PING: William Graham!

In article V0Ukd.283472$a85.23475@fed1read04,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Whew!!
See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom here, which
lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines???
Good grief.
You've too much time on your hands.

I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that?
OK. You've been told.
Type 'til the cows come home...

I call everyone to note that once again Mark has utterly refused to back
up his claim that Al Jazeera never broadcasts criticism by Muslim
clerics of Islamic terrorism & refuses to answer the extremely simple
question of exactly how often he has watched Al Jazeera, or refuses to
retract his claim when he cannot produce even the most meager shred of
evidence to support it, even though he demanded on November 2 that I
back up my own claims about what Bush "said" or retract them, which I
did indeed retract unequivocally in the very first article I posted in
reply to his challenge, on November 4 only 2 days after he made it. But
Mark has refused to act in exactly the same way, with no difference
whatsoever, that he expects me to act, since he was first challenged on
the Al Jazeera issue on November 1. He is now giving the flimsy &
utterly transparent excuse that my articles are too long & rambling,
even when the article is a mere 115 lines, which is a trivial length for
Usenet.

Mark is a blazing hypocrite, who expects me to do exactly what he
himself consistently refuses to do, even though I do it without
hesitation or equivocation.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:07:02 -0800, Mark² wrote:

Whew!!
See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom here, which
lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines???
Good grief.
You've too much time on your hands.

I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that?
OK. You've been told.
Type 'til the cows come home...

Um...are you signing off for a second time, Markie?

You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:07:02 -0800, Mark² wrote:

Whew!!
See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom here, which
lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines???
Good grief.
You've too much time on your hands.

I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that?
OK. You've been told.
Type 'til the cows come home...

Um...are you signing off for a second time, Markie?

You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often.

DALLAS wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:07:02 -0800, Mark=B2 wrote:

Whew!!
See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom
here, which
lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines???
Good grief.
You've too much time on your hands.

I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that?
OK. You've been told.
Type 'til the cows come home...

Um...are you signing off for a second time, Markie?

You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often.

Yer so right Dahms! He's hellishly easy and we gonna bait him real
good! )) Just you wait and see.

We gonna bait you too, Boer man!

STAY TUNED!!!!!
Were *all* gonna be slappin our knees red!

http://www.DallasDahms.com

DALLAS wrote:

You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often.

If that's all you have to say, you're not making this NG much better yourself.

DALLAS wrote:

You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often.

If that's all you have to say, you're not making this NG much better yourself.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:57:04 -0800, BARD ROCK wrote:


DALLAS wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:07:02 -0800, Mark² wrote:

Whew!!
See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom
here, which
lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines???
Good grief.
You've too much time on your hands.

I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that?
OK. You've been told.
Type 'til the cows come home...

Um...are you signing off for a second time, Markie?

You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often.

Yer so right Dahms! He's hellishly easy and we gonna bait him real
good! )) Just you wait and see.

We gonna bait you too, Boer man!

STAY TUNED!!!!!
Were *all* gonna be slappin our knees red!

http://www.DallasDahms.com

You don't have the brain power, Polson.

In article N4Ukd.496983$mD.204341@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article p6hkd.15031$V41.1706@attbi_s52,
"William Graham" wrote:

I think that it is uniquely liberal to make a law that is 1: In
violation of the Constitution. and 2: Is unenforceable. Nobody knows what
I
have in my pocket, and it is unconstitutional to search me at random, so
it
is a stupid law that prohibits me from carrying a concealed weapon, even
if
it were not for the second amendment. the second amendment simply makes
it
unconstitutional, as well as stupid.

Whatever; will you finally admit that most liberals don't advocate gun
control because of accidents, but instead advocate it because of high
levels of crime with guns?

Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth.

There is no doubt about it. I believe that most of the liberals that I have
known argue for gun control based on the accident rate with guns.

Then you must have "known" only an extraordinarily atypical set of
liberals. Even Mark has disagreed with you on this.

It is my
argument that they (guns) help prevent crime, and do not increase it.

As a deterrent to *some* types of crime in *some* situations, I
certainly agree. Certain crimes would be less likely to be committed
when the criminals know that more of the people are carrying guns.
Sure. That's fine. But there are *other* types of crime which might
actually *increase*. How, for example, would more people having guns
have prevented the Maryland snipers from doing what they did? They shot
people at a distance before anyone knew what was going on, much less had
time to draw a gun on them. On most of those occasions no one even
actually *saw* them do it, so no one would have even known who to fire
at. The element of surprise was essential in that. Rather obviously,
the more people who have guns, the more often drive-by shootings &
similar things will occur. How does carrying a gun help you when you're
already shot before you realize there's a need to draw it? How does it
help you when their car is already out of range, gone around a corner,
let's say, before any gun-carrying bystanders realize that they need to
draw their guns to shoot at those who have committed the drive-by
shooting? When it's already too late to shoot back?

Oh yes, William, more law-abiding citizens carrying guns will indeed
deter *some* types of crimes in *some* situations.

And how does having a gun in your house help you in the slightest when
the intruder who has come into your house in the middle of the night has
already shot you as you lay in your bed before you have had time to
reach for your gun?

Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more such intruders
there will be. Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite
easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your
*fatal* disadvantage.

Yet I've seen with my own eyes you yourself say that not even convicted
criminals should be prevented from owning firearms.

That's the height of folly if I've ever seen it. Let's see: no matter
how many times a person has been *convicted* of murder with a gun, we're
still to assume that just because a *possible* interpretation of the
Second Amendment should be that there should be absolutely no
restriction of any type for all American citizens, without a single
exception, to bear arms, that "automatically" means that we absolutely
"have" to abide by this one single interpretation to the exclusion of
all others, even if some other interpretations are equally valid, & just
let anyone & every bear arms any time they please, even if they've
already committed multiple murders with guns.

Ya right, that just "must" have been what the writers of the
Constitution "meant." No other interpretation whatsoever is at all
likely.

Strange then that even you yourself have plainly stated that we, in
actual truth, have no possible way of knowing for certain exactly what
they meant; you've already said this exact thing regarding whether or
not they would have agreed that anyone at all can take a gun aboard a
passenger airplane. You yourself have said that we have no way of
knowing for certain. Of course we don't; we can't "ask" them, as
they've all been deceased for well over a century. The last of them
died many decades before the Wright brothers did their trick at Kitty
Hawk, & even longer before passenger airplanes first began being used, &
even longer before the first time weapons of any type had ever been
banned aboard any airplane.

And oh dear, but let's do talk about "accidents" now. But not about
children accidentally hurting themselves because their parents are
careless with their guns. Let's instead talk about this scenario:

Let's say we're living in a country in which any of us can carry any
type of gun we please any time we please & anywhere we please. Let's
then say that you're walking down the street & someone comes up to you
in a manner which you perceive to be "threatening." You get the
impression that the person is about to draw a gun on you, so you shoot
the person first. It then turns out that the person did not even have a
gun, & was not actually intending to harm you in any way.

All adult humans who have ever lived in the entire history of our
species, without a single exception, have been imperfect, which
automatically means that all adult humans are capable of making
mistakes, & indeed *do* make mistakes. It is inevitable.

Quite obviously, the more people who are carrying guns, the more often
such mistaken shootings will occur.

It is inevitable.

This means even *more* innocent people will die than are *already* dying
as a result of shootings.

Please explain to me how more people carrying guns in more situations
"reduces" the likelihood of people being killed by guns unnecessarily.
I'm still not seeing it.

Oh but wait: not even I am one of these "liberals" who is claiming that
"accidents" (under which category you might put these sorts of
"mistaken" shootings) should be the *primary* reason for *some* sort of
gun control. See what I said about the "element of surprise" above?
You carrying a gun won't make the slightest difference when the criminal
shoots you in the head for the money in your wallet before you've even
realized that you need to draw your gun. You'll already be incapable of
drawing your gun as your brain will have already been destroyed, so it
won't be able to send the message to your hands to draw your pistol on
your attacker. You can be wearing a trenchcoat, & carrying as many
"assault weapons" as Rambo, & still this won't help you in the slightest
when the criminal carrying nothing but a single pistol (which you say he
has the "constitutional right" to carry, no matter how many times he's
been convicted of exactly the same crime) sneaks up behind you & fires
just one bullet into your brain.

With all your weapons, you're still dead anyway, & the criminal still
gets your wallet.

Now, do amuse me by attempting to argue that when more people are
allowed to carry guns, this sort of attack will nevertheless occur
"less" often.

Oh, & let's go back to the "accidents" again now. Since you're a human
being, it is absolutely certain that at some point you may mistakenly
believe that someone is about to attack you when in actual fact that
person is intending no such thing. This means that beyond any possible
doubt you may indeed some day shoot someone who in actual truth did not
intend you any harm. Yet you of course will not feel the slightest
twinge of remorse over having killed a completely innocent person. Oh,
but you might say, the person shouldn't have "acted" in a threatening
manner. But you're a human, which automatically guarantees that you are
capable of misunderstanding another person's intent. Thus it would be
your fault, not that of the person you shot, that you misunderstood what
that person intended to do.

There are millions of other people like you, who are equally capable of
totally misunderstanding a variety of situations, & thus equally capable
of shooting when it was in actual fact not even slightly necessary to do
so.

Yet you still believe that anyone & everyone should be allowed to carry
a gun anytime & anywhere they please.

Only you, plus some other extremists, would actually believe such a
thing to be at all desirable.

Oh dear, & let's talk about the "news" again. Let's talk about
quotations of the "other side" in the news this time. I know perfectly
well that the *majority* of times that I've seen anyone quoted on the
news as being *against* gun control, they *still* don't specifically say
that even convicted murderers should be allowed to carry any type of
firearm they please any time they please anywhere they please whenever
they are released from prison. Not even the majority of the
*anti*-gun-control advocates say exactly that on the news.

See how I'm much more fair-minded than you? See how I unequivocally
acknowledge that *neither* of these extremes is in truth represented by
the *majority* of either side?

The
Liberals say that the tremendous number of accidental killings and maimings
with guns is their reason for wanting to control their proliferation in the
society.

No, you, *alone* in this thread, *claim* that for "the Liberals" (as in
the majority of them) this is "their reason," as in their *primary*
reason. You remain the only person in my lifelong recollection to make
such a claim. Simple common sense suggests otherwise. Also, don't you
watch...oh what is it called again?...oh yes, the "news"? Apparently
almost everyone but you has already known for years that the *majority*
of times liberals are quoted in the media as being in favor of some sort
of gun control, they specifically state that it is because of the high
volume of violent *crime* committed with guns, with accidental killings
& maimings being a somewhat lesser part of their argument. According to
the "news," you're still only talking about a minority of liberals.

So it isn't that I don't understand you. I just disagree with you.

No, your replies made it quite obvious that at first you did not even
*understand* what I was asking you, since at first you did not even
*acknowledge* what I was asking, whether it was to agree or disagree.
In one of your replies you even went so far as to clearly state that you
did not understand what I "wanted" you to say, & instead addressed
*only* issues which I had *not* asked you to address. This is the first
time that you have even *acknowledged* that the exact thing I was
challenging you about was your claim that the majority of liberals favor
gun control primarily because they are concerned about accidents with
guns.

I am supremely confident that the majority of times over the past 4
decades that I have seen and/or heard and/or read of any liberal being
directly quoted in the broadcast and/or print media as being in favor of
gun control, they have said that their primary reason is because of the
high volume of violent crime being committed with guns.

Apparently you have either watched the news less often than I have for
the past 40 years, or you don't pay as much attention to what you hear
coming out of the television speaker as I do.

It's just as foolhardy to claim that the majority of one side represents
the most extreme view as it is to claim the analogy for the other side.

Oh, & do I, personally, think that *you* *yourself* don't have the
"right" to bear arms? No, I do not. To your claims of carrying a
pistol with you "at all times" (or something like that) I am in ardent
support.

But you'd better damned sure not ever make a mistake, & shoot someone
who did not in actual truth intend any harm to you, or my support for
you will vanish in an instant.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article N4Ukd.496983$mD.204341@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article p6hkd.15031$V41.1706@attbi_s52,
"William Graham" wrote:

I think that it is uniquely liberal to make a law that is 1: In
violation of the Constitution. and 2: Is unenforceable. Nobody knows what
I
have in my pocket, and it is unconstitutional to search me at random, so
it
is a stupid law that prohibits me from carrying a concealed weapon, even
if
it were not for the second amendment. the second amendment simply makes
it
unconstitutional, as well as stupid.

Whatever; will you finally admit that most liberals don't advocate gun
control because of accidents, but instead advocate it because of high
levels of crime with guns?

Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth.

There is no doubt about it. I believe that most of the liberals that I have
known argue for gun control based on the accident rate with guns.

Then you must have "known" only an extraordinarily atypical set of
liberals. Even Mark has disagreed with you on this.

It is my
argument that they (guns) help prevent crime, and do not increase it.

As a deterrent to *some* types of crime in *some* situations, I
certainly agree. Certain crimes would be less likely to be committed
when the criminals know that more of the people are carrying guns.
Sure. That's fine. But there are *other* types of crime which might
actually *increase*. How, for example, would more people having guns
have prevented the Maryland snipers from doing what they did? They shot
people at a distance before anyone knew what was going on, much less had
time to draw a gun on them. On most of those occasions no one even
actually *saw* them do it, so no one would have even known who to fire
at. The element of surprise was essential in that. Rather obviously,
the more people who have guns, the more often drive-by shootings &
similar things will occur. How does carrying a gun help you when you're
already shot before you realize there's a need to draw it? How does it
help you when their car is already out of range, gone around a corner,
let's say, before any gun-carrying bystanders realize that they need to
draw their guns to shoot at those who have committed the drive-by
shooting? When it's already too late to shoot back?

Oh yes, William, more law-abiding citizens carrying guns will indeed
deter *some* types of crimes in *some* situations.

And how does having a gun in your house help you in the slightest when
the intruder who has come into your house in the middle of the night has
already shot you as you lay in your bed before you have had time to
reach for your gun?

Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more such intruders
there will be. Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite
easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your
*fatal* disadvantage.

Yet I've seen with my own eyes you yourself say that not even convicted
criminals should be prevented from owning firearms.

That's the height of folly if I've ever seen it. Let's see: no matter
how many times a person has been *convicted* of murder with a gun, we're
still to assume that just because a *possible* interpretation of the
Second Amendment should be that there should be absolutely no
restriction of any type for all American citizens, without a single
exception, to bear arms, that "automatically" means that we absolutely
"have" to abide by this one single interpretation to the exclusion of
all others, even if some other interpretations are equally valid, & just
let anyone & every bear arms any time they please, even if they've
already committed multiple murders with guns.

Ya right, that just "must" have been what the writers of the
Constitution "meant." No other interpretation whatsoever is at all
likely.

Strange then that even you yourself have plainly stated that we, in
actual truth, have no possible way of knowing for certain exactly what
they meant; you've already said this exact thing regarding whether or
not they would have agreed that anyone at all can take a gun aboard a
passenger airplane. You yourself have said that we have no way of
knowing for certain. Of course we don't; we can't "ask" them, as
they've all been deceased for well over a century. The last of them
died many decades before the Wright brothers did their trick at Kitty
Hawk, & even longer before passenger airplanes first began being used, &
even longer before the first time weapons of any type had ever been
banned aboard any airplane.

And oh dear, but let's do talk about "accidents" now. But not about
children accidentally hurting themselves because their parents are
careless with their guns. Let's instead talk about this scenario:

Let's say we're living in a country in which any of us can carry any
type of gun we please any time we please & anywhere we please. Let's
then say that you're walking down the street & someone comes up to you
in a manner which you perceive to be "threatening." You get the
impression that the person is about to draw a gun on you, so you shoot
the person first. It then turns out that the person did not even have a
gun, & was not actually intending to harm you in any way.

All adult humans who have ever lived in the entire history of our
species, without a single exception, have been imperfect, which
automatically means that all adult humans are capable of making
mistakes, & indeed *do* make mistakes. It is inevitable.

Quite obviously, the more people who are carrying guns, the more often
such mistaken shootings will occur.

It is inevitable.

This means even *more* innocent people will die than are *already* dying
as a result of shootings.

Please explain to me how more people carrying guns in more situations
"reduces" the likelihood of people being killed by guns unnecessarily.
I'm still not seeing it.

Oh but wait: not even I am one of these "liberals" who is claiming that
"accidents" (under which category you might put these sorts of
"mistaken" shootings) should be the *primary* reason for *some* sort of
gun control. See what I said about the "element of surprise" above?
You carrying a gun won't make the slightest difference when the criminal
shoots you in the head for the money in your wallet before you've even
realized that you need to draw your gun. You'll already be incapable of
drawing your gun as your brain will have already been destroyed, so it
won't be able to send the message to your hands to draw your pistol on
your attacker. You can be wearing a trenchcoat, & carrying as many
"assault weapons" as Rambo, & still this won't help you in the slightest
when the criminal carrying nothing but a single pistol (which you say he
has the "constitutional right" to carry, no matter how many times he's
been convicted of exactly the same crime) sneaks up behind you & fires
just one bullet into your brain.

With all your weapons, you're still dead anyway, & the criminal still
gets your wallet.

Now, do amuse me by attempting to argue that when more people are
allowed to carry guns, this sort of attack will nevertheless occur
"less" often.

Oh, & let's go back to the "accidents" again now. Since you're a human
being, it is absolutely certain that at some point you may mistakenly
believe that someone is about to attack you when in actual fact that
person is intending no such thing. This means that beyond any possible
doubt you may indeed some day shoot someone who in actual truth did not
intend you any harm. Yet you of course will not feel the slightest
twinge of remorse over having killed a completely innocent person. Oh,
but you might say, the person shouldn't have "acted" in a threatening
manner. But you're a human, which automatically guarantees that you are
capable of misunderstanding another person's intent. Thus it would be
your fault, not that of the person you shot, that you misunderstood what
that person intended to do.

There are millions of other people like you, who are equally capable of
totally misunderstanding a variety of situations, & thus equally capable
of shooting when it was in actual fact not even slightly necessary to do
so.

Yet you still believe that anyone & everyone should be allowed to carry
a gun anytime & anywhere they please.

Only you, plus some other extremists, would actually believe such a
thing to be at all desirable.

Oh dear, & let's talk about the "news" again. Let's talk about
quotations of the "other side" in the news this time. I know perfectly
well that the *majority* of times that I've seen anyone quoted on the
news as being *against* gun control, they *still* don't specifically say
that even convicted murderers should be allowed to carry any type of
firearm they please any time they please anywhere they please whenever
they are released from prison. Not even the majority of the
*anti*-gun-control advocates say exactly that on the news.

See how I'm much more fair-minded than you? See how I unequivocally
acknowledge that *neither* of these extremes is in truth represented by
the *majority* of either side?

The
Liberals say that the tremendous number of accidental killings and maimings
with guns is their reason for wanting to control their proliferation in the
society.

No, you, *alone* in this thread, *claim* that for "the Liberals" (as in
the majority of them) this is "their reason," as in their *primary*
reason. You remain the only person in my lifelong recollection to make
such a claim. Simple common sense suggests otherwise. Also, don't you
watch...oh what is it called again?...oh yes, the "news"? Apparently
almost everyone but you has already known for years that the *majority*
of times liberals are quoted in the media as being in favor of some sort
of gun control, they specifically state that it is because of the high
volume of violent *crime* committed with guns, with accidental killings
& maimings being a somewhat lesser part of their argument. According to
the "news," you're still only talking about a minority of liberals.

So it isn't that I don't understand you. I just disagree with you.

No, your replies made it quite obvious that at first you did not even
*understand* what I was asking you, since at first you did not even
*acknowledge* what I was asking, whether it was to agree or disagree.
In one of your replies you even went so far as to clearly state that you
did not understand what I "wanted" you to say, & instead addressed
*only* issues which I had *not* asked you to address. This is the first
time that you have even *acknowledged* that the exact thing I was
challenging you about was your claim that the majority of liberals favor
gun control primarily because they are concerned about accidents with
guns.

I am supremely confident that the majority of times over the past 4
decades that I have seen and/or heard and/or read of any liberal being
directly quoted in the broadcast and/or print media as being in favor of
gun control, they have said that their primary reason is because of the
high volume of violent crime being committed with guns.

Apparently you have either watched the news less often than I have for
the past 40 years, or you don't pay as much attention to what you hear
coming out of the television speaker as I do.

It's just as foolhardy to claim that the majority of one side represents
the most extreme view as it is to claim the analogy for the other side.

Oh, & do I, personally, think that *you* *yourself* don't have the
"right" to bear arms? No, I do not. To your claims of carrying a
pistol with you "at all times" (or something like that) I am in ardent
support.

But you'd better damned sure not ever make a mistake, & shoot someone
who did not in actual truth intend any harm to you, or my support for
you will vanish in an instant.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.

In article N4Ukd.496983$mD.204341@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
In article p6hkd.15031$V41.1706@attbi_s52,
"William Graham" wrote:

I think that it is uniquely liberal to make a law that is 1: In
violation of the Constitution. and 2: Is unenforceable. Nobody knows what
I
have in my pocket, and it is unconstitutional to search me at random, so
it
is a stupid law that prohibits me from carrying a concealed weapon, even
if
it were not for the second amendment. the second amendment simply makes
it
unconstitutional, as well as stupid.

Whatever; will you finally admit that most liberals don't advocate gun
control because of accidents, but instead advocate it because of high
levels of crime with guns?

Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth.

There is no doubt about it. I believe that most of the liberals that I have
known argue for gun control based on the accident rate with guns.

Then you must have "known" only an extraordinarily atypical set of
liberals. Even Mark has disagreed with you on this.

It is my
argument that they (guns) help prevent crime, and do not increase it.

As a deterrent to *some* types of crime in *some* situations, I
certainly agree. Certain crimes would be less likely to be committed
when the criminals know that more of the people are carrying guns.
Sure. That's fine. But there are *other* types of crime which might
actually *increase*. How, for example, would more people having guns
have prevented the Maryland snipers from doing what they did? They shot
people at a distance before anyone knew what was going on, much less had
time to draw a gun on them. On most of those occasions no one even
actually *saw* them do it, so no one would have even known who to fire
at. The element of surprise was essential in that. Rather obviously,
the more people who have guns, the more often drive-by shootings &
similar things will occur. How does carrying a gun help you when you're
already shot before you realize there's a need to draw it? How does it
help you when their car is already out of range, gone around a corner,
let's say, before any gun-carrying bystanders realize that they need to
draw their guns to shoot at those who have committed the drive-by
shooting? When it's already too late to shoot back?

Oh yes, William, more law-abiding citizens carrying guns will indeed
deter *some* types of crimes in *some* situations.

And how does having a gun in your house help you in the slightest when
the intruder who has come into your house in the middle of the night has
already shot you as you lay in your bed before you have had time to
reach for your gun?

Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more such intruders
there will be. Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite
easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your
*fatal* disadvantage.

Yet I've seen with my own eyes you yourself say that not even convicted
criminals should be prevented from owning firearms.

That's the height of folly if I've ever seen it. Let's see: no matter
how many times a person has been *convicted* of murder with a gun, we're
still to assume that just because a *possible* interpretation of the
Second Amendment should be that there should be absolutely no
restriction of any type for all American citizens, without a single
exception, to bear arms, that "automatically" means that we absolutely
"have" to abide by this one single interpretation to the exclusion of
all others, even if some other interpretations are equally valid, & just
let anyone & every bear arms any time they please, even if they've
already committed multiple murders with guns.

Ya right, that just "must" have been what the writers of the
Constitution "meant." No other interpretation whatsoever is at all
likely.

Strange then that even you yourself have plainly stated that we, in
actual truth, have no possible way of knowing for certain exactly what
they meant; you've already said this exact thing regarding whether or
not they would have agreed that anyone at all can take a gun aboard a
passenger airplane. You yourself have said that we have no way of
knowing for certain. Of course we don't; we can't "ask" them, as
they've all been deceased for well over a century. The last of them
died many decades before the Wright brothers did their trick at Kitty
Hawk, & even longer before passenger airplanes first began being used, &
even longer before the first time weapons of any type had ever been
banned aboard any airplane.

And oh dear, but let's do talk about "accidents" now. But not about
children accidentally hurting themselves because their parents are
careless with their guns. Let's instead talk about this scenario:

Let's say we're living in a country in which any of us can carry any
type of gun we please any time we please & anywhere we please. Let's
then say that you're walking down the street & someone comes up to you
in a manner which you perceive to be "threatening." You get the
impression that the person is about to draw a gun on you, so you shoot
the person first. It then turns out that the person did not even have a
gun, & was not actually intending to harm you in any way.

All adult humans who have ever lived in the entire history of our
species, without a single exception, have been imperfect, which
automatically means that all adult humans are capable of making
mistakes, & indeed *do* make mistakes. It is inevitable.

Quite obviously, the more people who are carrying guns, the more often
such mistaken shootings will occur.

It is inevitable.

This means even *more* innocent people will die than are *already* dying
as a result of shootings.

Please explain to me how more people carrying guns in more situations
"reduces" the likelihood of people being killed by guns unnecessarily.
I'm still not seeing it.

Oh but wait: not even I am one of these "liberals" who is claiming that
"accidents" (under which category you might put these sorts of
"mistaken" shootings) should be the *primary* reason for *some* sort of
gun control. See what I said about the "element of surprise" above?
You carrying a gun won't make the slightest difference when the criminal
shoots you in the head for the money in your wallet before you've even
realized that you need to draw your gun. You'll already be incapable of
drawing your gun as your brain will have already been destroyed, so it
won't be able to send the message to your hands to draw your pistol on
your attacker. You can be wearing a trenchcoat, & carrying as many
"assault weapons" as Rambo, & still this won't help you in the slightest
when the criminal carrying nothing but a single pistol (which you say he
has the "constitutional right" to carry, no matter how many times he's
been convicted of exactly the same crime) sneaks up behind you & fires
just one bullet into your brain.

With all your weapons, you're still dead anyway, & the criminal still
gets your wallet.

Now, do amuse me by attempting to argue that when more people are
allowed to carry guns, this sort of attack will nevertheless occur
"less" often.

Oh, & let's go back to the "accidents" again now. Since you're a human
being, it is absolutely certain that at some point you may mistakenly
believe that someone is about to attack you when in actual fact that
person is intending no such thing. This means that beyond any possible
doubt you may indeed some day shoot someone who in actual truth did not
intend you any harm. Yet you of course will not feel the slightest
twinge of remorse over having killed a completely innocent person. Oh,
but you might say, the person shouldn't have "acted" in a threatening
manner. But you're a human, which automatically guarantees that you are
capable of misunderstanding another person's intent. Thus it would be
your fault, not that of the person you shot, that you misunderstood what
that person intended to do.

There are millions of other people like you, who are equally capable of
totally misunderstanding a variety of situations, & thus equally capable
of shooting when it was in actual fact not even slightly necessary to do
so.

Yet you still believe that anyone & everyone should be allowed to carry
a gun anytime & anywhere they please.

Only you, plus some other extremists, would actually believe such a
thing to be at all desirable.

Oh dear, & let's talk about the "news" again. Let's talk about
quotations of the "other side" in the news this time. I know perfectly
well that the *majority* of times that I've seen anyone quoted on the
news as being *against* gun control, they *still* don't specifically say
that even convicted murderers should be allowed to carry any type of
firearm they please any time they please anywhere they please whenever
they are released from prison. Not even the majority of the
*anti*-gun-control advocates say exactly that on the news.

See how I'm much more fair-minded than you? See how I unequivocally
acknowledge that *neither* of these extremes is in truth represented by
the *majority* of either side?

The
Liberals say that the tremendous number of accidental killings and maimings
with guns is their reason for wanting to control their proliferation in the
society.

No, you, *alone* in this thread, *claim* that for "the Liberals" (as in
the majority of them) this is "their reason," as in their *primary*
reason. You remain the only person in my lifelong recollection to make
such a claim. Simple common sense suggests otherwise. Also, don't you
watch...oh what is it called again?...oh yes, the "news"? Apparently
almost everyone but you has already known for years that the *majority*
of times liberals are quoted in the media as being in favor of some sort
of gun control, they specifically state that it is because of the high
volume of violent *crime* committed with guns, with accidental killings
& maimings being a somewhat lesser part of their argument. According to
the "news," you're still only talking about a minority of liberals.

So it isn't that I don't understand you. I just disagree with you.

No, your replies made it quite obvious that at first you did not even
*understand* what I was asking you, since at first you did not even
*acknowledge* what I was asking, whether it was to agree or disagree.
In one of your replies you even went so far as to clearly state that you
did not understand what I "wanted" you to say, & instead addressed
*only* issues which I had *not* asked you to address. This is the first
time that you have even *acknowledged* that the exact thing I was
challenging you about was your claim that the majority of liberals favor
gun control primarily because they are concerned about accidents with
guns.

I am supremely confident that the majority of times over the past 4
decades that I have seen and/or heard and/or read of any liberal being
directly quoted in the broadcast and/or print media as being in favor of
gun control, they have said that their primary reason is because of the
high volume of violent crime being committed with guns.

Apparently you have either watched the news less often than I have for
the past 40 years, or you don't pay as much attention to what you hear
coming out of the television speaker as I do.

It's just as foolhardy to claim that the majority of one side represents
the most extreme view as it is to claim the analogy for the other side.

Oh, & do I, personally, think that *you* *yourself* don't have the
"right" to bear arms? No, I do not. To your claims of carrying a
pistol with you "at all times" (or something like that) I am in ardent
support.

But you'd better damned sure not ever make a mistake, & shoot someone
who did not in actual truth intend any harm to you, or my support for
you will vanish in an instant.
--
"God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's
front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his
trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04.