[helicopter]] manufactured by Bell helicopter, commonly called the &amp;quot;Huey&amp;quot;. It first flew in 1956 and since then over 16,000 have been produced, making it the most produced western helicopter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier helicopters such as the Sikorsky R-4 and the Bell 47 had used piston engines. By the early 1950s turbine engines were being used in fixed wing aircraft and a turbine engine that could turn it's trust into shaft power had been developed, called the turboshaft engine.A major advantage to using a turboshaft engine in a helicopter is that they have a higher power to weight ratio, provide more power for the equivalent size and require less maintenance. the first bell helicopter to use a turboshaft engine was a modified version if the Bell 47, designated the XH-13F and first flown in October 1954. The in 1955 with United States Army needed a MEDEVAC helicopter to replace the Bell H-13 Sioux that had been used in the Korean war, and as a result the United States Army awarded Bell a contract to develop a turboshaft powered MEDEVAC helicopter, designated the XH-40. The first prototype of the XH-40 was flown by Floyd Carlson at Fort Worth on 22 October 1956. Two more prototypes were made the year after, and 18 YH-40 test aircraft were made in 1958. The Bell UH-1 soon entered service under the designation HU-1A, which is where it gets it's nickname, the &amp;quot;Huey&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Variants ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
UH-1A&lt;br /&gt;
The UH-1A was the first variant of the UH-1 and had a company designation of Model 204. The UH-1A has a 44 foot diameter rotor and is powered by a Lycoming T53-L-1A turboshaft which put out 860 SHP. The Army requested 183 UH-1As and deliverys began in June 30, 1959 and were completed in 1961. The UH-1A was used for MEDEVAC in Alaska, Europe and Korea, and fifteen were deployed to Vietnam in September 1962. The fifteen that were deployed to Vietnam were fitted with an M60 machine gun on each side and a 2.75 inch 8 round rocket pod on each side making a total of 16 rockets.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun&amp;diff=436757</id>
		<title>Gun</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun&amp;diff=436757"/>
		<updated>2008-04-22T11:42:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Glock30.jpg|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
The gun is a mostly defensive weapon which fires a bullet, dart or other projectile.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The four main types of modern firearms today are bolt-operated, pump action, semi-automatic, and automatic weapons. In a bolt-action weapon, each new [[round (ordnance)|round]] must be loaded manually, by moving the [[breech]] to eject the empty casing. In pump action guns (usually shotguns) a new round must be manually loaded by pulling back on pump of the gun, located underneath the barrel. In semi-automatic weapons, each pull of the trigger fires a bullet, each shot ejecting spent brass and loading new ammunition until the magazine is depleted. In fully automatic weapons, bullets will be fired as long as the trigger is depressed. Fully automatic fire will cause the gun to heat up very quickly, which can become dangerous as it can burn exposed flesh and because rounds may &amp;quot;cook off&amp;quot; or fire unexpectedly due to the chamber becoming hot enough to ignite the propellant. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Gun control==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Gun control]] consists of limitations on the fundamental right of self-defense.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Conservative]]s emphasize the [[individualism|individual]] [[the right to self-defense]] through the use of guns.  [[Liberal]]s oppose this individual right, and tend to dislike even guards or police carrying guns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Guns are shown to be highly effective at deterring crime and protecting the gun owner.  Police officers often use guns to enforce the law, except in some countries where the police are not armed. It is debatable whether unarmed police can properly protect citizens from gun-wielding criminals, as they must wait for the arrival of specialist firearms officers before being able to act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies have repeatedly shown that law-abiding citizens carrying guns are an effective deterrent against crime. Further comparison between different states by [[John Lott]] indicates that states that have more conservative gun laws have lower crime rates, violent crime rates, and firearms [[homicide]]s than states with more liberal gun laws. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Second Amendment|Guns are also a defense against a tyrannical government.]] The 20th century has proved repeatedly that a well-armed and dedicated guerrilla army can defeat even the strongest occupying army using only small arms. Thus, guns potentially act as a deterrent against a tyrannical government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science Fiction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Science fiction]], such as [[Star Trek]], has postulated many different types of directed energy weapons. These are guns that fire beams, waves, or packets of energy.  Some energy guns can be set to stun, not to wound or kill. Most firearms legislation would not classify these as firearms, so their ownership would be unrestricted, as are many non-firearm weapons such as flame throwers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Gun control]]&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nra.org The National Rifle Association] Everything firearm related. Includes information on Second Amendment rights, NRA Training and Education, Politics and Legislation pertaining to gun rights.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics from a pro-firearms perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Guns]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=436122</id>
		<title>Bell UH-1 Iroquois</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=436122"/>
		<updated>2008-04-21T14:40:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The Bell UH-1 Iroquois is a Utility helicopter manufactured by Bell helicopter, commonly called the &amp;quot;Huey&amp;quot;. It first flew in 1956 and since then over 16000 have been produced, making it the most produced western helicopter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Development ==&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier helicopters such as the Sikorsky R-4 and the Bell 47 had used piston engines. By the early 1950s turbine engines were being used in fixed wing aircraft and a turbine engine that could turn it's trust into shaft power had been developed, called the turboshaft engine.A major advantage to using a turboshaft engine in a helicopter is that they have a higher power to weight ratio, provide more power for the equivalent size and require less maintenence. the first bell helicopter to use a turboshaft engine was a modifyed version if the Bell 47, designated the XH-13F and first flown in October 1954. The in 1955 with United States Army needed a MEDEVAC helicopter to replace the Bell H-13 Sioux that had been used in the Korean war, and as a result the United States Army awarded Bell a contract to develop a turboshaft powered MEDEVAC helicopter, designated the XH-40. The first prototype of the XH-40 was flown by Floyd Carlson at Fort Worth on 22 October 1956. Two more prototypes were made the year after, and 18 YH-40 test aircraft were made in 1958. The Bell UH-1 soon entered service under the designation HU-1A, which is where it gets it's unique nickname, &amp;quot;Huey&amp;quot;.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=436095</id>
		<title>Bell UH-1 Iroquois</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=436095"/>
		<updated>2008-04-21T14:06:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The Bell UH-1 Iroquois is a Utility helicopter manufactured by Bell helicopter, commonly called the &amp;quot;Huey&amp;quot;. It first flew in 1956 and since then over 16000 have been produced, making it the most produced western helicopter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Development ==&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier helicopters such as the Sikorsky R-4 and the Bell 47 had used piston engines. By the early 1950s turbine engines were being used in fixed wing aircraft and a turbine engine that could turn it's trust into shaft power had been developed, called the turboshaft engine. A major advantage to using a turboshaft engine in a helicopter is that they have a higher power to weight ratio, provide more power for the equivalent size and require less maintenance. the first bell helicopter to use a turboshaft engine was a modified version if the Bell 47, designated the XH-13F and first flown in October 1954.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=436094</id>
		<title>Bell UH-1 Iroquois</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bell_UH-1_Iroquois&amp;diff=436094"/>
		<updated>2008-04-21T14:04:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: New page: The Bell UH-1 Iroquois is a Utility helicopter manufactured by Bell helicopter, commonly called the &amp;quot;Huey&amp;quot;. It first flew in 1956 and since then over 16000 have been produced, making it th...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The Bell UH-1 Iroquois is a Utility helicopter manufactured by Bell helicopter, commonly called the &amp;quot;Huey&amp;quot;. It first flew in 1956 and since then over 16000 have been produced, making it the most produced western helicopter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Development ==&lt;br /&gt;
Earlier helicopters such as the Sikorsky R-4 and the Bell 47 had used piston engines. By the early 1950s turbine engines were being used in fixed wing aircraft and a turbine engine that could turn it's trust into shaft power had been developed, called the turboshaft engine.A major advantage to using a turboshaft engine in a helicopter is that they have a higher power to weight ratio, provide more power for the equivalent size and require less maintenence. the first bell helicopter to use a turboshaft engine was a modifyed version if the Bell 47, designated the XH-13F and first flown in October 1954.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393755</id>
		<title>IMI Tavor TAR-21</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393755"/>
		<updated>2008-02-24T04:06:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The TAR-21 is is a gas operated, selective fire magazine fed Israeli assault rifle developed by Israeli Military Industries (now privatized as Israeli Weapons Industries). It has a bull-pup configuration and is chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Development of the Tavor assault rifle began in 1991 in close cooperation with the Israeli Defense Force to replace the M16, M4 and IMI Galil assault  rifles. The rifle first appeared in public in 1998, was tested by the IDF  from 1999-2002 and is currently in service with the IDF, slowly replacing the M16, M4 and Galil.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor has a Bull-pup configuration, meaning that the Bolt carrier group, magazine housing and other major components are placed behind the pistol grip and trigger. This design gives the Tavor a smaller overall length than the M4, while having a longer barrel length.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A smaller weapon length gives the soldier a smaller silhouette, and makes tasks like turning corners in urban warfare quicker and easier. The Tavor's design also gives it a centre of gravity towards the rear of the weapon, which makes shooting while moving easier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor utilizes a long piston stroke, rotating bolt action, with the gas piston rigidly attached to the bolt carrier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The gas cylinder is located above the barrel and is completely enclosed by the gun housing. The rotating bolt is similar to the bolt found in the M16 assault rifle and has seven lugs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is ambidextrous, the ejection port openings being on both sides of the weapon, although configuring whether the rifle ejects spent cases from the left or right side means installing the bolt with the ejector on the right or left side, and to do this requires partial disassembly. The Tavor has a red dot sight attached directly to the barrel, so the sight is always aligned with the barrel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is made out of lightweight composite materials and is designed ergonomically. The Tavor rifles are fitted with a picantinny rail on the top of the gun, and can be fitted with a 40mm grenade launcher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Variants ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor is manufactured in variants: The standard Tavor TAR 21, The Tavor CTAR 21, the STAR 21, the Micro Tavor and a civilian semi-auto only model.&lt;br /&gt;
The standard Tavor TAR-21 has a total length of 725mm, has a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3270 grams. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor CTAR 21 is a compact version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 640mm, a barrel length of 380mm, and a net weight of 3180 grams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor STAR-21  a sharpshooter/designated marksman version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 725mm, a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3670 grams. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Micro Tavor MTAR-21 is a smaller version of the Tavor that can fire either 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges that the other models fire, or can be converted to fire 9x19mm cartridges.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={4AA7FF40-97C6-4FBE-84E0-0A7296A542EC}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={594A2DDE-8307-4C77-858B-6735746A3E18}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Micro tavor MTAR-21 has a total length of 590mm, a barrel length of 330mm and a net weight of 2950 grams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/files/Pdf/MICRO_TAVOR.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393753</id>
		<title>IMI Tavor TAR-21</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393753"/>
		<updated>2008-02-24T04:05:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: /* Design */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The TAR-21 is is a gas operated, selective fire magazine fed Israeli assault rifle developed by Israeli Military Industries (now privatized as Israeli Weapons Industries). It has a bull-pup configuration and is chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Development of the Tavor assault rifle began in 1991 in close cooperation with the Israeli Defense Force to replace the M16, M4 and IMI Galil assault  rifles. The rifle first appeared in public in 1998, was tested by the IDF  from 1999-2002 and is currently in service with the IDF, slowly replacing the M16, M4 and Galil.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor has a Bull-pup configuration, meaning that the Bolt carrier group, magazine housing and other major components are placed behind the pistol grip and trigger. This design gives the Tavor a smaller overall length than the M4, while having a longer barrel length.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A smaller weapon length gives the soldier a smaller silhouette, and makes tasks like turning corners in urban warfare quicker and easier. The Tavor's design also gives it a centre of gravity towards the rear of the weapon, which makes shooting while moving easier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor utilizes a long piston stroke, rotating bolt action, with the gas piston rigidly attached to the bolt carrier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The gas cylinder is located above the barrel and is completely enclosed by the gun housing. The rotating bolt is similar to the bolt found in the M16 assault rifle and has seven lugs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is ambidextrous, the ejection port openings being on both sides of the weapon, although configuring whether the rifle ejects spent cases from the left or right side means installing the bolt with the ejector on the right or left side, and to do this requires partial disassembly. The Tavor has a red dot sight attached directly to the barrel, so the sight is always aligned with the barrel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is made out of lightweight composite materials and is designed ergonomically. The Tavor rifles are fitted with a picantinny rail on the top of the gun, and can be fitted with a 40mm grenade launcher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Variants ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor is manufactured in variants: The standard Tavor TAR 21, The Tavor CTAR 21, the STAR 21, the Micro Tavor and a civilian semi-auto only model.&lt;br /&gt;
The standard Tavor TAR-21 has a total length of 725mm, has a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3270 grams. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor CTAR 21 is a compact version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 640mm, a barrel length of 380mm, and a net weight of 3180 grams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor STAR-21  a sharpshooter/designated marksman version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 725mm, a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3670 grams. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Micro Tavor MTAR-21 is a smaller version of the Tavor that can fire either 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges that the other models fire, or can be converted to fire 9x19mm cartridges.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={4AA7FF40-97C6-4FBE-84E0-0A7296A542EC}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={594A2DDE-8307-4C77-858B-6735746A3E18}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Micro tavor MTAR-21 has a total length of 590mm, a barrel length of 330mm and a net weight of 2950 grams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/files/Pdf/MICRO_TAVOR.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Refernences ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393752</id>
		<title>IMI Tavor TAR-21</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393752"/>
		<updated>2008-02-24T04:01:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The TAR-21 is is a gas operated, selective fire magazine fed Israeli assault rifle developed by Israeli Military Industries (now privatized as Israeli Weapons Industries). It has a bull-pup configuration and is chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Development of the Tavor assault rifle began in 1991 in close cooperation with the Israeli Defense Force to replace the M16, M4 and IMI Galil assault  rifles. The rifle first appeared in public in 1998, was tested by the IDF  from 1999-2002 and is currently in service with the IDF, slowly replacing the M16, M4 and Galil.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor has a Bull-pup configuration, meaning that the Bolt carrier group, magazine housing and other major components are placed behind the pistol grip and trigger. This design gives the Tavor a smaller overall length than the M4, while having a longer barrel length.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A smaller weapon length gives the soldier a smaller silhouette, and makes tasks like turning corners in urban warfare quicker and easier. The Tavor's design also gives it a centre of gravity towards the rear of the weapon, which makes shooting while moving easier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor utilizes a long piston stroke, rotating bolt action, with the gas piston rigidly attached to the bolt carrier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The gas cylinder is located above the barrel and is completely enclosed by the gun housing. The rotating bolt is similar to the bolt found in the M16 assault rifle and has seven lugs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is ambidextrous, the ejection port openings being on both sides of the weapon, although configuring wether the rifle ejects spent cases from the left or right side means installing the bolt with the ejector on the right or left side, and to do this requires partial disassembly. The Tavor has a red dot sight attached directly to the barrel, so the sight is always aligned with the barrel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is made out of lightweight composite materials and is designed ergonomically. The Tavor rifles are fitted with a picantinny rail on the top of the gun, and can be fitted with a 40mm grenade launcher. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Variants ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor is manufactured in variants: The standard Tavor TAR 21, The Tavor CTAR 21, the STAR 21, the Micro Tavor and a civilian semi-auto only model.&lt;br /&gt;
The standard Tavor TAR-21 has a total length of 725mm, has a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3270 grams. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor CTAR 21 is a compact version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 640mm, a barrel length of 380mm, and a net weight of 3180 grams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor STAR-21  a sharpshooter/designated marksman version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 725mm, a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3670 grams. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Micro Tavor MTAR-21 is a smaller version of the Tavor that can fire either 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges that the other models fire, or can be converted to fire 9x19mm cartridges.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={4AA7FF40-97C6-4FBE-84E0-0A7296A542EC}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={594A2DDE-8307-4C77-858B-6735746A3E18}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Micro tavor MTAR-21 has a total length of 590mm, a barrel length of 330mm and a net weight of 2950 grams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/files/Pdf/MICRO_TAVOR.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Refernences ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393751</id>
		<title>IMI Tavor TAR-21</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393751"/>
		<updated>2008-02-24T03:58:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The TAR-21 is is a gas operated, selective fire magazine fed Israeli assault rifle developed by Israeli Military Industries (now privatized as Israeli Weapons Industries). It has a bull-pup configuration and is chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Development of the Tavor assault rifle began in 1991 in close cooperation with the Israeli Defense Force to replace the M16, M4 and IMI Galil assault  rifles. The rifle first appeared in public in 1998, was tested by the IDF  from 1999-2002 and is currently in service with the IDF, slowly replacing the M16, M4 and Galil.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor has a Bull-pup configuration, meaning that the Bolt carrier group, magazine housing and other major components are placed behind the pistol grip and trigger. This design gives the Tavor a smaller overall length than the M4, while having a longer barrel length.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A smaller weapon length gives the soldier a smaller silhouette, and makes tasks like turning corners in urban warfare quicker and easier. The Tavor's design also gives it a centre of gravity towards the rear of the weapon, which makes shooting while moving easier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor utilizes a long piston stroke, rotating bolt action, with the gas piston rigidly attached to the bolt carrier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The gas cylinder is located above the barrel and is completely enclosed by the gun housing. The rotating bolt is similar to the bolt found in the M16 assault rifle and has seven lugs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is ambidextrous, the ejection port openings being on both sides of the weapon, although configuring wether the rifle ejects spent cases from the left or right side means installing the bolt with the ejector on the right or left side, and to do this requires partial disassembly. The Tavor has a red dot sight attached directly to the barrel, so the sight is always aligned with the barrel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is made out of lightweight composite materials and is designed ergonomically. The Tavor rifles are fitted with a picantinny rail on the top of the gun, and can be fitted with a 40mm grenade launcher. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Variants ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor is manufactured in variants: The standard Tavor TAR 21, The Tavor CTAR 21, the STAR 21, the Micro Tavor and a civilian semi-auto only model.&lt;br /&gt;
The standard Tavor TAR-21 has a total length of 725mm, has a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3270 grams. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor CTAR 21 is a compact version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 640mm, a barrel length of 380mm, and a net weight of 3180 grams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor STAR-21  a sharpshooter/designated marksman version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 725mm, a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3670 grams. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The Micro Tavor MTAR-21 is a smaller version of the Tavor that can fire either 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges that the other models fire, or can be converted to fire 9x19mm cartridges.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={4AA7FF40-97C6-4FBE-84E0-0A7296A542EC}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={594A2DDE-8307-4C77-858B-6735746A3E18}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Micro tavor MTAR-21 has a total length of 590mm, a barrel length of 330mm and a net weight of 2950 grams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/files/Pdf/MICRO_TAVOR.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393750</id>
		<title>IMI Tavor TAR-21</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=393750"/>
		<updated>2008-02-24T03:55:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The TAR-21 is is a gas operated, selective fire magazine fed Israeli assault rifle developed by Israeli Military Industries (now privatized as Israeli Weapons Industries). It has a bull-pup configuration and is chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Development of the Tavor assault rifle began in 1991 in close cooperation with the Israeli Defense Force to replace the M16, M4 and IMI Galil assault  rifles. The rifle first appeared in public in 1998, was tested by the IDF  from 1999-2002 and is currently in service with the IDF, slowly replacing the M16, M4 and Galil.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor has a Bull-pup configuration, meaning that the Bolt carrier group, magazine housing and other major components are placed behind the pistol grip and trigger. This design gives the Tavor a smaller overall length than the M4, while having a longer barrel length.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A smaller weapon length gives the soldier a smaller silhouette, and makes tasks like turning corners in urban warfare quicker and easier. The Tavor's design also gives it a centre of gravity towards the rear of the weapon, which makes shooting while moving easier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Tavor utilizes a long piston stroke, rotating bolt action, with the gas piston rigidly attached to the bolt carrier.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The gas cylinder is located above the barrel and is completely enclosed by the gun housing. The rotating bolt is similar to the bolt found in the M16 assault rifle and has seven lugs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is ambidextrous, the ejection port openings being on both sides of the weapon, although configuring wether the rifle ejects spent cases from the left or right side means installing the bolt with the ejector on the right or left side, and to do this requires partial disassembly. The Tavor has a red dot sight attached directly to the barrel, so the sight is always aligned with the barrel.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The rifle is made out of lightweight composite materials and is designed ergonomically. The Tavor rifles are fitted with a picantinny rail on the top of the gun, and can be fitted with a 40mm grenade launcher. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Variants ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor is manufactured in variants: The standard Tavor TAR 21, The Tavor CTAR 21, the STAR 21, the Micro Tavor and a civilian semi-auto only model.&lt;br /&gt;
The standard Tavor TAR-21 has a total length of 725mm, has a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3270 grams.http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}  &lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor CTAR 21 is a compact version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 640mm, a barrel length of 380mm, and a net weight of 3180 grams.http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor STAR-21  a sharpshooter/designated marksman version of the TAR-21 and has a total length of 725mm, a barrel length of 460mm and a net weight of 3670 grams. http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={BE33B6E6-080B-45B8-AD85-C4E1E40D0422}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={122B7EE5-1F2D-4484-9FE4-B47C746BC62A}&lt;br /&gt;
The Micro Tavor MTAR-21 is a smaller version of the Tavor that can fire either 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges that the other models fire, or can be converted to fire 9x19mm cartridges.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/default.asp?catid={4AA7FF40-97C6-4FBE-84E0-0A7296A542EC}&amp;amp;details_type=1&amp;amp;itemid={594A2DDE-8307-4C77-858B-6735746A3E18}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The Micro tavor MTAR-21 has a total length of 590mm, a barrel length of 330mm and a net weight of 2950 grams.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.israel-weapon.com/files/Pdf/MICRO_TAVOR.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=392731</id>
		<title>IMI Tavor TAR-21</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=392731"/>
		<updated>2008-02-22T05:12:34Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The TAR-21 is is a gas operated, selective fire magazine fed Israeli assault rifle developed by Israeli Military Industries (now privatized as Israeli Weapons Industries). It has a bull-pup configuration and is chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Development of the Tavor assault rifle began in 1991 in close cooperation with the Israeli Defense Force to replace the M16, M4 and IMI Galil assault  rifles. The rifle first appeared in public in 1998, was tested by the IDF  from 1999-2002 and is currently in service with the IDF, slowly replacing the M16, M4 and Galil. The Tavor has a Bull-pup configuration, meaning that the Bolt carrier group, magazine housing and other major components are placed behind the pistol grip and trigger. This design gives the Tavor a smaller overall length than the M4, while having a longer barrel length. A smaller weapon length gives the soldier a smaller silhouette, and makes tasks like turning corners in urban warfare quicker and easier. The Tavor's design also gives it a centre of gravity towards the rear of the weapon, which makes shooting while moving easier. The Tavor utilizes a long piston stroke, rotating bolt action, with the gas piston rigidly attached to the bolt carrier. The gas cylinder is located above the barrel and is completely enclosed by the gun housing. The rotating bolt is similar to one found in the M16 rifle and has seven lugs. The rifle is ambidextrous, the ejection port openings being on both sides of the weapon, although configuring wether the rifle ejects spent cases from the left or right side means installing the bolt with the ejector on the right or left side, and to do this requires partial disassembly. The Tavor has a red dot sight attached directly to the barrel, so the sight is always aligned with the barrel. The rifle is made out of lightweight composite materials and is designed ergonomically. The Tavor rifles are fitted with a picantinny rail on the top of the gun, and can be fitted with a 40mm grenade launcher. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Variants ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Tavor is manufactured in variants: The standard Tavor TAR 21, The Tavor CTAR 21, the STAR 21, the Micro Tavor and a civilian semi-auto only model.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=392728</id>
		<title>IMI Tavor TAR-21</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=IMI_Tavor_TAR-21&amp;diff=392728"/>
		<updated>2008-02-22T04:59:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: New page: The TAR-21 is is a gas operated, selective fire magazine fed Israeli assault rifle developed by Israeli Military Industries (now privatized as Israeli Weapons Industries). It has a bull-pu...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The TAR-21 is is a gas operated, selective fire magazine fed Israeli assault rifle developed by Israeli Military Industries (now privatized as Israeli Weapons Industries). It has a bull-pup configuration and is chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO cartridges. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Design ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Development of the Tavor assault rifle began in 1991 in close cooperation with the Israeli Defense Force to replace the M16, M4 and IMI Galil assault  rifles. The rifle first appeared in public in 1998, was tested by the IDF  from 1999-2002 and is currently in service with the IDF, slowly replacing the M16, M4 and Galil. The Tavor has a Bull-pup configuration, meaning that the Bolt carrier group, magazine housing and other major components are placed behind the pistol grip and trigger. This design gives the Tavor a smaller overall length than the M4, while having a longer barrel length. A smaller weapon length gives the soldier a smaller silhouette, and makes tasks like turning corners in urban warfare quicker and easier. The Tavor utilizes a long piston stroke, rotating bolt action, with the gas piston rigidly attached to the bolt carrier. The gas cylinder is located above the barrel and is completely enclosed by the gun housing. The rotating bolt is similar to one found in the M16 rifle and has seven lugs. The rifle is ambidextrous, the ejection port openings being on both sides of the weapon, although configuring wether the rifle ejects spent cases from the left or right side means installing the bolt with the ejector on the right or left side, and to do this requires partial disassembly. The Tavor has a red dot sight attached directly to the barrel, so the sight is always aligned with the barrel. The rifle is made out of lightweight composite materials and is designed ergonomically. The Tavor rifles are fitted with a picantinny rail on the top of the gun, and can be fitted with a 40mm grenade launcher.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392489</id>
		<title>Glock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392489"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T16:24:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: /* Survival Knives */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe action pistols, and also makes survival knives and entrenching tools. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pistols ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock's line of pistols were first developed in the early 1980s to replace the Walther P38 service pistol in the Austrian army. Since then, the Glock 17 and its variants have become quite popular as military and law enforcement firearms, being exported in more than 50 countries. Glock pistols are chambered for all major pistol cartridges, including the 9x17mm Short, 9x19mm Luger, .357SIG, .40SW, 10mm auto, .45ACP and the .45 GAP.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg15-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Glock pistols have a unique safe action mechanism and, unlike most handguns, do not have any external safety on/off lever. No external safety lever means that there is no risk of the shooter either forgetting or not realizing that the safety is on in an emergency situation. The Glock handguns are prevented from being fired accidentally by the user by a triple safety system, dubbed the safe action trigger by Glock.  The safe action mechanism includes  a drop safety which prevents the handgun from firing if dropped. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_adv04.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Survival Knives ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock currently makes two models of survival knives, the Field Knife 78, which is a classic army knife, and the Survival Knife 81, which is similar to the Field Knife 78 but has a saw at the back of the blade. Both knives have a safety sheath made out of the Glock polymer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Entrenching Tools ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Glock entrenching tool is a spade which can be transformed into a shovel and a hoe, and the end of the handle can be pulled out to make a saw. The entrenching tool also folds up and stores in a nylon pouch which  can be attached to a belt, a backpack etc.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&amp;diff=392450</id>
		<title>National Rifle Association</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&amp;diff=392450"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T15:55:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|National Rifle Association logo|thumb|250px]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''National Rifle Association''' (or '''NRA''') is an advocacy group which promotes the right to bear arms as well as promoting interest in shooting sports. It runs training classes in gun use and safety, and publishes magazines of interest to gun owners. It is also dedicated to protecting Americans' [[Second Amendment]] rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NRA was founded after the [[American Civil War]] by former Union soldiers seeking to improve the shooting skills of the population at large. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NRA is non-partisan and has endorsed both [[Republican Party|Republicans]] and [[Democratic Party|Democrats]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2004 the NRA successfully opposed renewal of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994, which banned many features of certain semiautomatic rifles and certain types of removable magazines, against a campaign to make the ban permanent and expand it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=886&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The ban expired at midnight, September 13, 2004.{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NRA owns and operates the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia, which is free to the public.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prominent Members==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Michael Moore]]{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
*[[George H.W. Bush]] (resigned 1995)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Charlton Heston]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Larry Craig]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mitt Romney]] (since August 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dick Cheney]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ted Nugent]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Dingell]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Hunter S. Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.nra.org National Rifle Association]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Politics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&amp;diff=392443</id>
		<title>National Rifle Association</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&amp;diff=392443"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T15:48:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|National Rifle Association logo|thumb|250px]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''National Rifle Association''' (or '''NRA''') is an advocacy group which promotes the right to bear arms as well as promoting interest in shooting sports. It runs training classes in gun use and safety, and publishes magazines of interest to gun owners. It is also dedicated to protecting Americans' [[Second Amendment]] rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NRA was founded after the [[American Civil War]] by former Union soldiers seeking to improve the shooting skills of the population at large. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NRA is non-partisan and has endorsed both [[Republican Party|Republicans]] and [[Democratic Party|Democrats]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2004 the NRA successfully opposed renewal of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994, which banned many features of certain semiautomatic rifles and certain types of removable magazines, against a campaign to make the ban permanent and expand it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=886&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The ban expired at midnight, September 13, 2004.{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The NRA owns and operates the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia, which is free to the public.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Prominent Members==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Michael Moore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[George H.W. Bush]] (resigned 1995)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Charlton Heston]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Larry Craig]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mitt Romney]] (since August 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dick Cheney]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ted Nugent]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Dingell]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Hunter S. Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.nra.org National Rifle Association]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Politics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392436</id>
		<title>Glock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392436"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T15:35:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: /* Pistols */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe action pistols, and also makes survival knives and entrenching tools. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pistols ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock's line of pistols were first developed in the early 1980s to replace the Walther P38 service pistol in the Austrian army. Since then, the Glock 17 and its variants have become quite popular as military and law enforcement firearms, being exported in more than 50 countries. Glock pistols are chambered for all major pistol cartridges, including the 9x17mm Short, 9x19mm Luger, .357SIG, .40SW, 10mm auto, .45ACP and the .45 GAP.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg15-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Glock pistols have a unique safe action mechanism and, unlike most handguns, do not have any external safety on/off lever. No external safety lever means that there is no risk of the shooter either forgetting or not realizing that the safety is on in an emergency situation. The Glock handguns are prevented from being fired accidentally by the user by a triple safety system, dubbed the safe action trigger by Glock.  The safe action mechanism includes  a drop safety which prevents the handgun from firing if dropped. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_adv04.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Survival Knives ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock currently makes two models of survival knives, the Field Knife 78, Which is a classic army knife, and the Survival Knife 81, Which is similar to the field knife 78 but has a saw at the back of the blade. Both knives have a safety sheath made out of the Glock polymer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Entrenching Tools ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Glock entrenching tool is a spade which can be transformed into a shovel and a hoe, and the end of the handle can be pulled out to make a saw. The entrenching tool also folds up and stores in a nylon pouch which  can be attached to a belt, a backpack etc.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392433</id>
		<title>Glock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392433"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T15:33:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: /* Pistols */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe action pistols, and also makes survival knives and entrenching tools. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pistols ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock's line of pistols were first developed in the early 1980s to replace the Walther P38 service pistol in the Austrian army. Since then, the Glock 17 and its variants have become quite popular as military and law enforcement firearms, being exported in more than 50 countries. Glock pistols are chambered for all major pistol cartridges, including the 9x17mm Short, 9x19mm Luger, .357SIG, .40SW, 10mm auto .45ACP and the .45 GAP.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg15-e.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Glock pistols have a unique safe action mechanism and, unlike most handguns, do not have any external safety on/off lever. No external safety lever means that there is no risk of the shooter either forgetting or not realizing that the safety is on in an emergency situation. The Glock handguns are prevented from being fired accidentally by the user by a triple safety system, dubbed the safe action trigger by Glock.  The safe action mechanism includes  a drop safety which prevents the handgun from firing if dropped. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_adv04.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Survival Knives ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock currently makes two models of survival knives, the Field Knife 78, Which is a classic army knife, and the Survival Knife 81, Which is similar to the field knife 78 but has a saw at the back of the blade. Both knives have a safety sheath made out of the Glock polymer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Entrenching Tools ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Glock entrenching tool is a spade which can be transformed into a shovel and a hoe, and the end of the handle can be pulled out to make a saw. The entrenching tool also folds up and stores in a nylon pouch which  can be attached to a belt, a backpack etc.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392414</id>
		<title>Glock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392414"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T15:20:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: /* Pistols */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe action pistols, and also makes survival knives and entrenching tools. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pistols ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock's line of pistols were first developed in the early 1980s to replace the Walther P38 service pistol in the Austrian army. Glock pistols have a unique safe action mechanism and, unlike most handguns, do not have any external safety on/off lever. No external safety lever means that there is no risk of the shooter either forgetting or not realizing that the safety is on in an emergency situation. The Glock handguns are prevented from being fired accidentally by the user by a triple safety system, dubbed the safe action trigger by Glock.  The safe action mechanism includes  a drop safety which prevents the handgun from firing if dropped. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_adv04.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Survival Knives ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock currently makes two models of survival knives, the Field Knife 78, Which is a classic army knife, and the Survival Knife 81, Which is similar to the field knife 78 but has a saw at the back of the blade. Both knives have a safety sheath made out of the Glock polymer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Entrenching Tools ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Glock entrenching tool is a spade which can be transformed into a shovel and a hoe, and the end of the handle can be pulled out to make a saw. The entrenching tool also folds up and stores in a nylon pouch which  can be attached to a belt, a backpack etc.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392411</id>
		<title>Glock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392411"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T15:19:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: /* Pistols */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe action pistols, and also makes survival knives and entrenching tools. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pistols ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock's line of pistols were first developed in the early 1980s to replace the Walther P38 service pistol in the Austrian army. Glock pistols have a unique safe action mechanism and, unlike most handguns, do not have any external safety on/off lever. No external safety lever means that there is no risk of the shooter either forgetting or not realizing that the safety is on in an emergency situation. The Glock handguns are prevented from being fired accidentally by the user by a triple safety system, dubbed the safe action trigger by the manufacturer.  The safe action mechanism includes  a drop safety which prevents the handgun from firing if dropped. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_adv04.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Survival Knives ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock currently makes two models of survival knives, the Field Knife 78, Which is a classic army knife, and the Survival Knife 81, Which is similar to the field knife 78 but has a saw at the back of the blade. Both knives have a safety sheath made out of the Glock polymer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Entrenching Tools ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Glock entrenching tool is a spade which can be transformed into a shovel and a hoe, and the end of the handle can be pulled out to make a saw. The entrenching tool also folds up and stores in a nylon pouch which  can be attached to a belt, a backpack etc.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392410</id>
		<title>Glock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392410"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T15:17:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe action pistols, and also makes survival knives and entrenching tools. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pistols ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock's line of pistols were first developed in the early 1980s to Walther P38 service pistol in the Austrian army. Glock pistols have a unique safe action mechanism and, unlike most handguns, do not have any external safety on/off lever. No external safety lever means that there is no risk of the shooter either forgetting or not realizing that the safety is on in an emergency situation. The Glock handguns are prevented from being fired accidentally by the user by a triple safety system, dubbed the safe action trigger by the manufacturer.  The safe action mechanism includes  a drop safety which prevents the handgun from firing if dropped. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_adv04.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Survival Knives ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock currently makes two models of survival knives, the Field Knife 78, Which is a classic army knife, and the Survival Knife 81, Which is similar to the field knife 78 but has a saw at the back of the blade. Both knives have a safety sheath made out of the Glock polymer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Entrenching Tools ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Glock entrenching tool is a spade which can be transformed into a shovel and a hoe, and the end of the handle can be pulled out to make a saw. The entrenching tool also folds up and stores in a nylon pouch which  can be attached to a belt, a backpack etc.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/index_impressum.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392402</id>
		<title>Glock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392402"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T15:08:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe action pistols, and also makes survival knives and entrenching tools. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pistols ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock's line of pistols were first developed in the early 1980s to Walther P38 service pistol in the Austrian army. Glock pistols have a unique safe action mechanism and, unlike most handguns, do not have any external safety on/off lever. No external safety lever means that there is no risk of the shooter either forgetting or not realizing that the safety is on in an emergency situation. The Glock handguns are prevented from being fired accidentally by the user by a triple safety system, dubbed the safe action trigger by the manufacturer.  The safe action mechanism includes  a drop safety which prevents the handgun from firing if dropped.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Survival Knives ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock currently makes two models of survival knives, the Field Knife 78, Which is a classic army knife, and the Survival Knife 81, Which is similar to the field knife 78 but has a saw at the back of the blade. Both knives have a safety sheath made out of the Glock polymer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Entrenching Tools ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Glock entrenching tool is a spade which can be transformed into a shovel and a hoe, and the end of the handle can be pulled out to make a saw. The entrenching tool also folds up and stores in a nylon pouch which  can be attached to a belt, a backpack etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392400</id>
		<title>Glock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392400"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T15:07:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe action pistols, and also makes survival knives and entrenching tools. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pistols ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock's line of pistols were first developed in the early 1980s to Walther P38 service pistol in the Austrian army. Glock pistols have a unique safe action mechanism and, unlike most handguns, do not have any external safety on/off lever. No external safety lever means that there is no risk of the shooter either forgetting or not realizing that the safety is on in an emergency situation. The Glock handguns are prevented from being fired accidentally by the user by a triple safety system, dubbed the safe action trigger by the manufacturer.  The safe action mechanism includes  a drop safety which prevents the handgun from firing if dropped. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_adv04.htm&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Survival Knives ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock currently makes two models of survival knives, the Field Knife 78, Which is a classic army knife, and the Survival Knife 81, Which is similar to the field knife 78 but has a saw at the back of the blade. Both knives have a safety sheath made out of the Glock polymer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Entrenching Tools ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Glock entrenching tool is a spade which can be transformed into a shovel and a hoe, and the end of the handle can be pulled out to make a saw. The entrenching tool also folds up and stores in a nylon pouch which  can be attached to a belt, a backpack etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392392</id>
		<title>Glock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Glock&amp;diff=392392"/>
		<updated>2008-02-21T14:41:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: New page: Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe actio...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Glock GmbH is a weapons and survival tools manufacturer founded by Gaston Glock in 1963 and headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. The company is most famous for its range of safe action pistols, and also makes survival knives and entrenching tools. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pistols ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glock's line of pistols were first developed in the early 1980s to Walther P38 service pistol in the Austrian army. Glock pistols have a unique safe action mechanism and, unlike most handguns, do not have any external safety on/off lever. No external safety lever means that there is no risk of the shooter either forgetting or not realizing that the safety is on in an emergency situation. The Glock handguns are prevented from being fired accidentally by the user by a triple safety system, dubbed the safe action trigger by the manufacturer.  The safe action mechanism includes  a drop safety which prevents the handgun from firing if dropped.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&amp;diff=368090</id>
		<title>Gun control</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&amp;diff=368090"/>
		<updated>2008-01-11T03:34:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;IndigoiMac: /* The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The introduction of '''gun control''' means restricting the purchase or ownership of guns and the recall of guns by law-abiding citizens.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gun control is a denial by [[government]]s of the right to armed self-defense.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Washington University Law Quarterly&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;quot;In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect.&amp;quot; [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proponents use the discredited&amp;amp;mdash;but superficially appealing&amp;amp;mdash;claim that fewer guns somehow leads to less crime.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns.  Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The political effect of gun control is to increase the dependence of voters on government for protection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==&lt;br /&gt;
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: self-defense.  In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by at least a factor of 100 to 1,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;(Fill in cite here about percentage of guns used for unlawful purposes.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect.  &amp;quot;[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Gallup_LAT&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;quot;This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times.&amp;quot; (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;quot;In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been &amp;quot;scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Gallup_LAT&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% when the national average ''increased'' by 15%.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Gallup_LAT&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;quot;Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Source data:  Australian Bureau of Statistics&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was a short-term increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gun control passed in Australia because &amp;quot;public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press&amp;quot; after the &amp;quot;Port Arthur massacre&amp;quot; in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured.  &amp;quot;Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were &amp;quot;clear&amp;quot;) and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures.  This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come.&amp;quot; - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Results&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun &amp;quot;Buyback&amp;quot; &amp;amp; New Gun Laws], October 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Subsequent to gun control in England:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government.  In [[Britain]], for example, the enactment of a ban on most handguns in February 1997&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;As in Australia, gun control passed in [[Britain]] based on a highly publicized but isolated and statistically insignificant act of violence.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; resulted in the [[Labour Party]] winning a landslide 179 seat majority in the general election later that year, the first time it exceeded 40% of the popular vote in over 25 years. The new government soon extended the ban to cover nearly all handguns, and the [[Labour Party]] has remained in power in [[Britain]] for over a decade.  In [[Australia]],the passage of gun control in 1996 and its expansion in 2002 has led to a complete takeover of all nine federal, state and territory legislatures by the Labor Party, the first time a single party has ever achieved this in Australian history, although the Labour party's leader, Kevin Rudd, supports guns.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Sydney Morning Herald - [http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/either-way-its-history-in-the-making/2007/11/23/1195753310949.html Either way, it's history in the making]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) - [http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/ 2007 Federal Election]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Trends ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights.  The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines.  This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]].  Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Libertarian]]s and [[conservative]]s point out that whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms. For instance, despite the prohibition of handgun ownership in the [[United Kingdom]], an island nation without any neighboring &amp;quot;gun culture&amp;quot; nations, handgun crime has been steadily increasing there for many years. As of 2005/06, the total deaths by shooting in the UK had increased to 50.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Comparably, the United States suffered 11,350 gun deaths in 2005.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it should be noted that the USA has a population approximately 5 times greater than the UK, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;FactMonster - [http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004997.html Total U.S. Population]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and the number of murders by shooting is approximately 200 times higher.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gun control laws have been enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to own [[firearms]].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Second Amendment reads: &amp;quot;A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;right to keep and bear arms&amp;quot; is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase &amp;quot;a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state&amp;quot; precedes the statement, and most federal circuits [[courts of appeals]] have held that this phrase requires that the &amp;quot;right to bear arms&amp;quot; relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired.  Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&amp;amp;oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Overview==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gun control&amp;quot; can include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Restricting which persons can own firearms.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period&lt;br /&gt;
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, &amp;quot;handguns&amp;quot; or assault rifles&lt;br /&gt;
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices&lt;br /&gt;
* Requiring a &amp;quot;background check&amp;quot; and/or a &amp;quot;waiting period&amp;quot; to purchase a firearm&lt;br /&gt;
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail&lt;br /&gt;
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm&lt;br /&gt;
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly&lt;br /&gt;
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.  &lt;br /&gt;
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public&lt;br /&gt;
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:&lt;br /&gt;
* National Firearms Act (1934)&lt;br /&gt;
* Gun Control Act (1968)&lt;br /&gt;
* Brady Bill (1993)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Constitutional Debate==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to &amp;quot;the right of the People&amp;quot; instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Racism of gun control==&lt;br /&gt;
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State &amp;quot;Slave Codes&amp;quot; prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed &amp;quot;Black Codes.&amp;quot; They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' to uphold slavery.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, &amp;quot;Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,&amp;quot; 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to &amp;quot;facially neutral&amp;quot; business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a &amp;quot;prohibitive tax...on the privilege&amp;quot; of selling handguns as a way of disarming &amp;quot;the son of Ham,&amp;quot; whose &amp;quot;cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.&amp;quot; [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, &amp;quot;Gun Control and Racism,&amp;quot; Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today, &amp;quot;gun control&amp;quot; laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among &amp;quot;unpopular&amp;quot; populations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Gun sweeps&amp;quot; by police in &amp;quot;high crime neighborhoods&amp;quot; whereby vehicles and &amp;quot;pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon&amp;quot; are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as &amp;quot;Operation Ceasefire.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;quot;Project Exile&amp;quot; began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gun control outside the USA ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors.  For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world.  It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gun control supporters also cite [[Japan]], where firearms are illegal and crime rates are relatively low.  But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime.  Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest [[airsoft]] gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gun Control and Genocide ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gun control &amp;quot;contributes to the probability of its government engaging&amp;quot; in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.&amp;quot; [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Washington University Law Quarterly&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated &amp;quot;No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth.&amp;quot;  &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Volokh&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adolph Hitler said, &amp;quot;The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Volokh&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other terms==&lt;br /&gt;
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:&lt;br /&gt;
* Rights restriction&lt;br /&gt;
* Victim disarmament&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>IndigoiMac</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>