PING: William Graham!

In article _vUkd.30063$5K2.14915@attbi_s03,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

Let's cut to the chase, William.

Yes or no, do you believe that I can carry a gun into your home without
your permission?

Of course, since I do not search everyone who comes into my home, there is
no way I could know what you have in your pockets when you come into my
home, therefore you can do that, yes.

You are evading what I asked you. Quite obviously I was NOT talking
about when you "don't know" that I'm bringing a gun into your house, & I
shouldn't even have to specify that when asking you. Quite obviously,
my question addressed ***ANY*** situation in which I'm bringing a gun
into your house, which ***INCLUDES*** when you ***DO*** know I'm
bringing it. I did NOT ask this:

"Yes or no, do you believe that I can carry a gun into your home without
your permission when you aren't aware that I'm carrying a gun?"

I asked no such thing. Instead, I simply asked you, yes or no, do you
personally believe that I have the right to carry a gun into your house
without your permission? Just as it was originally worded, that
question *includes* a scenario in which you *do* know in advance that
I'm trying to carry a gun into your house, since I did not specifically
say otherwise, as *well* as including a scenario in which you *don't*
know that I'm bringing a gun into your house.

Oh but fine, have it your way: I'll now re-word the question (even
though it's totally unnecessary to do so, since my original wording was
perfectly clear in the first place) so that this time you won't be able
to wiggle out of it:

Yes or no, William, even when you ***DO*** know that I'm about to try to
bring a gun into your house (oh, & the gun ***IS*** loaded & ready to
fire, which you also ***KNOW*** at the time, so you can't wiggle out
that way either), do I have the right to bring this into your house
WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION? In other words, even after I've SHOWN you the
gun, & SHOWN you that it is loaded & ready to fire, can I STILL bring it
into your house without your permission, even AFTER you've specifically
told me I cannot?

Yes or no, William?

(Don't even try to claim to me that all of that, plus scenarios that I
haven't even specifically mentioned yet, weren't completely covered by
my original wording of the question. My question was open-ended, & thus
covered ***ALL*** possible scenarios in which I might be bringing a gun
into your house.)

Free clue: the exact answer to the exact question I'm asking will either
be the single word "yes" or the single word "no." Using any word or
words *instead* of either of those exact words, or exact words of
synonymous meaning, such as "affirmative" or "negative" (notice that my
statement automatically covers ALL answers of synonymous meaning, even
words I haven't yet typed) I will consider to be a purposeful evasion.

Yes or no, William, period, under ANY circumstances, INCLUDING when you
DO KNOW I'm trying to bring a gun into your house?

Yes or no?

This time you'll not evade the exact question I'm asking, correct?

Tell ya what: when I tell you that I don't want you bringing a gun onto
***MY*** property, you'd better make damned sure you do exactly what I
say; otherwise if I ***DISCOVER*** that you have brought a gun onto
***MY*** PROPERTY AGAINST MY WISHES, I will indeed call the LAW to have
you removed, & not only am I supremely confident that they'll come right
there & remove you just as I request, but that additionally you'll be
utterly unable to get any Supreme Court of any political composition
known to all of United States history to agree with you that it was
"unconstitutional" for you to be removed from ***MY*** property under
such circumstances.

I'm quite obviously ***NOT*** talking about a situation in which I
"don't realize" that you have a gun on MY property. I'm instead quite
obviously talking about a situation in which I DO KNOW you're bringing
it.

I say it's completely & totally "constitutional" for me to tell you to
get the hell off of my property at the exact instant that I first
*realize* that you are carrying a gun. Feel free to attempt to "prove"
me wrong, but unless you positively do so, even if you deny it, it's
still the same thing as tacitly admitting that this indeed is a "time"
when you cannot "constitutionally" bear arms of any type.

Thus indeed, you cannot bear arms "at all times," since "at all times"
INCLUDES ON MY PROPERTY, EVEN AT A "TIME" WHEN I MYSELF ***SEE*** YOU
BEARING A FIREARM ON MY PROPERTY.

It's my property, not yours. I can indeed tell you to get the hell off
it any time I ***SEE*** you bearing arms upon it.

And I say the Constitution supports me.

Show me where it doesn't.

Oh, & don't even bother to demand that I "quote" where it "does" support
me. I asked you first. You made your claim first, so you support it
first. Show me where the Constitution specifically says I ***CAN'T***
order you the hell off my property "at all times" in which I ***SEE***
you carrying any type of "arms" known to humankind.

You can't show me any such thing, because no such passage exists in the
entire document.

I know; I've read it.

In its entirety.

Including all Amendments ever made to it.

Nowhere does it say I can't order you off my property for this exact
reason.

Nowhere.

Only by showing us all "where" it "says" this can you prove that the
Constitution guarantees that all American citizens can bear arms "at all
times," which includes the "time" I actually ***SEE*** you trying to
bring a gun onto ***MY*** (not your) property, will you be able to prove
your argument. Until you quote verbatim the exact passage of the
Constitution which says exactly this, then even if you still deny it, it
is still the same thing as admitting (even tacitly) that you do not
actually know for sure whether the Constitution guarantees this right
"at all times."

Unless you produce this exact verbatim quotation, your entire argument
is instantly destroyed.

Even if you refuse to admit it.

For your argument to work at even the most minimal level, you are FORCED
to quote the Constitution verbatim where it specifically says that any
citizen may bear arms, even on private property without the stated
permission of the owner of that property, even when the owner KNOWS that
you are bearing arms.

I still remain the only poster in the thread to actually quote an entire
Amendment verbatim & unabridged, at least in any exchanges directly
involving me.

Go ahead: try to bring any type of weaponry ever known to humankind in
the entire history of our species onto my property, even when I
***SEE*** it in your hands, & watch how fast I have the local police
remove you. Then try to have it brought to ***ANY*** court in the
entire land, not just the Supreme Court, & watch how fast you're
guffawed out of the building.

In fact, let's go for the gold: I live in Huntsville, Tx. If you
desire, I challenge you, here & now, to correspond with me to learn
exactly where I live, & then to make the attempt to come onto my
property with a firearm being held by you in plain sight.

Legally, & constitutionally, I'll have you removed.

And you'll not be winning any lawsuit you file against me.

Go for it, dude. Come on down here to Texas. You know, that's the
state where our current President (who is now in for another 4 years)
used to be the Governor.

How much ya wanna bet that even he will agree that I can indeed
constitutionally order you right the you-know-what off my property the
moment I SEE you bearing arms on MY property?

I'm damned sure that you can't carry one into mine without my
permission, & that it won't be even mildly "unconstitutional" for me to
call the police & have you removed from the premises.

You wouldn't know, unless you search everyone who enters your home, every
time they enter it.

I said nothing whatsoever about whether I did or didn't know, thus my
statement automatically included all possible scenarios, which means
that it includes situations in which I ***DO*** know.

Try addressing what I actually wrote, instead of your transparent
evasions. You didn't fool me for an instant.

Yes or no, William, in all possible situations, which ***INCLUDES***
when I actually ***SEE*** you holding a gun, do you or do you not
*personally* believe it is "unconstitutional* for me to have law
enforcement remove you from MY property?

Yes or no?

Not, "You wouldn't know," or any other such variation, none of which
answers the exact challenge I made to you.

"Yes."

or:

"No."

Period.

Including ALL possible scenarios which were already covered by my
original wording.

Yes or no, William?

Any further evasion will accomplish nothing that is constructive; it
will only convince me that you are purposefully refusing to answer what
I am asking you, & thus that you should never again be taken seriously,
but instead deserve to be nothing more than an object of contempt &
ridicule.

There is only one possible way you can avoid this:

Answer with the one & only word "yes."

Or the one & only word "no."

Or another term of absolutely synonymous meaning.

Usage of any other words, no matter what they are, will instantly lower
your credibility.

And yes or no, William, do you believe that anyone can carry a gun onto
a commercial airliner any "time" they please?

No, because they do search everyone who boards an airliner.

Yet again you post this strawman. That means that you are addressing an
argument I never made. I said nothing about whether or not the airlines
"know" that someone is carrying a firearm aboard one of their airplanes.
I didn't ask you anything like that. Instead I simply asked you, yes or
no, does anyone at all have the "right" to carry a firearm aboard a
commercial airplane, which obviously INCLUDES when the airline DOES or
DOES NOT search everyone, since I didn't specifically say otherwise.

You answered a question I never asked.

Now answer the question I ***DID*** ask.

That doesn't
mean I agree with their law. It just means that I acknowledge its existence.

That's fine, but I'm still waiting for you to answer the actual question
I asked.

Your answer to that, in these post 9/11 days, should be fascinating.

Be quite assured that I have an answer prepared no matter which way you
go on this.

Well, you are at liberty to give me your views at any time, either on this
list, or separately.

Damned right.

My email address is open to anyone as listed at the top
of all my posts.

What damned need have I to know your email addy, when instead I can ask
you just as easily in this public forum to answer my questions, so that
everyone can see when you do & do not evade them?

So far you've evaded my questions more often than you've answered them.
I want witnesses to that, which I won't have in private email, unless I
include others in the senders' addys.

I much prefer this fully public forum. Answer the exact damned
questions you're asked, William; don't try to divert it out of sight of
other witnesses by trying to divert it to private email.

You did know that at least 10 times as many people typically read a
Usenet thread as the number who actually post in it, correct? Neither
you or I know for certain who is & is not reading our articles here.

Answer the exact questions I'm asking you here where everyone can see
it, William.

So that both of us can have an unknown number of witnesses when you fail
to do so.

Email won't achieve that.

I want everyone to see when you evade my questions.

Your credibility, but not mine, will suffer when you do.

Is it, "arms" that you are
having trouble with?

Nope.

I'm having trouble with your imaginary insertion of the phrase "at all
times," a phrase which doesn't appear in that amendment. I'm not having
a bit of trouble with the words which *do* appear there.

Well, the phrase, "not at all times" seems to have crept into the amendment.

According to you alone, not to me. All careful readers of this thread
(including those who have never posted to it, but still read it) already
knew days ago that you, but never I, claimed that those words are
implicit in that Amendment.

I will be more than willing to admit that.

Additionally I hope that you will admit (in front of more witnesses than
you can number for certain) that you, alone in this thread, suggested
that the Amendment was originally written as if it had actually included
those exact words in that exact order.

But I don't believe it has any
place there.

Bull. You've directly contradicted that. You've specifically said,
more than once, that the original wording was purposefully left open to
interpretation. More witnesses than those who have posted to this
thread can attest that you've said exactly that.

I see no reason why anyone should not be allowed to carry a
pistol in his/her pocket at all times, no matter where they go.

Even when they do a drive-by shooting? Try, do, to support that with an
actual verbatim quotation from the Constitution. More to the point,
***WE*** (which includes ALL persons reading this thread, whether they
have yet posted in it or not) continue to wait for you to quote the
exact sentence in the Constitution which specifically says that you can
bear arms onto private property without the permission of the legal
owner of that property, whether or not the owner of that property
"knows" that you have done so. Until you produce such an exact
quotation, you are tacitly admitting that you don't actually know for a
fact that this is indeed a "time" in which the Constitution DOESN'T
guarantee you the right to bear arms, i.e., the "time" in which you come
on MY property bearing said arms.

Note carefully that I obliterated all possible excuses for you to
continue to evade exactly what you're challenged to address; the phrase
"whether or not the owner of that property 'knows' that you have done
so" all by itself instantly destroys that excuse. Literally no reader
of this thread, poster or non-posters, with the exception of a few
kooks, will take you seriously if you don't just answer the damned
question, period, with a plain yes or no.

Unless you also are a kook, you too knew this, years before you first
read any of my articles, correct William?

Had a few
people on those airliners that were hijacked on 9/11 been carrying pistols,
I believe the outcome would have been much better.

Would it? Why? Did you forget that the hijackers were planning to die
*anyway*? I'm thus questioning how much of a deterrent other passengers
carrying firearms would have been. Did you fail to consider that your
way would mean that the hijackers would be allowed to carry guns *also*?
What if they started shooting passengers *before* the passengers
realized that they needed to pull out their own guns? The passengers'
guns aren't of much use when the same passengers who are carrying them
are already *dead* before they've had a chance to pull out their guns,
much less fire them. Do you think for a moment that the element of
surprise cannot possibly work in such hijackers' favor in such a
situation, *especially* when the hijackers are *planning* to die
*anyway*? Since Al Qaeda is quite astute in analyzing both our
society's strengths & its weaknesses, it seems hardly implausible that,
even if all passengers on all the planes had been carrying guns, they
still might have done it in such a way that they would have succeeded?
What if one of them had said, "Unless you all drop all your guns, I'll
shoot this stewardess"? Let's say he's holding a gun to the
stewardess's head at the instant he says this. Will you be the one to
try to take him down, when even as you shoot him he might pull the
trigger on her?

Similar methods, on many occasions in human history, have convinced all
opponents to drop their weapons.

Oh dear, & this is hardly the "only" scenario which I can think of in
which the hijackers still would have been successful in flying the
planes into the WTC, even if both they & all the other passengers had
had guns with them.

Additionally, how many *more* air tragedies would we have by now had if
no one had ever been prevented from carrying a gun onboard any passenger
airline? A shootout aboard such a plane? Did you forget that bullets
can punch holes in the plane & cause a loss of oxygen for everyone?
Will the masks take care of that? And meanwhile, how many passengers
would be killed in these shootouts? What prevents hijackers from
shooting their way into cockpits, & shooting the pilots dead before they
or anyone else has a chance to react? Even if every passenger has a
gun, the plane is still almost certainly going to crash, killing all
onboard. Oh yes, the plane might not make it to such a major target as
the WTC.

There will still be a lot more plane crashes than occur these days.

Let's see:

1. Your system, in which anyone at all may carry guns onto any airplane,
which automatically means that some people will indeed die, either in
shootouts or in successful hijackings.

Or:

2. No weapons of any type, even those which are not firearms, are
allowed on planes at all, which means *no* *one* ever dies, unless the
plane crashes for an entirely different reason, such as pure mechanical
error.

1. A number of people die in airline tragedies.

2. Fewer people die in airline tragedies than in "1."

Gee, which should we choose?

In fact, I think assault weapons would
qualify, since that is what an invading army would carry, but I am open
to
quibbling over this point.

Oh, it's not a bad point at all, in principle. I haven't expressed any
specific disagreement to it each of the previous times you've said it
either.

Now back to your "at all times" claim.

I think we all know how horrifically dangerous it would be to let just
anyone carry a pistol on board a passenger jet. We'd be practically
begging for tragedy after tragedy after tragedy of great magnitude if we
allowed that. We might as well end all air travel in that case, since
no one would be even remotely safe anymore when flying.

Ah.....We are finally coming to a point we can argue about. You don't
believe that the general public should be able to "carry" on airliner
flights, and I do. Am I correct in this assumption?

Damned right. And the numerous historical hijackings, which is what led
to the banning of weapons aboard passenger airplanes in the first place,
support my view far more than they do yours.

And the Constitution does not *specifically* refute my view. The fact
that it does not specifically *support* it either is irrelevant. It has
to first specifically *refute* it in order for my view to truthfully be
declared "unconstitutional." Until it does (which it at present does
not), which means that an Amendment must be added which specifically
says something to the effect that, "Yes, even though we know that
carrying firearms aboard airplanes is exceedingly dangerous, we still
allow all of you anyway to do exactly that" (note carefully that I am
***NOT*** claiming that it must be in that exact wording, merely
claiming that it must *mean* something which conclusively covers that
exact scenario, with no wiggle room for variant interpretations), it is
simply not true that the Constitution guarantees that all of us have the
right to take guns aboard airplanes.

The Constitution was written more than a century before airplanes were
even invented. While the writers demonstrated admirable foresight in
many matters, something such as 9/11 & many other air tragedies were
something beyond their ability to fathom at the time. Do you really
think for a moment that if they *had* known of air travel, & of
hijackings, & other aspects of the history of why guns have been banned
aboard passenger planes, they would have really meant the Second
Amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms to everyone even aboard a
plane?

I do, yes. But alas, we can never know for sure, can we?

EXACTLY!!! There's where you yourself PLAINLY AGREE WITH ME!!!

Until you directly retract those exact words of yours, I'll never again
believe you if you say that the Constitution guarantees that we can all
bear arms "at all times," since aboard an airplane is indeed at least
one "time" which you yourself freely admitted "we can never know for
sure" is included in all the possible situations which the original
writers *meant* when they themselves *wrote* the Second Amendment.

But I'll submit to you again that the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of WHEN they
wrote this STRONGLY indicates that what they MEANT was MORE LIKELY THAN
OTHERWISE that we should have the right to bear arms WHEN ANOTHER POWER
IS INVADING OUR COUNTRY, which includes the "people," not just the armed
forces. You yourself have plainly admitted that we cannot ever know for
certain that the writers meant ANYTHING ELSE BUT THIS.

Oh yes, yes, & yes, that also means that we cannot know for certain
whether or not they meant such restrictions that I (but not your claimed
"liberals") have suggested as merely a plausible alternative.
Nevertheless, since you yourself admit that we don't know EITHER WAY,
your interpretation is no more conclusive than mine.

But more historical evidence backs up my conclusion than yours.

Were the writers concerned about airplanes at the time?

Nope, because they didn't even know what airplanes *are*.

Were the writers concerned about an oppressive power?

Yes, beyond all possible doubt.

One word:

"England."

That word, all by itself, supports my viewpoint much more than it does
yours.

All one has to know is what "England" was doing at the time, & more
importantly, how the Revolutionaries *interpreted* what "England" was
doing at the time, whether or not their interpretation was "accurate."

Accurate or not, they wrote what they wrote, & meant what they meant
when they wrote it.

And as you yourself have additionally admitted, they wisely left what
they wrote up to interpretation, since they wisely realized that they
could not possibly foresee all potential developments of our society &
our country, especially those which would occur long after their deaths.

And if it's "unconstitutional" to prevent citizens from carrying
firearms aboard passenger planes, why has it never been declared so in
the Supreme Court in all these decades in which the ban has been in
place? Why has no one even *attempted* to take this to the Supreme
Court for judgment?

The supreme court has become a very politically biased institution. I would
like them to be strict constitutionalists, but it is not the case. They tend
to follow the political ideals and agenda's of the presidents who appoint
them, and over time, they have come to deviate from the original meanings of
the constitution more and more. This distresses me, but there doesn't seem
to be much I can do about it.

So? That still doesn't answer my question. Will you never stop evading
& evading & evading? What I was obviously asking was, while the
political climate has varied greatly over the entire history of air
travel (including the political composition of the Supreme Court itself)
why has no one STILL even TRIED to constitutionally challenge the
banning of weapons aboard passenger planes, no matter what the political
climate at the time, including the political composition and/or
viewpoint of the majority of Justices on the Court at whatever time it
was?

Is the answer what you said, that the Supreme Court is merely a
politically based institution, or is instead that everyone but a tiny
minority of kooks has known, since the beginning of the first time
weapons were banned from airlines continuously to the present day, that
to attempt to challenge the ban in the slightest in a constitutional
manner is ludicrous in the extreme, for obvious reasons, & that during
any American political era which has so far occurred, any such challenge
will invariably be guffawed out of court, even out of a *lower* court?

Because it's simple & plain common sense, & a matter of basic
fundamental human safety, to ban weapons from passenger airplanes,
continuously true in a manner completely independent of political
viewpoint?

Do attempt to speak before a gathering of the families & friends of the
victims of 9/11, & claim to them that all American citizens "should" be
allowed to carry weapons aboard passenger planes. I want to be there so
that I can witness their reaction to you first-hand.

I am totally confident that the majority of them will not view you in a
"positive" manner, nor will they agree with you that the Constitution
"guarantees" what you claim. Neither will they agree with you that more
passengers carrying guns would have necessarily "prevented" the deaths
of c.3000 of their friends & loved-ones.

In actual truth, it might instead make such horrific massacres occur
more frequently.

Remember that by your rule, the hijackers too can carry guns aboard
airplanes.

The thing that would have "prevented" them from shooting the other
passengers "before" the passengers were able to draw their own guns
was...what, exactly?

I am really interested in finding out what
they are going to say about gay marriage........

So am I. In particular, I'm "writhing" with curiosity as to how they
might attempt, no matter what their "political" viewpoint at the time
they hear the case, to limit marriage to any sort of gender
qualification, when restriction of the vote in regard to gender or race,
just to name one example, has already been unequivocally
unconstitutional for a very, very long time.

At the moment, I'm even more curious to learn when, if ever, any case is
going to reach the Supreme Court, or even ANY court in the entire land
at the local, state, or federal level, in which even the slightest
challenge to the ban against weapons aboard passenger airlines won't be
guffawed out of court (in other words, case dismissed) in advance of any
judge in the land agreeing that the case should even be *heard* in
court, no matter how many more centuries our country continues to exist.

No such case has ever reached any court in the entire country in the
entire history of airline travel, correct William? If I'm wrong, feel
free to name the case, so that I may immediately realize my error &
freely apologize for it.

But if I'm not wrong, could it be that the reason no such case has ever
existed is because no one is foolish enough to actually believe that it
is worthwhile to challenge this ban in any court?

Because the valid reasons for the ban are patently obvious?

I remind you that you yourself said this:

"the writers were rather careful to not specify things too carefully"

Exactly. The writers wisely left many aspects of the Constitution open
to interpretation, since they wanted the document to be applicable to
changes in the society which they could not necessarily foresee. And
I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a moment that if you somehow could
bring them back from the grave & show them all the issues about air
travel, that they would agree that they meant anything like a right to
bear arms even aboard a passenger plane, as obviously & horrifically
dangerous to everyone as that would be.

It would, (I believe) have prevented 9/11........

I beg to differ. I have only named one scenario, among several that
immediately came to my mind, in which the Al Qaeda hijackers would still
have been just as successful in destroying the WTC. Since you are just
as intelligent as me, & probably more so, you'll be able to think of
just as many scenarios too, if not more, correct?

The hijackers were planning to die *anyway*.

And according to you, they *also* would have been allowed to carry guns
onboard those planes.

I'll never forget that you yourself specifically said that even
convicted criminals are guaranteed by the Second Amendment to have the
right to bear arms.

You did say that.

I'm not making it up.

I seem to recall that at least "one" of the 9/11 hijackers had
technically become an American "citizen."

And that additionally "he" had not yet been convicted.

Of anything.

Or was there more than "one"?

My memory is fuzzy at the moment.

Perhaps you can clarify.

But there was indeed at least "one" who had done so.

Do try to explain to all the friends & families of the 9/11 victims why
"he" (or "they") still had the "right" to carry, not just boxcutters,
but actual firearms, aboard those planes, merely because "he" (or
"they") was (were) American citizens at the time.

I believe that, if they
didn't serve liquor on airliners, the carrying of pocket pistols would be a
distinct advantage to the safety of the general air traveling population,
but I am open to your arguments against this..........

Shootouts on passenger airplanes. That's the same thing as begging for
more airline crashes than have so far occurred in the entire history of
aviation. That's what will invariably happen if all restrictions
against firearms aboard airplanes are lifted. Such hijackers are
already planning to die anyway, so obviously they don't care in the
slightest how many others on the plane die with them, or what city,
including the size of the population, the plane is over at the time it
crashes.

Discuss.

Ah, & when they said that the people have the right to bear arms, do you
really think for a moment that they meant that this includes the *abuse*
of that right? Remember the man who shot all those people aboard the
train in Long Island? Do you really think *that* sort of use of arms
was what the writers meant? Now you might argue that if *others* aboard
the train had also been carrying weapons, he could have been shot down
before he killed as many people as he did. But while that might well
have been the case, unless the aim of the first person who shot him had
been good enough to fell him instantly, what might have happened instead
could have been a gunbattle in which even *more* people were killed.

Well, no matter what the law, one can always find cases where it is
insufficient, or capable of being subverted to a bad use. I tend to look
first at the rights of the individual, and then, if it is obviously
impossible to preserve that right, will reluctantly accede to the wishes of
the socialist for the good of the society in general........

Thank you. Unrestricted possession of firearms aboard passenger
aircraft is clearly a horrific danger to all citizens in this country,
not merely the passengers of the aircraft itself, since when the
aircraft crashes, whoever happens to unlucky enough to be already on the
ground in the location where it crashes dies too.

Bear in mind
that it is very difficult, even for the airlines to search everyone who
boards their planes.

Doesn't seem at all "difficult" to me, since exactly such searches have
been done of every passenger within my view on every one of the 8
separate dates (within 3 years) that I have flown since 9/11, & I myself
have endured such searches. I'm wondering what else those which beep at
the slightest trace of metal could count as, & why they always
physically search me whenever the damned thing goes off as I pass
through it. The last few times it even picked up the aluminum foil in
my cigarette pack, & that was literally the *only* metal I was carrying
on my person. I & everyone else within my line of sight had to take off
our shoes (rather obviously because of a certain attempted "shoe bomber"
a while back) & I myself have been patted down more than once, so that
it would have been utterly impossible for me to gotten away with having
any sort of "gun" on my person at the time. Whether or not the search
method is "perfect" is a different matter from whether or not the search
is done at all.

I'm suspecting you haven't flown as often as I have since 9/11?

Do you really want to do that for trains and busses
too? ( I introduce practacality into the discussion, because, after all, any
law must be enforceable)

Sure, & it's a good point.

Perhaps instead of asking me, you should ask the friends & families of
all the victims of the Long Island train shooting.

I'd additionally feel like asking a certain group of people in Madrid,
for obvious reasons, even though that isn't in the United States.

What happened there can still happen here too.

It was also the same Al Qaeda there, or some similar group, as I recall.

But to answer your question with a plain "yes" or "no," metal detectors
in train stations?

Why not?

That means "yes," in case anyone's reading comprehension is lacking.

Those don't seem especially "difficult" to implement to me.

And the reasons *why* are obvious.

Just ask the friends & families of all the victims of the Long Island
railway massacre.

Oh, & I sincerely doubt any of them will describe that as a mere
"accident."

It seems quite obvious to me that the *context* of the amendment means
that the people have the right to bear arms against an *invader*, & you
yourself have expressed this viewpoint about assault weapons as being
the sort of weapons an invader might carry. Indeed.

But what about aboard a passenger plane? Completely different
situation, ain't it, William? In that case there is not necessarily any
aspect of defense against anything the writers of the Constitution would
have been referring to. And unless it can be conclusively demonstrated
that it is unconstitutional to ban citizens from carrying firearms
aboard passenger planes, then that indeed does involve a "time" in which
you cannot constitutionally bear arms.

Well, I assume that the general citizenry are honest, upright, good people
who are not intent on murdering themselves and everyone around them.

The problem is that every last one of the general citizenry, without a
single exception, are mere humans, meaning that plenty of them, even
those who under ordinary circumstances are well-meaning, are still
capable of shooting people when it isn't actually necessary.
Temptation, you know. When the gun is already on you, your rather more
likely to use it than when you don't have one. Plenty of people who
have never before committed a crime have still committed murder when
they became angry. And hardly "all" of these are mere "accidents."
Quite a few of them are intentional murders, & not done in anything like
self-defense. Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more
often such murders will occur. The same thing goes for persons with
habitual criminal intent: the more of them who have guns, the more of
them will use them. Oh yes, in *some* situations they'll be deterred by
the knowledge that others have guns too.

But only in *some* situations.

I still think the overall number of murders will increase if more people
own & carry guns.

That's simply obvious common sense.

YMMV.

If they
were, they could do it without an airliner. IOW, one doesn't need a gun to
kill. One can do it with a car, of a load of fertilizer and diesel fuel, or
in many other ways.

Duh. But as you yourself said, guns are actually *made* for killing.
It's not quite as easy to kill someone on the spot with a car, or a load
of fertilizer & diesel fuel. Yes, you can drive a car "at" someone, but
they can still jump out of the way. It's a bit more difficult to jump
out of the way of a bullet which is traveling faster than the speed of
sound, & indeed faster than the eye can see.

One can quite easily see a car coming, often long in advance.

It is utterly impossible to see a fired bullet coming. By the time the
victim realizes the trigger has been pulled, the bullet has already
smashed through the victim's body.

You get a lot more time to see a car swerving toward you.

Now yes, you can blow up people with diesel fuel before they know what's
happened. But that's still an entirely different argument, since the
primary uses of diesel fuel are considerably different from blowing up
people.

I seem to recall something or other about "trucks," & being able to make
them go forward.

Guns, however, as to their primary purpose, as you yourself have said,
are to kill. They aren't particularly useful in any other circumstance.

Oh yes, they're often used to kill other living things that aren't
humans.

That's one of the main reasons why I myself do NOT advocate banning them
from the entire populace.

They're still made specifically to kill, no matter what they're killing.

Target practice is merely practicing to kill with them.

People use guns for any other purpose...when, exactly?

Extremely rare for them to be used for any other purpose, or at least
the *practice* of that purpose, n'est pas, Guilliame?
--
"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 _vUkd.30063$5K2.14915@attbi_s03,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

Let's cut to the chase, William.

Yes or no, do you believe that I can carry a gun into your home without
your permission?

Of course, since I do not search everyone who comes into my home, there is
no way I could know what you have in your pockets when you come into my
home, therefore you can do that, yes.

You are evading what I asked you. Quite obviously I was NOT talking
about when you "don't know" that I'm bringing a gun into your house, & I
shouldn't even have to specify that when asking you. Quite obviously,
my question addressed ***ANY*** situation in which I'm bringing a gun
into your house, which ***INCLUDES*** when you ***DO*** know I'm
bringing it. I did NOT ask this:

"Yes or no, do you believe that I can carry a gun into your home without
your permission when you aren't aware that I'm carrying a gun?"

I asked no such thing. Instead, I simply asked you, yes or no, do you
personally believe that I have the right to carry a gun into your house
without your permission? Just as it was originally worded, that
question *includes* a scenario in which you *do* know in advance that
I'm trying to carry a gun into your house, since I did not specifically
say otherwise, as *well* as including a scenario in which you *don't*
know that I'm bringing a gun into your house.

Oh but fine, have it your way: I'll now re-word the question (even
though it's totally unnecessary to do so, since my original wording was
perfectly clear in the first place) so that this time you won't be able
to wiggle out of it:

Yes or no, William, even when you ***DO*** know that I'm about to try to
bring a gun into your house (oh, & the gun ***IS*** loaded & ready to
fire, which you also ***KNOW*** at the time, so you can't wiggle out
that way either), do I have the right to bring this into your house
WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION? In other words, even after I've SHOWN you the
gun, & SHOWN you that it is loaded & ready to fire, can I STILL bring it
into your house without your permission, even AFTER you've specifically
told me I cannot?

Yes or no, William?

(Don't even try to claim to me that all of that, plus scenarios that I
haven't even specifically mentioned yet, weren't completely covered by
my original wording of the question. My question was open-ended, & thus
covered ***ALL*** possible scenarios in which I might be bringing a gun
into your house.)

Free clue: the exact answer to the exact question I'm asking will either
be the single word "yes" or the single word "no." Using any word or
words *instead* of either of those exact words, or exact words of
synonymous meaning, such as "affirmative" or "negative" (notice that my
statement automatically covers ALL answers of synonymous meaning, even
words I haven't yet typed) I will consider to be a purposeful evasion.

Yes or no, William, period, under ANY circumstances, INCLUDING when you
DO KNOW I'm trying to bring a gun into your house?

Yes or no?

This time you'll not evade the exact question I'm asking, correct?

Tell ya what: when I tell you that I don't want you bringing a gun onto
***MY*** property, you'd better make damned sure you do exactly what I
say; otherwise if I ***DISCOVER*** that you have brought a gun onto
***MY*** PROPERTY AGAINST MY WISHES, I will indeed call the LAW to have
you removed, & not only am I supremely confident that they'll come right
there & remove you just as I request, but that additionally you'll be
utterly unable to get any Supreme Court of any political composition
known to all of United States history to agree with you that it was
"unconstitutional" for you to be removed from ***MY*** property under
such circumstances.

I'm quite obviously ***NOT*** talking about a situation in which I
"don't realize" that you have a gun on MY property. I'm instead quite
obviously talking about a situation in which I DO KNOW you're bringing
it.

I say it's completely & totally "constitutional" for me to tell you to
get the hell off of my property at the exact instant that I first
*realize* that you are carrying a gun. Feel free to attempt to "prove"
me wrong, but unless you positively do so, even if you deny it, it's
still the same thing as tacitly admitting that this indeed is a "time"
when you cannot "constitutionally" bear arms of any type.

Thus indeed, you cannot bear arms "at all times," since "at all times"
INCLUDES ON MY PROPERTY, EVEN AT A "TIME" WHEN I MYSELF ***SEE*** YOU
BEARING A FIREARM ON MY PROPERTY.

It's my property, not yours. I can indeed tell you to get the hell off
it any time I ***SEE*** you bearing arms upon it.

And I say the Constitution supports me.

Show me where it doesn't.

Oh, & don't even bother to demand that I "quote" where it "does" support
me. I asked you first. You made your claim first, so you support it
first. Show me where the Constitution specifically says I ***CAN'T***
order you the hell off my property "at all times" in which I ***SEE***
you carrying any type of "arms" known to humankind.

You can't show me any such thing, because no such passage exists in the
entire document.

I know; I've read it.

In its entirety.

Including all Amendments ever made to it.

Nowhere does it say I can't order you off my property for this exact
reason.

Nowhere.

Only by showing us all "where" it "says" this can you prove that the
Constitution guarantees that all American citizens can bear arms "at all
times," which includes the "time" I actually ***SEE*** you trying to
bring a gun onto ***MY*** (not your) property, will you be able to prove
your argument. Until you quote verbatim the exact passage of the
Constitution which says exactly this, then even if you still deny it, it
is still the same thing as admitting (even tacitly) that you do not
actually know for sure whether the Constitution guarantees this right
"at all times."

Unless you produce this exact verbatim quotation, your entire argument
is instantly destroyed.

Even if you refuse to admit it.

For your argument to work at even the most minimal level, you are FORCED
to quote the Constitution verbatim where it specifically says that any
citizen may bear arms, even on private property without the stated
permission of the owner of that property, even when the owner KNOWS that
you are bearing arms.

I still remain the only poster in the thread to actually quote an entire
Amendment verbatim & unabridged, at least in any exchanges directly
involving me.

Go ahead: try to bring any type of weaponry ever known to humankind in
the entire history of our species onto my property, even when I
***SEE*** it in your hands, & watch how fast I have the local police
remove you. Then try to have it brought to ***ANY*** court in the
entire land, not just the Supreme Court, & watch how fast you're
guffawed out of the building.

In fact, let's go for the gold: I live in Huntsville, Tx. If you
desire, I challenge you, here & now, to correspond with me to learn
exactly where I live, & then to make the attempt to come onto my
property with a firearm being held by you in plain sight.

Legally, & constitutionally, I'll have you removed.

And you'll not be winning any lawsuit you file against me.

Go for it, dude. Come on down here to Texas. You know, that's the
state where our current President (who is now in for another 4 years)
used to be the Governor.

How much ya wanna bet that even he will agree that I can indeed
constitutionally order you right the you-know-what off my property the
moment I SEE you bearing arms on MY property?

I'm damned sure that you can't carry one into mine without my
permission, & that it won't be even mildly "unconstitutional" for me to
call the police & have you removed from the premises.

You wouldn't know, unless you search everyone who enters your home, every
time they enter it.

I said nothing whatsoever about whether I did or didn't know, thus my
statement automatically included all possible scenarios, which means
that it includes situations in which I ***DO*** know.

Try addressing what I actually wrote, instead of your transparent
evasions. You didn't fool me for an instant.

Yes or no, William, in all possible situations, which ***INCLUDES***
when I actually ***SEE*** you holding a gun, do you or do you not
*personally* believe it is "unconstitutional* for me to have law
enforcement remove you from MY property?

Yes or no?

Not, "You wouldn't know," or any other such variation, none of which
answers the exact challenge I made to you.

"Yes."

or:

"No."

Period.

Including ALL possible scenarios which were already covered by my
original wording.

Yes or no, William?

Any further evasion will accomplish nothing that is constructive; it
will only convince me that you are purposefully refusing to answer what
I am asking you, & thus that you should never again be taken seriously,
but instead deserve to be nothing more than an object of contempt &
ridicule.

There is only one possible way you can avoid this:

Answer with the one & only word "yes."

Or the one & only word "no."

Or another term of absolutely synonymous meaning.

Usage of any other words, no matter what they are, will instantly lower
your credibility.

And yes or no, William, do you believe that anyone can carry a gun onto
a commercial airliner any "time" they please?

No, because they do search everyone who boards an airliner.

Yet again you post this strawman. That means that you are addressing an
argument I never made. I said nothing about whether or not the airlines
"know" that someone is carrying a firearm aboard one of their airplanes.
I didn't ask you anything like that. Instead I simply asked you, yes or
no, does anyone at all have the "right" to carry a firearm aboard a
commercial airplane, which obviously INCLUDES when the airline DOES or
DOES NOT search everyone, since I didn't specifically say otherwise.

You answered a question I never asked.

Now answer the question I ***DID*** ask.

That doesn't
mean I agree with their law. It just means that I acknowledge its existence.

That's fine, but I'm still waiting for you to answer the actual question
I asked.

Your answer to that, in these post 9/11 days, should be fascinating.

Be quite assured that I have an answer prepared no matter which way you
go on this.

Well, you are at liberty to give me your views at any time, either on this
list, or separately.

Damned right.

My email address is open to anyone as listed at the top
of all my posts.

What damned need have I to know your email addy, when instead I can ask
you just as easily in this public forum to answer my questions, so that
everyone can see when you do & do not evade them?

So far you've evaded my questions more often than you've answered them.
I want witnesses to that, which I won't have in private email, unless I
include others in the senders' addys.

I much prefer this fully public forum. Answer the exact damned
questions you're asked, William; don't try to divert it out of sight of
other witnesses by trying to divert it to private email.

You did know that at least 10 times as many people typically read a
Usenet thread as the number who actually post in it, correct? Neither
you or I know for certain who is & is not reading our articles here.

Answer the exact questions I'm asking you here where everyone can see
it, William.

So that both of us can have an unknown number of witnesses when you fail
to do so.

Email won't achieve that.

I want everyone to see when you evade my questions.

Your credibility, but not mine, will suffer when you do.

Is it, "arms" that you are
having trouble with?

Nope.

I'm having trouble with your imaginary insertion of the phrase "at all
times," a phrase which doesn't appear in that amendment. I'm not having
a bit of trouble with the words which *do* appear there.

Well, the phrase, "not at all times" seems to have crept into the amendment.

According to you alone, not to me. All careful readers of this thread
(including those who have never posted to it, but still read it) already
knew days ago that you, but never I, claimed that those words are
implicit in that Amendment.

I will be more than willing to admit that.

Additionally I hope that you will admit (in front of more witnesses than
you can number for certain) that you, alone in this thread, suggested
that the Amendment was originally written as if it had actually included
those exact words in that exact order.

But I don't believe it has any
place there.

Bull. You've directly contradicted that. You've specifically said,
more than once, that the original wording was purposefully left open to
interpretation. More witnesses than those who have posted to this
thread can attest that you've said exactly that.

I see no reason why anyone should not be allowed to carry a
pistol in his/her pocket at all times, no matter where they go.

Even when they do a drive-by shooting? Try, do, to support that with an
actual verbatim quotation from the Constitution. More to the point,
***WE*** (which includes ALL persons reading this thread, whether they
have yet posted in it or not) continue to wait for you to quote the
exact sentence in the Constitution which specifically says that you can
bear arms onto private property without the permission of the legal
owner of that property, whether or not the owner of that property
"knows" that you have done so. Until you produce such an exact
quotation, you are tacitly admitting that you don't actually know for a
fact that this is indeed a "time" in which the Constitution DOESN'T
guarantee you the right to bear arms, i.e., the "time" in which you come
on MY property bearing said arms.

Note carefully that I obliterated all possible excuses for you to
continue to evade exactly what you're challenged to address; the phrase
"whether or not the owner of that property 'knows' that you have done
so" all by itself instantly destroys that excuse. Literally no reader
of this thread, poster or non-posters, with the exception of a few
kooks, will take you seriously if you don't just answer the damned
question, period, with a plain yes or no.

Unless you also are a kook, you too knew this, years before you first
read any of my articles, correct William?

Had a few
people on those airliners that were hijacked on 9/11 been carrying pistols,
I believe the outcome would have been much better.

Would it? Why? Did you forget that the hijackers were planning to die
*anyway*? I'm thus questioning how much of a deterrent other passengers
carrying firearms would have been. Did you fail to consider that your
way would mean that the hijackers would be allowed to carry guns *also*?
What if they started shooting passengers *before* the passengers
realized that they needed to pull out their own guns? The passengers'
guns aren't of much use when the same passengers who are carrying them
are already *dead* before they've had a chance to pull out their guns,
much less fire them. Do you think for a moment that the element of
surprise cannot possibly work in such hijackers' favor in such a
situation, *especially* when the hijackers are *planning* to die
*anyway*? Since Al Qaeda is quite astute in analyzing both our
society's strengths & its weaknesses, it seems hardly implausible that,
even if all passengers on all the planes had been carrying guns, they
still might have done it in such a way that they would have succeeded?
What if one of them had said, "Unless you all drop all your guns, I'll
shoot this stewardess"? Let's say he's holding a gun to the
stewardess's head at the instant he says this. Will you be the one to
try to take him down, when even as you shoot him he might pull the
trigger on her?

Similar methods, on many occasions in human history, have convinced all
opponents to drop their weapons.

Oh dear, & this is hardly the "only" scenario which I can think of in
which the hijackers still would have been successful in flying the
planes into the WTC, even if both they & all the other passengers had
had guns with them.

Additionally, how many *more* air tragedies would we have by now had if
no one had ever been prevented from carrying a gun onboard any passenger
airline? A shootout aboard such a plane? Did you forget that bullets
can punch holes in the plane & cause a loss of oxygen for everyone?
Will the masks take care of that? And meanwhile, how many passengers
would be killed in these shootouts? What prevents hijackers from
shooting their way into cockpits, & shooting the pilots dead before they
or anyone else has a chance to react? Even if every passenger has a
gun, the plane is still almost certainly going to crash, killing all
onboard. Oh yes, the plane might not make it to such a major target as
the WTC.

There will still be a lot more plane crashes than occur these days.

Let's see:

1. Your system, in which anyone at all may carry guns onto any airplane,
which automatically means that some people will indeed die, either in
shootouts or in successful hijackings.

Or:

2. No weapons of any type, even those which are not firearms, are
allowed on planes at all, which means *no* *one* ever dies, unless the
plane crashes for an entirely different reason, such as pure mechanical
error.

1. A number of people die in airline tragedies.

2. Fewer people die in airline tragedies than in "1."

Gee, which should we choose?

In fact, I think assault weapons would
qualify, since that is what an invading army would carry, but I am open
to
quibbling over this point.

Oh, it's not a bad point at all, in principle. I haven't expressed any
specific disagreement to it each of the previous times you've said it
either.

Now back to your "at all times" claim.

I think we all know how horrifically dangerous it would be to let just
anyone carry a pistol on board a passenger jet. We'd be practically
begging for tragedy after tragedy after tragedy of great magnitude if we
allowed that. We might as well end all air travel in that case, since
no one would be even remotely safe anymore when flying.

Ah.....We are finally coming to a point we can argue about. You don't
believe that the general public should be able to "carry" on airliner
flights, and I do. Am I correct in this assumption?

Damned right. And the numerous historical hijackings, which is what led
to the banning of weapons aboard passenger airplanes in the first place,
support my view far more than they do yours.

And the Constitution does not *specifically* refute my view. The fact
that it does not specifically *support* it either is irrelevant. It has
to first specifically *refute* it in order for my view to truthfully be
declared "unconstitutional." Until it does (which it at present does
not), which means that an Amendment must be added which specifically
says something to the effect that, "Yes, even though we know that
carrying firearms aboard airplanes is exceedingly dangerous, we still
allow all of you anyway to do exactly that" (note carefully that I am
***NOT*** claiming that it must be in that exact wording, merely
claiming that it must *mean* something which conclusively covers that
exact scenario, with no wiggle room for variant interpretations), it is
simply not true that the Constitution guarantees that all of us have the
right to take guns aboard airplanes.

The Constitution was written more than a century before airplanes were
even invented. While the writers demonstrated admirable foresight in
many matters, something such as 9/11 & many other air tragedies were
something beyond their ability to fathom at the time. Do you really
think for a moment that if they *had* known of air travel, & of
hijackings, & other aspects of the history of why guns have been banned
aboard passenger planes, they would have really meant the Second
Amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms to everyone even aboard a
plane?

I do, yes. But alas, we can never know for sure, can we?

EXACTLY!!! There's where you yourself PLAINLY AGREE WITH ME!!!

Until you directly retract those exact words of yours, I'll never again
believe you if you say that the Constitution guarantees that we can all
bear arms "at all times," since aboard an airplane is indeed at least
one "time" which you yourself freely admitted "we can never know for
sure" is included in all the possible situations which the original
writers *meant* when they themselves *wrote* the Second Amendment.

But I'll submit to you again that the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of WHEN they
wrote this STRONGLY indicates that what they MEANT was MORE LIKELY THAN
OTHERWISE that we should have the right to bear arms WHEN ANOTHER POWER
IS INVADING OUR COUNTRY, which includes the "people," not just the armed
forces. You yourself have plainly admitted that we cannot ever know for
certain that the writers meant ANYTHING ELSE BUT THIS.

Oh yes, yes, & yes, that also means that we cannot know for certain
whether or not they meant such restrictions that I (but not your claimed
"liberals") have suggested as merely a plausible alternative.
Nevertheless, since you yourself admit that we don't know EITHER WAY,
your interpretation is no more conclusive than mine.

But more historical evidence backs up my conclusion than yours.

Were the writers concerned about airplanes at the time?

Nope, because they didn't even know what airplanes *are*.

Were the writers concerned about an oppressive power?

Yes, beyond all possible doubt.

One word:

"England."

That word, all by itself, supports my viewpoint much more than it does
yours.

All one has to know is what "England" was doing at the time, & more
importantly, how the Revolutionaries *interpreted* what "England" was
doing at the time, whether or not their interpretation was "accurate."

Accurate or not, they wrote what they wrote, & meant what they meant
when they wrote it.

And as you yourself have additionally admitted, they wisely left what
they wrote up to interpretation, since they wisely realized that they
could not possibly foresee all potential developments of our society &
our country, especially those which would occur long after their deaths.

And if it's "unconstitutional" to prevent citizens from carrying
firearms aboard passenger planes, why has it never been declared so in
the Supreme Court in all these decades in which the ban has been in
place? Why has no one even *attempted* to take this to the Supreme
Court for judgment?

The supreme court has become a very politically biased institution. I would
like them to be strict constitutionalists, but it is not the case. They tend
to follow the political ideals and agenda's of the presidents who appoint
them, and over time, they have come to deviate from the original meanings of
the constitution more and more. This distresses me, but there doesn't seem
to be much I can do about it.

So? That still doesn't answer my question. Will you never stop evading
& evading & evading? What I was obviously asking was, while the
political climate has varied greatly over the entire history of air
travel (including the political composition of the Supreme Court itself)
why has no one STILL even TRIED to constitutionally challenge the
banning of weapons aboard passenger planes, no matter what the political
climate at the time, including the political composition and/or
viewpoint of the majority of Justices on the Court at whatever time it
was?

Is the answer what you said, that the Supreme Court is merely a
politically based institution, or is instead that everyone but a tiny
minority of kooks has known, since the beginning of the first time
weapons were banned from airlines continuously to the present day, that
to attempt to challenge the ban in the slightest in a constitutional
manner is ludicrous in the extreme, for obvious reasons, & that during
any American political era which has so far occurred, any such challenge
will invariably be guffawed out of court, even out of a *lower* court?

Because it's simple & plain common sense, & a matter of basic
fundamental human safety, to ban weapons from passenger airplanes,
continuously true in a manner completely independent of political
viewpoint?

Do attempt to speak before a gathering of the families & friends of the
victims of 9/11, & claim to them that all American citizens "should" be
allowed to carry weapons aboard passenger planes. I want to be there so
that I can witness their reaction to you first-hand.

I am totally confident that the majority of them will not view you in a
"positive" manner, nor will they agree with you that the Constitution
"guarantees" what you claim. Neither will they agree with you that more
passengers carrying guns would have necessarily "prevented" the deaths
of c.3000 of their friends & loved-ones.

In actual truth, it might instead make such horrific massacres occur
more frequently.

Remember that by your rule, the hijackers too can carry guns aboard
airplanes.

The thing that would have "prevented" them from shooting the other
passengers "before" the passengers were able to draw their own guns
was...what, exactly?

I am really interested in finding out what
they are going to say about gay marriage........

So am I. In particular, I'm "writhing" with curiosity as to how they
might attempt, no matter what their "political" viewpoint at the time
they hear the case, to limit marriage to any sort of gender
qualification, when restriction of the vote in regard to gender or race,
just to name one example, has already been unequivocally
unconstitutional for a very, very long time.

At the moment, I'm even more curious to learn when, if ever, any case is
going to reach the Supreme Court, or even ANY court in the entire land
at the local, state, or federal level, in which even the slightest
challenge to the ban against weapons aboard passenger airlines won't be
guffawed out of court (in other words, case dismissed) in advance of any
judge in the land agreeing that the case should even be *heard* in
court, no matter how many more centuries our country continues to exist.

No such case has ever reached any court in the entire country in the
entire history of airline travel, correct William? If I'm wrong, feel
free to name the case, so that I may immediately realize my error &
freely apologize for it.

But if I'm not wrong, could it be that the reason no such case has ever
existed is because no one is foolish enough to actually believe that it
is worthwhile to challenge this ban in any court?

Because the valid reasons for the ban are patently obvious?

I remind you that you yourself said this:

"the writers were rather careful to not specify things too carefully"

Exactly. The writers wisely left many aspects of the Constitution open
to interpretation, since they wanted the document to be applicable to
changes in the society which they could not necessarily foresee. And
I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a moment that if you somehow could
bring them back from the grave & show them all the issues about air
travel, that they would agree that they meant anything like a right to
bear arms even aboard a passenger plane, as obviously & horrifically
dangerous to everyone as that would be.

It would, (I believe) have prevented 9/11........

I beg to differ. I have only named one scenario, among several that
immediately came to my mind, in which the Al Qaeda hijackers would still
have been just as successful in destroying the WTC. Since you are just
as intelligent as me, & probably more so, you'll be able to think of
just as many scenarios too, if not more, correct?

The hijackers were planning to die *anyway*.

And according to you, they *also* would have been allowed to carry guns
onboard those planes.

I'll never forget that you yourself specifically said that even
convicted criminals are guaranteed by the Second Amendment to have the
right to bear arms.

You did say that.

I'm not making it up.

I seem to recall that at least "one" of the 9/11 hijackers had
technically become an American "citizen."

And that additionally "he" had not yet been convicted.

Of anything.

Or was there more than "one"?

My memory is fuzzy at the moment.

Perhaps you can clarify.

But there was indeed at least "one" who had done so.

Do try to explain to all the friends & families of the 9/11 victims why
"he" (or "they") still had the "right" to carry, not just boxcutters,
but actual firearms, aboard those planes, merely because "he" (or
"they") was (were) American citizens at the time.

I believe that, if they
didn't serve liquor on airliners, the carrying of pocket pistols would be a
distinct advantage to the safety of the general air traveling population,
but I am open to your arguments against this..........

Shootouts on passenger airplanes. That's the same thing as begging for
more airline crashes than have so far occurred in the entire history of
aviation. That's what will invariably happen if all restrictions
against firearms aboard airplanes are lifted. Such hijackers are
already planning to die anyway, so obviously they don't care in the
slightest how many others on the plane die with them, or what city,
including the size of the population, the plane is over at the time it
crashes.

Discuss.

Ah, & when they said that the people have the right to bear arms, do you
really think for a moment that they meant that this includes the *abuse*
of that right? Remember the man who shot all those people aboard the
train in Long Island? Do you really think *that* sort of use of arms
was what the writers meant? Now you might argue that if *others* aboard
the train had also been carrying weapons, he could have been shot down
before he killed as many people as he did. But while that might well
have been the case, unless the aim of the first person who shot him had
been good enough to fell him instantly, what might have happened instead
could have been a gunbattle in which even *more* people were killed.

Well, no matter what the law, one can always find cases where it is
insufficient, or capable of being subverted to a bad use. I tend to look
first at the rights of the individual, and then, if it is obviously
impossible to preserve that right, will reluctantly accede to the wishes of
the socialist for the good of the society in general........

Thank you. Unrestricted possession of firearms aboard passenger
aircraft is clearly a horrific danger to all citizens in this country,
not merely the passengers of the aircraft itself, since when the
aircraft crashes, whoever happens to unlucky enough to be already on the
ground in the location where it crashes dies too.

Bear in mind
that it is very difficult, even for the airlines to search everyone who
boards their planes.

Doesn't seem at all "difficult" to me, since exactly such searches have
been done of every passenger within my view on every one of the 8
separate dates (within 3 years) that I have flown since 9/11, & I myself
have endured such searches. I'm wondering what else those which beep at
the slightest trace of metal could count as, & why they always
physically search me whenever the damned thing goes off as I pass
through it. The last few times it even picked up the aluminum foil in
my cigarette pack, & that was literally the *only* metal I was carrying
on my person. I & everyone else within my line of sight had to take off
our shoes (rather obviously because of a certain attempted "shoe bomber"
a while back) & I myself have been patted down more than once, so that
it would have been utterly impossible for me to gotten away with having
any sort of "gun" on my person at the time. Whether or not the search
method is "perfect" is a different matter from whether or not the search
is done at all.

I'm suspecting you haven't flown as often as I have since 9/11?

Do you really want to do that for trains and busses
too? ( I introduce practacality into the discussion, because, after all, any
law must be enforceable)

Sure, & it's a good point.

Perhaps instead of asking me, you should ask the friends & families of
all the victims of the Long Island train shooting.

I'd additionally feel like asking a certain group of people in Madrid,
for obvious reasons, even though that isn't in the United States.

What happened there can still happen here too.

It was also the same Al Qaeda there, or some similar group, as I recall.

But to answer your question with a plain "yes" or "no," metal detectors
in train stations?

Why not?

That means "yes," in case anyone's reading comprehension is lacking.

Those don't seem especially "difficult" to implement to me.

And the reasons *why* are obvious.

Just ask the friends & families of all the victims of the Long Island
railway massacre.

Oh, & I sincerely doubt any of them will describe that as a mere
"accident."

It seems quite obvious to me that the *context* of the amendment means
that the people have the right to bear arms against an *invader*, & you
yourself have expressed this viewpoint about assault weapons as being
the sort of weapons an invader might carry. Indeed.

But what about aboard a passenger plane? Completely different
situation, ain't it, William? In that case there is not necessarily any
aspect of defense against anything the writers of the Constitution would
have been referring to. And unless it can be conclusively demonstrated
that it is unconstitutional to ban citizens from carrying firearms
aboard passenger planes, then that indeed does involve a "time" in which
you cannot constitutionally bear arms.

Well, I assume that the general citizenry are honest, upright, good people
who are not intent on murdering themselves and everyone around them.

The problem is that every last one of the general citizenry, without a
single exception, are mere humans, meaning that plenty of them, even
those who under ordinary circumstances are well-meaning, are still
capable of shooting people when it isn't actually necessary.
Temptation, you know. When the gun is already on you, your rather more
likely to use it than when you don't have one. Plenty of people who
have never before committed a crime have still committed murder when
they became angry. And hardly "all" of these are mere "accidents."
Quite a few of them are intentional murders, & not done in anything like
self-defense. Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more
often such murders will occur. The same thing goes for persons with
habitual criminal intent: the more of them who have guns, the more of
them will use them. Oh yes, in *some* situations they'll be deterred by
the knowledge that others have guns too.

But only in *some* situations.

I still think the overall number of murders will increase if more people
own & carry guns.

That's simply obvious common sense.

YMMV.

If they
were, they could do it without an airliner. IOW, one doesn't need a gun to
kill. One can do it with a car, of a load of fertilizer and diesel fuel, or
in many other ways.

Duh. But as you yourself said, guns are actually *made* for killing.
It's not quite as easy to kill someone on the spot with a car, or a load
of fertilizer & diesel fuel. Yes, you can drive a car "at" someone, but
they can still jump out of the way. It's a bit more difficult to jump
out of the way of a bullet which is traveling faster than the speed of
sound, & indeed faster than the eye can see.

One can quite easily see a car coming, often long in advance.

It is utterly impossible to see a fired bullet coming. By the time the
victim realizes the trigger has been pulled, the bullet has already
smashed through the victim's body.

You get a lot more time to see a car swerving toward you.

Now yes, you can blow up people with diesel fuel before they know what's
happened. But that's still an entirely different argument, since the
primary uses of diesel fuel are considerably different from blowing up
people.

I seem to recall something or other about "trucks," & being able to make
them go forward.

Guns, however, as to their primary purpose, as you yourself have said,
are to kill. They aren't particularly useful in any other circumstance.

Oh yes, they're often used to kill other living things that aren't
humans.

That's one of the main reasons why I myself do NOT advocate banning them
from the entire populace.

They're still made specifically to kill, no matter what they're killing.

Target practice is merely practicing to kill with them.

People use guns for any other purpose...when, exactly?

Extremely rare for them to be used for any other purpose, or at least
the *practice* of that purpose, n'est pas, Guilliame?
--
"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 _vUkd.30063$5K2.14915@attbi_s03,
"William Graham" wrote:

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
news:sorbus_rowan-

Let's cut to the chase, William.

Yes or no, do you believe that I can carry a gun into your home without
your permission?

Of course, since I do not search everyone who comes into my home, there is
no way I could know what you have in your pockets when you come into my
home, therefore you can do that, yes.

You are evading what I asked you. Quite obviously I was NOT talking
about when you "don't know" that I'm bringing a gun into your house, & I
shouldn't even have to specify that when asking you. Quite obviously,
my question addressed ***ANY*** situation in which I'm bringing a gun
into your house, which ***INCLUDES*** when you ***DO*** know I'm
bringing it. I did NOT ask this:

"Yes or no, do you believe that I can carry a gun into your home without
your permission when you aren't aware that I'm carrying a gun?"

I asked no such thing. Instead, I simply asked you, yes or no, do you
personally believe that I have the right to carry a gun into your house
without your permission? Just as it was originally worded, that
question *includes* a scenario in which you *do* know in advance that
I'm trying to carry a gun into your house, since I did not specifically
say otherwise, as *well* as including a scenario in which you *don't*
know that I'm bringing a gun into your house.

Oh but fine, have it your way: I'll now re-word the question (even
though it's totally unnecessary to do so, since my original wording was
perfectly clear in the first place) so that this time you won't be able
to wiggle out of it:

Yes or no, William, even when you ***DO*** know that I'm about to try to
bring a gun into your house (oh, & the gun ***IS*** loaded & ready to
fire, which you also ***KNOW*** at the time, so you can't wiggle out
that way either), do I have the right to bring this into your house
WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION? In other words, even after I've SHOWN you the
gun, & SHOWN you that it is loaded & ready to fire, can I STILL bring it
into your house without your permission, even AFTER you've specifically
told me I cannot?

Yes or no, William?

(Don't even try to claim to me that all of that, plus scenarios that I
haven't even specifically mentioned yet, weren't completely covered by
my original wording of the question. My question was open-ended, & thus
covered ***ALL*** possible scenarios in which I might be bringing a gun
into your house.)

Free clue: the exact answer to the exact question I'm asking will either
be the single word "yes" or the single word "no." Using any word or
words *instead* of either of those exact words, or exact words of
synonymous meaning, such as "affirmative" or "negative" (notice that my
statement automatically covers ALL answers of synonymous meaning, even
words I haven't yet typed) I will consider to be a purposeful evasion.

Yes or no, William, period, under ANY circumstances, INCLUDING when you
DO KNOW I'm trying to bring a gun into your house?

Yes or no?

This time you'll not evade the exact question I'm asking, correct?

Tell ya what: when I tell you that I don't want you bringing a gun onto
***MY*** property, you'd better make damned sure you do exactly what I
say; otherwise if I ***DISCOVER*** that you have brought a gun onto
***MY*** PROPERTY AGAINST MY WISHES, I will indeed call the LAW to have
you removed, & not only am I supremely confident that they'll come right
there & remove you just as I request, but that additionally you'll be
utterly unable to get any Supreme Court of any political composition
known to all of United States history to agree with you that it was
"unconstitutional" for you to be removed from ***MY*** property under
such circumstances.

I'm quite obviously ***NOT*** talking about a situation in which I
"don't realize" that you have a gun on MY property. I'm instead quite
obviously talking about a situation in which I DO KNOW you're bringing
it.

I say it's completely & totally "constitutional" for me to tell you to
get the hell off of my property at the exact instant that I first
*realize* that you are carrying a gun. Feel free to attempt to "prove"
me wrong, but unless you positively do so, even if you deny it, it's
still the same thing as tacitly admitting that this indeed is a "time"
when you cannot "constitutionally" bear arms of any type.

Thus indeed, you cannot bear arms "at all times," since "at all times"
INCLUDES ON MY PROPERTY, EVEN AT A "TIME" WHEN I MYSELF ***SEE*** YOU
BEARING A FIREARM ON MY PROPERTY.

It's my property, not yours. I can indeed tell you to get the hell off
it any time I ***SEE*** you bearing arms upon it.

And I say the Constitution supports me.

Show me where it doesn't.

Oh, & don't even bother to demand that I "quote" where it "does" support
me. I asked you first. You made your claim first, so you support it
first. Show me where the Constitution specifically says I ***CAN'T***
order you the hell off my property "at all times" in which I ***SEE***
you carrying any type of "arms" known to humankind.

You can't show me any such thing, because no such passage exists in the
entire document.

I know; I've read it.

In its entirety.

Including all Amendments ever made to it.

Nowhere does it say I can't order you off my property for this exact
reason.

Nowhere.

Only by showing us all "where" it "says" this can you prove that the
Constitution guarantees that all American citizens can bear arms "at all
times," which includes the "time" I actually ***SEE*** you trying to
bring a gun onto ***MY*** (not your) property, will you be able to prove
your argument. Until you quote verbatim the exact passage of the
Constitution which says exactly this, then even if you still deny it, it
is still the same thing as admitting (even tacitly) that you do not
actually know for sure whether the Constitution guarantees this right
"at all times."

Unless you produce this exact verbatim quotation, your entire argument
is instantly destroyed.

Even if you refuse to admit it.

For your argument to work at even the most minimal level, you are FORCED
to quote the Constitution verbatim where it specifically says that any
citizen may bear arms, even on private property without the stated
permission of the owner of that property, even when the owner KNOWS that
you are bearing arms.

I still remain the only poster in the thread to actually quote an entire
Amendment verbatim & unabridged, at least in any exchanges directly
involving me.

Go ahead: try to bring any type of weaponry ever known to humankind in
the entire history of our species onto my property, even when I
***SEE*** it in your hands, & watch how fast I have the local police
remove you. Then try to have it brought to ***ANY*** court in the
entire land, not just the Supreme Court, & watch how fast you're
guffawed out of the building.

In fact, let's go for the gold: I live in Huntsville, Tx. If you
desire, I challenge you, here & now, to correspond with me to learn
exactly where I live, & then to make the attempt to come onto my
property with a firearm being held by you in plain sight.

Legally, & constitutionally, I'll have you removed.

And you'll not be winning any lawsuit you file against me.

Go for it, dude. Come on down here to Texas. You know, that's the
state where our current President (who is now in for another 4 years)
used to be the Governor.

How much ya wanna bet that even he will agree that I can indeed
constitutionally order you right the you-know-what off my property the
moment I SEE you bearing arms on MY property?

I'm damned sure that you can't carry one into mine without my
permission, & that it won't be even mildly "unconstitutional" for me to
call the police & have you removed from the premises.

You wouldn't know, unless you search everyone who enters your home, every
time they enter it.

I said nothing whatsoever about whether I did or didn't know, thus my
statement automatically included all possible scenarios, which means
that it includes situations in which I ***DO*** know.

Try addressing what I actually wrote, instead of your transparent
evasions. You didn't fool me for an instant.

Yes or no, William, in all possible situations, which ***INCLUDES***
when I actually ***SEE*** you holding a gun, do you or do you not
*personally* believe it is "unconstitutional* for me to have law
enforcement remove you from MY property?

Yes or no?

Not, "You wouldn't know," or any other such variation, none of which
answers the exact challenge I made to you.

"Yes."

or:

"No."

Period.

Including ALL possible scenarios which were already covered by my
original wording.

Yes or no, William?

Any further evasion will accomplish nothing that is constructive; it
will only convince me that you are purposefully refusing to answer what
I am asking you, & thus that you should never again be taken seriously,
but instead deserve to be nothing more than an object of contempt &
ridicule.

There is only one possible way you can avoid this:

Answer with the one & only word "yes."

Or the one & only word "no."

Or another term of absolutely synonymous meaning.

Usage of any other words, no matter what they are, will instantly lower
your credibility.

And yes or no, William, do you believe that anyone can carry a gun onto
a commercial airliner any "time" they please?

No, because they do search everyone who boards an airliner.

Yet again you post this strawman. That means that you are addressing an
argument I never made. I said nothing about whether or not the airlines
"know" that someone is carrying a firearm aboard one of their airplanes.
I didn't ask you anything like that. Instead I simply asked you, yes or
no, does anyone at all have the "right" to carry a firearm aboard a
commercial airplane, which obviously INCLUDES when the airline DOES or
DOES NOT search everyone, since I didn't specifically say otherwise.

You answered a question I never asked.

Now answer the question I ***DID*** ask.

That doesn't
mean I agree with their law. It just means that I acknowledge its existence.

That's fine, but I'm still waiting for you to answer the actual question
I asked.

Your answer to that, in these post 9/11 days, should be fascinating.

Be quite assured that I have an answer prepared no matter which way you
go on this.

Well, you are at liberty to give me your views at any time, either on this
list, or separately.

Damned right.

My email address is open to anyone as listed at the top
of all my posts.

What damned need have I to know your email addy, when instead I can ask
you just as easily in this public forum to answer my questions, so that
everyone can see when you do & do not evade them?

So far you've evaded my questions more often than you've answered them.
I want witnesses to that, which I won't have in private email, unless I
include others in the senders' addys.

I much prefer this fully public forum. Answer the exact damned
questions you're asked, William; don't try to divert it out of sight of
other witnesses by trying to divert it to private email.

You did know that at least 10 times as many people typically read a
Usenet thread as the number who actually post in it, correct? Neither
you or I know for certain who is & is not reading our articles here.

Answer the exact questions I'm asking you here where everyone can see
it, William.

So that both of us can have an unknown number of witnesses when you fail
to do so.

Email won't achieve that.

I want everyone to see when you evade my questions.

Your credibility, but not mine, will suffer when you do.

Is it, "arms" that you are
having trouble with?

Nope.

I'm having trouble with your imaginary insertion of the phrase "at all
times," a phrase which doesn't appear in that amendment. I'm not having
a bit of trouble with the words which *do* appear there.

Well, the phrase, "not at all times" seems to have crept into the amendment.

According to you alone, not to me. All careful readers of this thread
(including those who have never posted to it, but still read it) already
knew days ago that you, but never I, claimed that those words are
implicit in that Amendment.

I will be more than willing to admit that.

Additionally I hope that you will admit (in front of more witnesses than
you can number for certain) that you, alone in this thread, suggested
that the Amendment was originally written as if it had actually included
those exact words in that exact order.

But I don't believe it has any
place there.

Bull. You've directly contradicted that. You've specifically said,
more than once, that the original wording was purposefully left open to
interpretation. More witnesses than those who have posted to this
thread can attest that you've said exactly that.

I see no reason why anyone should not be allowed to carry a
pistol in his/her pocket at all times, no matter where they go.

Even when they do a drive-by shooting? Try, do, to support that with an
actual verbatim quotation from the Constitution. More to the point,
***WE*** (which includes ALL persons reading this thread, whether they
have yet posted in it or not) continue to wait for you to quote the
exact sentence in the Constitution which specifically says that you can
bear arms onto private property without the permission of the legal
owner of that property, whether or not the owner of that property
"knows" that you have done so. Until you produce such an exact
quotation, you are tacitly admitting that you don't actually know for a
fact that this is indeed a "time" in which the Constitution DOESN'T
guarantee you the right to bear arms, i.e., the "time" in which you come
on MY property bearing said arms.

Note carefully that I obliterated all possible excuses for you to
continue to evade exactly what you're challenged to address; the phrase
"whether or not the owner of that property 'knows' that you have done
so" all by itself instantly destroys that excuse. Literally no reader
of this thread, poster or non-posters, with the exception of a few
kooks, will take you seriously if you don't just answer the damned
question, period, with a plain yes or no.

Unless you also are a kook, you too knew this, years before you first
read any of my articles, correct William?

Had a few
people on those airliners that were hijacked on 9/11 been carrying pistols,
I believe the outcome would have been much better.

Would it? Why? Did you forget that the hijackers were planning to die
*anyway*? I'm thus questioning how much of a deterrent other passengers
carrying firearms would have been. Did you fail to consider that your
way would mean that the hijackers would be allowed to carry guns *also*?
What if they started shooting passengers *before* the passengers
realized that they needed to pull out their own guns? The passengers'
guns aren't of much use when the same passengers who are carrying them
are already *dead* before they've had a chance to pull out their guns,
much less fire them. Do you think for a moment that the element of
surprise cannot possibly work in such hijackers' favor in such a
situation, *especially* when the hijackers are *planning* to die
*anyway*? Since Al Qaeda is quite astute in analyzing both our
society's strengths & its weaknesses, it seems hardly implausible that,
even if all passengers on all the planes had been carrying guns, they
still might have done it in such a way that they would have succeeded?
What if one of them had said, "Unless you all drop all your guns, I'll
shoot this stewardess"? Let's say he's holding a gun to the
stewardess's head at the instant he says this. Will you be the one to
try to take him down, when even as you shoot him he might pull the
trigger on her?

Similar methods, on many occasions in human history, have convinced all
opponents to drop their weapons.

Oh dear, & this is hardly the "only" scenario which I can think of in
which the hijackers still would have been successful in flying the
planes into the WTC, even if both they & all the other passengers had
had guns with them.

Additionally, how many *more* air tragedies would we have by now had if
no one had ever been prevented from carrying a gun onboard any passenger
airline? A shootout aboard such a plane? Did you forget that bullets
can punch holes in the plane & cause a loss of oxygen for everyone?
Will the masks take care of that? And meanwhile, how many passengers
would be killed in these shootouts? What prevents hijackers from
shooting their way into cockpits, & shooting the pilots dead before they
or anyone else has a chance to react? Even if every passenger has a
gun, the plane is still almost certainly going to crash, killing all
onboard. Oh yes, the plane might not make it to such a major target as
the WTC.

There will still be a lot more plane crashes than occur these days.

Let's see:

1. Your system, in which anyone at all may carry guns onto any airplane,
which automatically means that some people will indeed die, either in
shootouts or in successful hijackings.

Or:

2. No weapons of any type, even those which are not firearms, are
allowed on planes at all, which means *no* *one* ever dies, unless the
plane crashes for an entirely different reason, such as pure mechanical
error.

1. A number of people die in airline tragedies.

2. Fewer people die in airline tragedies than in "1."

Gee, which should we choose?

In fact, I think assault weapons would
qualify, since that is what an invading army would carry, but I am open
to
quibbling over this point.

Oh, it's not a bad point at all, in principle. I haven't expressed any
specific disagreement to it each of the previous times you've said it
either.

Now back to your "at all times" claim.

I think we all know how horrifically dangerous it would be to let just
anyone carry a pistol on board a passenger jet. We'd be practically
begging for tragedy after tragedy after tragedy of great magnitude if we
allowed that. We might as well end all air travel in that case, since
no one would be even remotely safe anymore when flying.

Ah.....We are finally coming to a point we can argue about. You don't
believe that the general public should be able to "carry" on airliner
flights, and I do. Am I correct in this assumption?

Damned right. And the numerous historical hijackings, which is what led
to the banning of weapons aboard passenger airplanes in the first place,
support my view far more than they do yours.

And the Constitution does not *specifically* refute my view. The fact
that it does not specifically *support* it either is irrelevant. It has
to first specifically *refute* it in order for my view to truthfully be
declared "unconstitutional." Until it does (which it at present does
not), which means that an Amendment must be added which specifically
says something to the effect that, "Yes, even though we know that
carrying firearms aboard airplanes is exceedingly dangerous, we still
allow all of you anyway to do exactly that" (note carefully that I am
***NOT*** claiming that it must be in that exact wording, merely
claiming that it must *mean* something which conclusively covers that
exact scenario, with no wiggle room for variant interpretations), it is
simply not true that the Constitution guarantees that all of us have the
right to take guns aboard airplanes.

The Constitution was written more than a century before airplanes were
even invented. While the writers demonstrated admirable foresight in
many matters, something such as 9/11 & many other air tragedies were
something beyond their ability to fathom at the time. Do you really
think for a moment that if they *had* known of air travel, & of
hijackings, & other aspects of the history of why guns have been banned
aboard passenger planes, they would have really meant the Second
Amendment to guarantee the right to bear arms to everyone even aboard a
plane?

I do, yes. But alas, we can never know for sure, can we?

EXACTLY!!! There's where you yourself PLAINLY AGREE WITH ME!!!

Until you directly retract those exact words of yours, I'll never again
believe you if you say that the Constitution guarantees that we can all
bear arms "at all times," since aboard an airplane is indeed at least
one "time" which you yourself freely admitted "we can never know for
sure" is included in all the possible situations which the original
writers *meant* when they themselves *wrote* the Second Amendment.

But I'll submit to you again that the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of WHEN they
wrote this STRONGLY indicates that what they MEANT was MORE LIKELY THAN
OTHERWISE that we should have the right to bear arms WHEN ANOTHER POWER
IS INVADING OUR COUNTRY, which includes the "people," not just the armed
forces. You yourself have plainly admitted that we cannot ever know for
certain that the writers meant ANYTHING ELSE BUT THIS.

Oh yes, yes, & yes, that also means that we cannot know for certain
whether or not they meant such restrictions that I (but not your claimed
"liberals") have suggested as merely a plausible alternative.
Nevertheless, since you yourself admit that we don't know EITHER WAY,
your interpretation is no more conclusive than mine.

But more historical evidence backs up my conclusion than yours.

Were the writers concerned about airplanes at the time?

Nope, because they didn't even know what airplanes *are*.

Were the writers concerned about an oppressive power?

Yes, beyond all possible doubt.

One word:

"England."

That word, all by itself, supports my viewpoint much more than it does
yours.

All one has to know is what "England" was doing at the time, & more
importantly, how the Revolutionaries *interpreted* what "England" was
doing at the time, whether or not their interpretation was "accurate."

Accurate or not, they wrote what they wrote, & meant what they meant
when they wrote it.

And as you yourself have additionally admitted, they wisely left what
they wrote up to interpretation, since they wisely realized that they
could not possibly foresee all potential developments of our society &
our country, especially those which would occur long after their deaths.

And if it's "unconstitutional" to prevent citizens from carrying
firearms aboard passenger planes, why has it never been declared so in
the Supreme Court in all these decades in which the ban has been in
place? Why has no one even *attempted* to take this to the Supreme
Court for judgment?

The supreme court has become a very politically biased institution. I would
like them to be strict constitutionalists, but it is not the case. They tend
to follow the political ideals and agenda's of the presidents who appoint
them, and over time, they have come to deviate from the original meanings of
the constitution more and more. This distresses me, but there doesn't seem
to be much I can do about it.

So? That still doesn't answer my question. Will you never stop evading
& evading & evading? What I was obviously asking was, while the
political climate has varied greatly over the entire history of air
travel (including the political composition of the Supreme Court itself)
why has no one STILL even TRIED to constitutionally challenge the
banning of weapons aboard passenger planes, no matter what the political
climate at the time, including the political composition and/or
viewpoint of the majority of Justices on the Court at whatever time it
was?

Is the answer what you said, that the Supreme Court is merely a
politically based institution, or is instead that everyone but a tiny
minority of kooks has known, since the beginning of the first time
weapons were banned from airlines continuously to the present day, that
to attempt to challenge the ban in the slightest in a constitutional
manner is ludicrous in the extreme, for obvious reasons, & that during
any American political era which has so far occurred, any such challenge
will invariably be guffawed out of court, even out of a *lower* court?

Because it's simple & plain common sense, & a matter of basic
fundamental human safety, to ban weapons from passenger airplanes,
continuously true in a manner completely independent of political
viewpoint?

Do attempt to speak before a gathering of the families & friends of the
victims of 9/11, & claim to them that all American citizens "should" be
allowed to carry weapons aboard passenger planes. I want to be there so
that I can witness their reaction to you first-hand.

I am totally confident that the majority of them will not view you in a
"positive" manner, nor will they agree with you that the Constitution
"guarantees" what you claim. Neither will they agree with you that more
passengers carrying guns would have necessarily "prevented" the deaths
of c.3000 of their friends & loved-ones.

In actual truth, it might instead make such horrific massacres occur
more frequently.

Remember that by your rule, the hijackers too can carry guns aboard
airplanes.

The thing that would have "prevented" them from shooting the other
passengers "before" the passengers were able to draw their own guns
was...what, exactly?

I am really interested in finding out what
they are going to say about gay marriage........

So am I. In particular, I'm "writhing" with curiosity as to how they
might attempt, no matter what their "political" viewpoint at the time
they hear the case, to limit marriage to any sort of gender
qualification, when restriction of the vote in regard to gender or race,
just to name one example, has already been unequivocally
unconstitutional for a very, very long time.

At the moment, I'm even more curious to learn when, if ever, any case is
going to reach the Supreme Court, or even ANY court in the entire land
at the local, state, or federal level, in which even the slightest
challenge to the ban against weapons aboard passenger airlines won't be
guffawed out of court (in other words, case dismissed) in advance of any
judge in the land agreeing that the case should even be *heard* in
court, no matter how many more centuries our country continues to exist.

No such case has ever reached any court in the entire country in the
entire history of airline travel, correct William? If I'm wrong, feel
free to name the case, so that I may immediately realize my error &
freely apologize for it.

But if I'm not wrong, could it be that the reason no such case has ever
existed is because no one is foolish enough to actually believe that it
is worthwhile to challenge this ban in any court?

Because the valid reasons for the ban are patently obvious?

I remind you that you yourself said this:

"the writers were rather careful to not specify things too carefully"

Exactly. The writers wisely left many aspects of the Constitution open
to interpretation, since they wanted the document to be applicable to
changes in the society which they could not necessarily foresee. And
I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a moment that if you somehow could
bring them back from the grave & show them all the issues about air
travel, that they would agree that they meant anything like a right to
bear arms even aboard a passenger plane, as obviously & horrifically
dangerous to everyone as that would be.

It would, (I believe) have prevented 9/11........

I beg to differ. I have only named one scenario, among several that
immediately came to my mind, in which the Al Qaeda hijackers would still
have been just as successful in destroying the WTC. Since you are just
as intelligent as me, & probably more so, you'll be able to think of
just as many scenarios too, if not more, correct?

The hijackers were planning to die *anyway*.

And according to you, they *also* would have been allowed to carry guns
onboard those planes.

I'll never forget that you yourself specifically said that even
convicted criminals are guaranteed by the Second Amendment to have the
right to bear arms.

You did say that.

I'm not making it up.

I seem to recall that at least "one" of the 9/11 hijackers had
technically become an American "citizen."

And that additionally "he" had not yet been convicted.

Of anything.

Or was there more than "one"?

My memory is fuzzy at the moment.

Perhaps you can clarify.

But there was indeed at least "one" who had done so.

Do try to explain to all the friends & families of the 9/11 victims why
"he" (or "they") still had the "right" to carry, not just boxcutters,
but actual firearms, aboard those planes, merely because "he" (or
"they") was (were) American citizens at the time.

I believe that, if they
didn't serve liquor on airliners, the carrying of pocket pistols would be a
distinct advantage to the safety of the general air traveling population,
but I am open to your arguments against this..........

Shootouts on passenger airplanes. That's the same thing as begging for
more airline crashes than have so far occurred in the entire history of
aviation. That's what will invariably happen if all restrictions
against firearms aboard airplanes are lifted. Such hijackers are
already planning to die anyway, so obviously they don't care in the
slightest how many others on the plane die with them, or what city,
including the size of the population, the plane is over at the time it
crashes.

Discuss.

Ah, & when they said that the people have the right to bear arms, do you
really think for a moment that they meant that this includes the *abuse*
of that right? Remember the man who shot all those people aboard the
train in Long Island? Do you really think *that* sort of use of arms
was what the writers meant? Now you might argue that if *others* aboard
the train had also been carrying weapons, he could have been shot down
before he killed as many people as he did. But while that might well
have been the case, unless the aim of the first person who shot him had
been good enough to fell him instantly, what might have happened instead
could have been a gunbattle in which even *more* people were killed.

Well, no matter what the law, one can always find cases where it is
insufficient, or capable of being subverted to a bad use. I tend to look
first at the rights of the individual, and then, if it is obviously
impossible to preserve that right, will reluctantly accede to the wishes of
the socialist for the good of the society in general........

Thank you. Unrestricted possession of firearms aboard passenger
aircraft is clearly a horrific danger to all citizens in this country,
not merely the passengers of the aircraft itself, since when the
aircraft crashes, whoever happens to unlucky enough to be already on the
ground in the location where it crashes dies too.

Bear in mind
that it is very difficult, even for the airlines to search everyone who
boards their planes.

Doesn't seem at all "difficult" to me, since exactly such searches have
been done of every passenger within my view on every one of the 8
separate dates (within 3 years) that I have flown since 9/11, & I myself
have endured such searches. I'm wondering what else those which beep at
the slightest trace of metal could count as, & why they always
physically search me whenever the damned thing goes off as I pass
through it. The last few times it even picked up the aluminum foil in
my cigarette pack, & that was literally the *only* metal I was carrying
on my person. I & everyone else within my line of sight had to take off
our shoes (rather obviously because of a certain attempted "shoe bomber"
a while back) & I myself have been patted down more than once, so that
it would have been utterly impossible for me to gotten away with having
any sort of "gun" on my person at the time. Whether or not the search
method is "perfect" is a different matter from whether or not the search
is done at all.

I'm suspecting you haven't flown as often as I have since 9/11?

Do you really want to do that for trains and busses
too? ( I introduce practacality into the discussion, because, after all, any
law must be enforceable)

Sure, & it's a good point.

Perhaps instead of asking me, you should ask the friends & families of
all the victims of the Long Island train shooting.

I'd additionally feel like asking a certain group of people in Madrid,
for obvious reasons, even though that isn't in the United States.

What happened there can still happen here too.

It was also the same Al Qaeda there, or some similar group, as I recall.

But to answer your question with a plain "yes" or "no," metal detectors
in train stations?

Why not?

That means "yes," in case anyone's reading comprehension is lacking.

Those don't seem especially "difficult" to implement to me.

And the reasons *why* are obvious.

Just ask the friends & families of all the victims of the Long Island
railway massacre.

Oh, & I sincerely doubt any of them will describe that as a mere
"accident."

It seems quite obvious to me that the *context* of the amendment means
that the people have the right to bear arms against an *invader*, & you
yourself have expressed this viewpoint about assault weapons as being
the sort of weapons an invader might carry. Indeed.

But what about aboard a passenger plane? Completely different
situation, ain't it, William? In that case there is not necessarily any
aspect of defense against anything the writers of the Constitution would
have been referring to. And unless it can be conclusively demonstrated
that it is unconstitutional to ban citizens from carrying firearms
aboard passenger planes, then that indeed does involve a "time" in which
you cannot constitutionally bear arms.

Well, I assume that the general citizenry are honest, upright, good people
who are not intent on murdering themselves and everyone around them.

The problem is that every last one of the general citizenry, without a
single exception, are mere humans, meaning that plenty of them, even
those who under ordinary circumstances are well-meaning, are still
capable of shooting people when it isn't actually necessary.
Temptation, you know. When the gun is already on you, your rather more
likely to use it than when you don't have one. Plenty of people who
have never before committed a crime have still committed murder when
they became angry. And hardly "all" of these are mere "accidents."
Quite a few of them are intentional murders, & not done in anything like
self-defense. Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more
often such murders will occur. The same thing goes for persons with
habitual criminal intent: the more of them who have guns, the more of
them will use them. Oh yes, in *some* situations they'll be deterred by
the knowledge that others have guns too.

But only in *some* situations.

I still think the overall number of murders will increase if more people
own & carry guns.

That's simply obvious common sense.

YMMV.

If they
were, they could do it without an airliner. IOW, one doesn't need a gun to
kill. One can do it with a car, of a load of fertilizer and diesel fuel, or
in many other ways.

Duh. But as you yourself said, guns are actually *made* for killing.
It's not quite as easy to kill someone on the spot with a car, or a load
of fertilizer & diesel fuel. Yes, you can drive a car "at" someone, but
they can still jump out of the way. It's a bit more difficult to jump
out of the way of a bullet which is traveling faster than the speed of
sound, & indeed faster than the eye can see.

One can quite easily see a car coming, often long in advance.

It is utterly impossible to see a fired bullet coming. By the time the
victim realizes the trigger has been pulled, the bullet has already
smashed through the victim's body.

You get a lot more time to see a car swerving toward you.

Now yes, you can blow up people with diesel fuel before they know what's
happened. But that's still an entirely different argument, since the
primary uses of diesel fuel are considerably different from blowing up
people.

I seem to recall something or other about "trucks," & being able to make
them go forward.

Guns, however, as to their primary purpose, as you yourself have said,
are to kill. They aren't particularly useful in any other circumstance.

Oh yes, they're often used to kill other living things that aren't
humans.

That's one of the main reasons why I myself do NOT advocate banning them
from the entire populace.

They're still made specifically to kill, no matter what they're killing.

Target practice is merely practicing to kill with them.

People use guns for any other purpose...when, exactly?

Extremely rare for them to be used for any other purpose, or at least
the *practice* of that purpose, n'est pas, Guilliame?
--
"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.

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes.....Those kinds of killers are not deterred by people carrying guns in
their pockets.....But those kinds of random killers are very rare, and not
typical of the average mugger at all. For one thing, they realized no
benefit in their crimes. They were just crazies.......

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?

The mear fact that you might have a gun in your house is the greatest
deterrent to house breakers that there is. In my case, I also keep a burgler
alarm system that will wake me should anyone enter my house at night. But in
general, the very existence of guns in peoples homes forces most
housebreakers to only enter homes where they are certain that no one is
home.



Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more such intruders
there will be.


On the contrary, the exact opposite is true.

Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite
easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your
*fatal* disadvantage.

Criminals have brains, but they are cowards. Few of them would enter a house
that was occupied. Those that do are probably high on drugs........



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

I never said that. What I said was that convicted felons shouldn't be
allowed to own guns. But non-felons should be allowed all their
constitutional rights, including those guranteed by the second amendment. I
believe this is the way most state's laws read now.......



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.

See above. I don't know what you are talking about. The fact of the matter
is that only honest citizens will routinely obey the law. A law against guns
is absurd on the face of it. Who would obey it? - That's right! The honest
people would. And the dishonest people would break it along with any other
law that they think they can get away with breaking. So of what use is it?
Of far better use would be a law that forces everyone to own and carry a
gun. This would encourage the honest people to carry, which would go a long
way toward discouraging the dishonest from plying their criminal activities.
Why is it that logic is so difficult for the liberal? - Do you guys go to
different schools than we do?



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.

You must be talking about a liberal. He/she is the only human being on earth
that knows so little about guns, and would do something so absurdly stupid.
I have carried a gun most of my adult life, and I have never fired it at
anyone.



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.

That's true. Accidents happen all the time....So what?



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

It is inevitable.

So you would eliminate a tool just because someone might misuse it and get
hurt? Then you'd better start with cars, and end up with scissors, and
eliminate all the chainsaws along the way. That's the liberal position all
right.......You are a typical liberal. Because someone else is too stupid to
know how to use a tool, you want to take that tool away from everyone. Why
don't you want to go back to the stone age? That's where your logic will
take us, I'm afraid.



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.

I didn't say "unnecessarily" - This is the accident argument. What I am
saying is that the ownership and use of a legimate tool by those who know
how to use it, should outweigh the fact that the stupid people who don't
know how to use it will hurt themselves with it. Let the Darwin law remove
these stupid people from our society so that us intelligent people can go
about living our lives with all the modern machinery that make those lived
enjoyable. Life is not a, "No child left behind" situation. It is ok for the
intelligent people to enjoy and let the devil take the stupidoes........



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.

Constitutional Schmonstitutional......Criminals already have, and will carry
guns. But you want to disarm us honest ones. That's what I am arguing
against. And therin lies the illogic in your argument.



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

Did you read this in a comic book somewhere? This hypothetical criminal
could kill me just as easily without any gun. So what?



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.


If you can't see that the presence of guns in the society would deter crime,
then I can't help you, but then, it is generally impossible to reason
logically with stupid liberals anyway, so I am not surprised.



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.

Speak for yourself. I have carried guns all of my life, and I haven't shot
anyone yet.

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.

Still involved with your little comic book sceneareo, I see.......


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.

Murder is still a crime.........



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


We've been over this ground before. "Anyone & everyone" are your words, not
mine.



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

Let's not.....I am tired of your stupidity............

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes.....Those kinds of killers are not deterred by people carrying guns in
their pockets.....But those kinds of random killers are very rare, and not
typical of the average mugger at all. For one thing, they realized no
benefit in their crimes. They were just crazies.......

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?

The mear fact that you might have a gun in your house is the greatest
deterrent to house breakers that there is. In my case, I also keep a burgler
alarm system that will wake me should anyone enter my house at night. But in
general, the very existence of guns in peoples homes forces most
housebreakers to only enter homes where they are certain that no one is
home.



Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more such intruders
there will be.


On the contrary, the exact opposite is true.

Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite
easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your
*fatal* disadvantage.

Criminals have brains, but they are cowards. Few of them would enter a house
that was occupied. Those that do are probably high on drugs........



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

I never said that. What I said was that convicted felons shouldn't be
allowed to own guns. But non-felons should be allowed all their
constitutional rights, including those guranteed by the second amendment. I
believe this is the way most state's laws read now.......



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.

See above. I don't know what you are talking about. The fact of the matter
is that only honest citizens will routinely obey the law. A law against guns
is absurd on the face of it. Who would obey it? - That's right! The honest
people would. And the dishonest people would break it along with any other
law that they think they can get away with breaking. So of what use is it?
Of far better use would be a law that forces everyone to own and carry a
gun. This would encourage the honest people to carry, which would go a long
way toward discouraging the dishonest from plying their criminal activities.
Why is it that logic is so difficult for the liberal? - Do you guys go to
different schools than we do?



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.

You must be talking about a liberal. He/she is the only human being on earth
that knows so little about guns, and would do something so absurdly stupid.
I have carried a gun most of my adult life, and I have never fired it at
anyone.



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.

That's true. Accidents happen all the time....So what?



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

It is inevitable.

So you would eliminate a tool just because someone might misuse it and get
hurt? Then you'd better start with cars, and end up with scissors, and
eliminate all the chainsaws along the way. That's the liberal position all
right.......You are a typical liberal. Because someone else is too stupid to
know how to use a tool, you want to take that tool away from everyone. Why
don't you want to go back to the stone age? That's where your logic will
take us, I'm afraid.



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.

I didn't say "unnecessarily" - This is the accident argument. What I am
saying is that the ownership and use of a legimate tool by those who know
how to use it, should outweigh the fact that the stupid people who don't
know how to use it will hurt themselves with it. Let the Darwin law remove
these stupid people from our society so that us intelligent people can go
about living our lives with all the modern machinery that make those lived
enjoyable. Life is not a, "No child left behind" situation. It is ok for the
intelligent people to enjoy and let the devil take the stupidoes........



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.

Constitutional Schmonstitutional......Criminals already have, and will carry
guns. But you want to disarm us honest ones. That's what I am arguing
against. And therin lies the illogic in your argument.



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

Did you read this in a comic book somewhere? This hypothetical criminal
could kill me just as easily without any gun. So what?



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.


If you can't see that the presence of guns in the society would deter crime,
then I can't help you, but then, it is generally impossible to reason
logically with stupid liberals anyway, so I am not surprised.



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.

Speak for yourself. I have carried guns all of my life, and I haven't shot
anyone yet.

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.

Still involved with your little comic book sceneareo, I see.......


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.

Murder is still a crime.........



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


We've been over this ground before. "Anyone & everyone" are your words, not
mine.



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

Let's not.....I am tired of your stupidity............

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes.....Those kinds of killers are not deterred by people carrying guns in
their pockets.....But those kinds of random killers are very rare, and not
typical of the average mugger at all. For one thing, they realized no
benefit in their crimes. They were just crazies.......

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?

The mear fact that you might have a gun in your house is the greatest
deterrent to house breakers that there is. In my case, I also keep a burgler
alarm system that will wake me should anyone enter my house at night. But in
general, the very existence of guns in peoples homes forces most
housebreakers to only enter homes where they are certain that no one is
home.



Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more such intruders
there will be.


On the contrary, the exact opposite is true.

Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite
easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your
*fatal* disadvantage.

Criminals have brains, but they are cowards. Few of them would enter a house
that was occupied. Those that do are probably high on drugs........



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

I never said that. What I said was that convicted felons shouldn't be
allowed to own guns. But non-felons should be allowed all their
constitutional rights, including those guranteed by the second amendment. I
believe this is the way most state's laws read now.......



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.

See above. I don't know what you are talking about. The fact of the matter
is that only honest citizens will routinely obey the law. A law against guns
is absurd on the face of it. Who would obey it? - That's right! The honest
people would. And the dishonest people would break it along with any other
law that they think they can get away with breaking. So of what use is it?
Of far better use would be a law that forces everyone to own and carry a
gun. This would encourage the honest people to carry, which would go a long
way toward discouraging the dishonest from plying their criminal activities.
Why is it that logic is so difficult for the liberal? - Do you guys go to
different schools than we do?



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.

You must be talking about a liberal. He/she is the only human being on earth
that knows so little about guns, and would do something so absurdly stupid.
I have carried a gun most of my adult life, and I have never fired it at
anyone.



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.

That's true. Accidents happen all the time....So what?



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

It is inevitable.

So you would eliminate a tool just because someone might misuse it and get
hurt? Then you'd better start with cars, and end up with scissors, and
eliminate all the chainsaws along the way. That's the liberal position all
right.......You are a typical liberal. Because someone else is too stupid to
know how to use a tool, you want to take that tool away from everyone. Why
don't you want to go back to the stone age? That's where your logic will
take us, I'm afraid.



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.

I didn't say "unnecessarily" - This is the accident argument. What I am
saying is that the ownership and use of a legimate tool by those who know
how to use it, should outweigh the fact that the stupid people who don't
know how to use it will hurt themselves with it. Let the Darwin law remove
these stupid people from our society so that us intelligent people can go
about living our lives with all the modern machinery that make those lived
enjoyable. Life is not a, "No child left behind" situation. It is ok for the
intelligent people to enjoy and let the devil take the stupidoes........



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.

Constitutional Schmonstitutional......Criminals already have, and will carry
guns. But you want to disarm us honest ones. That's what I am arguing
against. And therin lies the illogic in your argument.



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

Did you read this in a comic book somewhere? This hypothetical criminal
could kill me just as easily without any gun. So what?



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.


If you can't see that the presence of guns in the society would deter crime,
then I can't help you, but then, it is generally impossible to reason
logically with stupid liberals anyway, so I am not surprised.



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.

Speak for yourself. I have carried guns all of my life, and I haven't shot
anyone yet.

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.

Still involved with your little comic book sceneareo, I see.......


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.

Murder is still a crime.........



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


We've been over this ground before. "Anyone & everyone" are your words, not
mine.



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

Let's not.....I am tired of your stupidity............

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...


Huge, meaningless rant.........

Since I don't search people who come into my home, and I believe that
everyone should carry a gun whenever possible, I do believe that you, and
everyone else who comes into my home, has, (or should have) the right to
carry a gun. I believe this right is guaranteed by the second amendment.
Now, having said that, I also believe that you have the right to prohibit
anyone from coming into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you
choose. You can prohibit me from coming into your home just because you
don't like my looks. If you couple that with the fact that you couldn't tell
what I was carrying in my pocket anyway, we are obviously in somewhat of a
quandary here. Your basic right of home ownership takes precedence, I
believe, so you can keep anyone out of your home that you want, for whatever
reason you want. Does that answer your question? If not, then I don't know
what you want, and I can't help you.

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...


Huge, meaningless rant.........

Since I don't search people who come into my home, and I believe that
everyone should carry a gun whenever possible, I do believe that you, and
everyone else who comes into my home, has, (or should have) the right to
carry a gun. I believe this right is guaranteed by the second amendment.
Now, having said that, I also believe that you have the right to prohibit
anyone from coming into your home that you choose, for whatever reason you
choose. You can prohibit me from coming into your home just because you
don't like my looks. If you couple that with the fact that you couldn't tell
what I was carrying in my pocket anyway, we are obviously in somewhat of a
quandary here. Your basic right of home ownership takes precedence, I
believe, so you can keep anyone out of your home that you want, for whatever
reason you want. Does that answer your question? If not, then I don't know
what you want, and I can't help you.

In article J4imd.343092$wV.136353@attbi_s54,
"William Graham" wrote:

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

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...

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.

Yes.....Those kinds of killers are not deterred by people carrying guns in
their pockets.....But those kinds of random killers are very rare, and not
typical of the average mugger at all.

Such snipers are not muggers, period, so I don't know why you're
bringing that up. But rather obviously, the more readily-available guns
are, the more people there will be who will be tempted to do such a
thing. It's rather difficult to be tempted to use a gun when one
doesn't have one.

For one thing, they realized no
benefit in their crimes. They were just crazies.......

True enough, but that's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. The more
people who have guns, the more the guns will be used. That is the
simple law of averages. And there will always be a subset of that usage
which is in the manner of violent crime.

Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite
easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your
*fatal* disadvantage.

Criminals have brains, but they are cowards.

That's a sweeping generalization. I'm sure there are plenty of them who
aren't cowards.

Few of them would enter a house
that was occupied. Those that do are probably high on drugs........

And that's *definitely* a sweeping generalization. Plenty of them
aren't high on anything at the time they commit their crimes.

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

I never said that. What I said was that convicted felons shouldn't be
allowed to own guns.

No, you did indeed suggest that even criminals should be allowed to
carry guns. Here's where you said it, in an article you posted on
November 9:

'The amendment doesn't give or take away any right. It assumes that
everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, and has always had that
right. What it says is, "The right to....shall not be infringed." It
assumes that everyone, including criminals, has, and always has had,
that right.'

See that last sentence about "everyone, including criminals, has, and
has always had, that right"? Your exact words; I didn't make them up.
You were specifically suggesting that the Second Amendment guarantees
this same right even to criminals.

But non-felons should be allowed all their
constitutional rights, including those guranteed by the second amendment. I
believe this is the way most state's laws read now.......

On November 9 you said that even *felons* should be allowed their
constitutional rights. Now you're reversing yourself.

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.

See above. I don't know what you are talking about. The fact of the matter
is that only honest citizens will routinely obey the law. A law against guns
is absurd on the face of it. Who would obey it? - That's right! The honest
people would. And the dishonest people would break it along with any other
law that they think they can get away with breaking. So of what use is it?
Of far better use would be a law that forces everyone to own and carry a
gun. This would encourage the honest people to carry, which would go a long
way toward discouraging the dishonest from plying their criminal activities.
Why is it that logic is so difficult for the liberal? - Do you guys go to
different schools than we do?

There you go again lumping me in with the liberals. Do you not yet
understand that I am *not* advocating the banning of guns from
law-abiding citizens? I'm merely disputing your "at all times"
argument. That's what all this, ultimately, is about. I simply do not
at all agree with you that even all the law-abiding citizens are
guaranteed by the Second Amendment to be able to bear arms anywhere &
anytime they please, nor that it guarantees that the law-abiding
citizens should be able to bear any *type* of arms that they please.
The amendment just isn't specific enough for all that, & the historical
context in which it was written suggests otherwise, that the main reason
this was included in the Constitution was to give freedom to the people
to fight off an oppressor. I'm also simply suggesting the obvious
common sense that, the more guns that are available in the society, the
more murders will be committed with them. To have them simply available
to people without the slightest restriction, other than preventing
convicted felons from legally purchasing them, is obviously just as
dangerous as banning them entirely from law-abiding citizens. I have
trouble with *both* extremes, not just one or the other, & *equal*
trouble at that.

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.

You must be talking about a liberal.

Nope. I'm talking about a fatal *mistake*. All humans are capable of
committing mistakes, all of them, conservative, liberal, middle, & every
other viewpoint imaginable.

He/she is the only human being on earth
that knows so little about guns, and would do something so absurdly stupid.

This doesn't have a thing to do with how much or how little the person
knows about guns themselves. It instead has to do with the person
misinterpreting various sorts of encounters with others. And you're
once again indulging in a sweeping generalization. I wasn't specific
enough in my scenario for you to accurately gauge how "stupid" the
misinterpretation was. I simply said a manner which is perceived as
"threatening," & since people behave in a huge variety of ways, there
are multiple types of behavior which might be perceived as "threatening"
by another at all sorts of different levels. People are quite widely
varied in their perceptions too, & what seems "threatening" to one
person may not seem so to another. You're still demonstrating your
extreme & irrational bias against liberals. "The only human being on
earth," my foot. There are stupid people of all possible viewpoints,
including conservatives too. I've met plenty of appallingly stupid
conservatives here in Texas. "If the English language wuz good enuff
fer Jesus Christ it arta be good enuff fer all of us!" "It was them
CHINESE that flew them planes into them towers in Noo York!" "Naw, it
was them ragheads, we need to drop nucular bombs on the whole Middle
East!" "I see that ****** talk to Sarah one more time, I'm gonna blow
his ****in' head off!"

I've heard all of these comments uttered, pronounced & worded exactly as
I type them here, & not a one of these people come within light-years of
being a "liberal."

And see that last one? That's certainly an example of a conservative
with a gun being quite dangerous, & it is far from "rare" in much of
this part of the United States. A man of one race merely talking to a
woman of another, that's all the reason this sort of conservative needs
to use the gun to commit the murder. Yet the conservative may well have
never been convicted of a crime yet by the time he blows this poor Black
man's head off, therefore he would not be among the group who is
prevented from purchasing a gun by a law prohibiting convicted felons
from doing so.

If you think this sort of thing is especially uncommon in the United
States, think again. There are all sorts of racially motivated
shootings which occur. This doesn't have a thing to do with muggers or
housebreakers. And plenty of such murders are committed by people who
*haven't* yet been convicted of any crime.

I have carried a gun most of my adult life, and I have never fired it at
anyone.

So? You're obviously carrying it nevertheless because you believe that
someday you *might* need it for its intended purpose. Is there any
particular reason why your own judgment regarding when the proper time
to use a gun is less fallible than that of the average person? And even
if it is less fallible, you are indeed talking about *all* law-abiding
citizens being allowed to bear arms, & you & I both know that *plenty*
of them are *more* fallible than the average person, & it would be
ludicrous to claim that the majority of the more fallible people belong
only in the "liberal" category. The conservative Whites who shoot Black
men merely because they don't "like" the ways the Black men act are
certainly not using good judgment regarding when the proper time to use
a gun would be.

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

It is inevitable.

So you would eliminate a tool just because someone might misuse it and get
hurt?

Yet another of your strawmen. I've long ago lost count of how many
you've concocted in this thread. Where on EARTH are you getting the
idea that I want to *eliminate* guns??? I've never once suggested such
an utter absurdity. I'm quite ardently in *favor* of law-abiding
citizens bearing arms if they so desire. I've merely suggested that
there should be ***SOME*** restrictions to that.

***SOME*** restrictions, William, ***SOME***.

Complete & total elimination? Good lordy, no. I've never once
suggested ANYTHING like that.

Then you'd better start with cars, and end up with scissors, and
eliminate all the chainsaws along the way. That's the liberal position all
right.......You are a typical liberal.

Obviously I'm not, since that is a position I have never once expressed,
here or in any other venue. You're now telling lies about me which you
made up entirely out of thin air. Notice how I quoted you above from a
past article. Now I challenge you to quote any article I've ever posted
verbatim & show me saying that I believe that all guns should be
eliminated from our society. You'll be unable to locate such a quote,
since I never posted such a statement, here or in any other newsgroup.
I additionally challenge you that, upon your inevitable failure to
accurately quote me saying such a thing, you immediately retract this
false statement about me. Were I to make such a false statement about
you, I would *immediately* retract it the moment it was demonstrated to
me that it is false. You will now behave with exactly the same degree
of honesty that I do, with no difference whatsoever, correct?

I never *once* said that all guns should be "eliminated" or "banned" or
whatever similar term one chooses. Never said anything at all like
that. Merely suggesting certain individual *restrictions* to ownership
of guns, & merely suggesting that there are certain individual
*situations* in which people should not be allowed to carry guns, isn't
at all the same thing as advocating an outright complete ban. That's
all I've ever, ever, ever said, is that there should be *some*
restrictions.

Because someone else is too stupid to
know how to use a tool, you want to take that tool away from everyone.

That's an outright lie. You know perfectly well you have never once
actually read any article by me in which I uttered any statement like
that. I challenge you to immediately quote me saying such a thing, or
immediately retract.

When Mark challenged me in precisely the same manner, I did indeed
immediately retract some things I foolishly said, in the very first
article I posted in reply to his challenge, so I've already demonstrated
that I'm not asking you to do anything that I do not already
unhesitatingly do.

Why
don't you want to go back to the stone age? That's where your logic will
take us, I'm afraid.

No, that's where your imaginary *interpretation* of my argument will
take us, your claim of an argument I've never once made. Prove me wrong
by quoting me saying this. I know damned well you can't, because I know
damned well I never posted such an absurdity.

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.

Constitutional Schmonstitutional......Criminals already have, and will carry
guns. But you want to disarm us honest ones.

Quote me saying anything like that, or immediately retract. I said no
such thing in that paragraph.

That's what I am arguing
against.

Then you're arguing against thin air, as you're arguing against
something I never once suggested.

And therin lies the illogic in your argument.

No, therein lies the illogic of your imaginary interpretation of my
argument.

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

Did you read this in a comic book somewhere?

Never read a comic book in my life, actually, apart perhaps from
occasional & very infrequent glances. Never have been particularly
interested in such things for some reason. Where did you "read" that
I've ever suggested that all guns should be eliminated? It certainly
wasn't in any article I've ever posted.

This hypothetical criminal
could kill me just as easily without any gun. So what?

No, not "just as easily." One usually has to be in very close proximity
to use a knife for example, & knife throwing isn't particularly
accurate. One has to be in direct contact with you to strangle you with
his hands. But one can be a good deal farther away when using a gun, &
have a better chance of inflicting fatal damage to your body than with
almost any other type of weapon. Where did you read this "just as
easily" nonsense, in a comic book?

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.

Speak for yourself. I have carried guns all of my life, and I haven't shot
anyone yet.

"Yet" is the operative word. Why do you think you're carrying the
damned thing in the first place? Just for "show"? You're quite
obviously carrying it because you expect that someday a situation may
arise in which you *will* need to shoot someone. Is your judgment on
when the proper time might be to use a gun completely infallible? How
could it be, when you're a human? Being a human all by itself
automatically guarantees that you *are* fallible. It isn't only
"stupid" people who are fallible. ALL humans are fallible, from the
most rabid conservative to the most insipid liberal, from the most
intelligent to the most mentally-impaired. No human who has ever lived
is completely infallible. You are just as capable of making the wrong
decision when the time comes, if it ever comes (which I hope it won't)
as anyone else. Or is there some sort of "evidence" you can produce
here & now which demonstrates that it is an utter impossibility that you
will ever, as long as you live, shoot anyone for a mistaken reason?

And good gawd, you're the person who, on a much more minor matter,
accuses me, of all people, of advocating a complete ban of guns, even
though you've never seen me say such a thing. If you're that obviously
fallible on such a minor matter, who knows how much *more* fallible
you'll be in a much more urgent situation, when quick thinking may make
the difference between life or death? I'm not seeing anything about
your character as you have demonstrated it here which makes me
especially confident that you'd be dependable in shooting only when it's
absolutely necessary.

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

We've been over this ground before. "Anyone & everyone" are your words, not
mine.

Excuse me, all THREE of those words may not be yours, but one of them
certainly is, the word "everyone":

'It assumes that everyone, including criminals, has, and always has had,
that right.'

You do see the word "everyone" there, correct? That's your exact text,
verbatim, & unaltered in the slightest, quoted in fuller context above.

See how I'm quoting you verbatim saying precisely what I claimed you
said, which directly disputes your more recent denial? This proves
beyond all possible doubt that I am NOT concocting a strawman as you've
done with me. You did indeed say "everyone," which means the same thing
as "anyone & everyone," & you additionally said "including criminals,"
which further supports the "anyone" part. So this indeed was your
earlier argument.

In stark contrast, however, not even once did I make any statement to
the effect that all guns should be eliminated. You'll be unable to
quote me saying that, very much unlike my precise quote of you making
the exact argument I said you made.

Now you'll do exactly the same thing as me, with no difference
whatsoever, & either ***QUOTE*** me saying that all guns should be
banned, or immediately retract & admit that you do not know for an
actual fact that I have ever said such a thing.

Correct?

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

Let's not.....I am tired of your stupidity............

No, you're tired of your own stupidity. You're objecting to an argument
you made up on my behalf, & have falsely attributed to me.
--
"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 J4imd.343092$wV.136353@attbi_s54,
"William Graham" wrote:

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

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...

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.

Yes.....Those kinds of killers are not deterred by people carrying guns in
their pockets.....But those kinds of random killers are very rare, and not
typical of the average mugger at all.

Such snipers are not muggers, period, so I don't know why you're
bringing that up. But rather obviously, the more readily-available guns
are, the more people there will be who will be tempted to do such a
thing. It's rather difficult to be tempted to use a gun when one
doesn't have one.

For one thing, they realized no
benefit in their crimes. They were just crazies.......

True enough, but that's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. The more
people who have guns, the more the guns will be used. That is the
simple law of averages. And there will always be a subset of that usage
which is in the manner of violent crime.

Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite
easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your
*fatal* disadvantage.

Criminals have brains, but they are cowards.

That's a sweeping generalization. I'm sure there are plenty of them who
aren't cowards.

Few of them would enter a house
that was occupied. Those that do are probably high on drugs........

And that's *definitely* a sweeping generalization. Plenty of them
aren't high on anything at the time they commit their crimes.

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

I never said that. What I said was that convicted felons shouldn't be
allowed to own guns.

No, you did indeed suggest that even criminals should be allowed to
carry guns. Here's where you said it, in an article you posted on
November 9:

'The amendment doesn't give or take away any right. It assumes that
everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, and has always had that
right. What it says is, "The right to....shall not be infringed." It
assumes that everyone, including criminals, has, and always has had,
that right.'

See that last sentence about "everyone, including criminals, has, and
has always had, that right"? Your exact words; I didn't make them up.
You were specifically suggesting that the Second Amendment guarantees
this same right even to criminals.

But non-felons should be allowed all their
constitutional rights, including those guranteed by the second amendment. I
believe this is the way most state's laws read now.......

On November 9 you said that even *felons* should be allowed their
constitutional rights. Now you're reversing yourself.

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.

See above. I don't know what you are talking about. The fact of the matter
is that only honest citizens will routinely obey the law. A law against guns
is absurd on the face of it. Who would obey it? - That's right! The honest
people would. And the dishonest people would break it along with any other
law that they think they can get away with breaking. So of what use is it?
Of far better use would be a law that forces everyone to own and carry a
gun. This would encourage the honest people to carry, which would go a long
way toward discouraging the dishonest from plying their criminal activities.
Why is it that logic is so difficult for the liberal? - Do you guys go to
different schools than we do?

There you go again lumping me in with the liberals. Do you not yet
understand that I am *not* advocating the banning of guns from
law-abiding citizens? I'm merely disputing your "at all times"
argument. That's what all this, ultimately, is about. I simply do not
at all agree with you that even all the law-abiding citizens are
guaranteed by the Second Amendment to be able to bear arms anywhere &
anytime they please, nor that it guarantees that the law-abiding
citizens should be able to bear any *type* of arms that they please.
The amendment just isn't specific enough for all that, & the historical
context in which it was written suggests otherwise, that the main reason
this was included in the Constitution was to give freedom to the people
to fight off an oppressor. I'm also simply suggesting the obvious
common sense that, the more guns that are available in the society, the
more murders will be committed with them. To have them simply available
to people without the slightest restriction, other than preventing
convicted felons from legally purchasing them, is obviously just as
dangerous as banning them entirely from law-abiding citizens. I have
trouble with *both* extremes, not just one or the other, & *equal*
trouble at that.

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.

You must be talking about a liberal.

Nope. I'm talking about a fatal *mistake*. All humans are capable of
committing mistakes, all of them, conservative, liberal, middle, & every
other viewpoint imaginable.

He/she is the only human being on earth
that knows so little about guns, and would do something so absurdly stupid.

This doesn't have a thing to do with how much or how little the person
knows about guns themselves. It instead has to do with the person
misinterpreting various sorts of encounters with others. And you're
once again indulging in a sweeping generalization. I wasn't specific
enough in my scenario for you to accurately gauge how "stupid" the
misinterpretation was. I simply said a manner which is perceived as
"threatening," & since people behave in a huge variety of ways, there
are multiple types of behavior which might be perceived as "threatening"
by another at all sorts of different levels. People are quite widely
varied in their perceptions too, & what seems "threatening" to one
person may not seem so to another. You're still demonstrating your
extreme & irrational bias against liberals. "The only human being on
earth," my foot. There are stupid people of all possible viewpoints,
including conservatives too. I've met plenty of appallingly stupid
conservatives here in Texas. "If the English language wuz good enuff
fer Jesus Christ it arta be good enuff fer all of us!" "It was them
CHINESE that flew them planes into them towers in Noo York!" "Naw, it
was them ragheads, we need to drop nucular bombs on the whole Middle
East!" "I see that ****** talk to Sarah one more time, I'm gonna blow
his ****in' head off!"

I've heard all of these comments uttered, pronounced & worded exactly as
I type them here, & not a one of these people come within light-years of
being a "liberal."

And see that last one? That's certainly an example of a conservative
with a gun being quite dangerous, & it is far from "rare" in much of
this part of the United States. A man of one race merely talking to a
woman of another, that's all the reason this sort of conservative needs
to use the gun to commit the murder. Yet the conservative may well have
never been convicted of a crime yet by the time he blows this poor Black
man's head off, therefore he would not be among the group who is
prevented from purchasing a gun by a law prohibiting convicted felons
from doing so.

If you think this sort of thing is especially uncommon in the United
States, think again. There are all sorts of racially motivated
shootings which occur. This doesn't have a thing to do with muggers or
housebreakers. And plenty of such murders are committed by people who
*haven't* yet been convicted of any crime.

I have carried a gun most of my adult life, and I have never fired it at
anyone.

So? You're obviously carrying it nevertheless because you believe that
someday you *might* need it for its intended purpose. Is there any
particular reason why your own judgment regarding when the proper time
to use a gun is less fallible than that of the average person? And even
if it is less fallible, you are indeed talking about *all* law-abiding
citizens being allowed to bear arms, & you & I both know that *plenty*
of them are *more* fallible than the average person, & it would be
ludicrous to claim that the majority of the more fallible people belong
only in the "liberal" category. The conservative Whites who shoot Black
men merely because they don't "like" the ways the Black men act are
certainly not using good judgment regarding when the proper time to use
a gun would be.

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

It is inevitable.

So you would eliminate a tool just because someone might misuse it and get
hurt?

Yet another of your strawmen. I've long ago lost count of how many
you've concocted in this thread. Where on EARTH are you getting the
idea that I want to *eliminate* guns??? I've never once suggested such
an utter absurdity. I'm quite ardently in *favor* of law-abiding
citizens bearing arms if they so desire. I've merely suggested that
there should be ***SOME*** restrictions to that.

***SOME*** restrictions, William, ***SOME***.

Complete & total elimination? Good lordy, no. I've never once
suggested ANYTHING like that.

Then you'd better start with cars, and end up with scissors, and
eliminate all the chainsaws along the way. That's the liberal position all
right.......You are a typical liberal.

Obviously I'm not, since that is a position I have never once expressed,
here or in any other venue. You're now telling lies about me which you
made up entirely out of thin air. Notice how I quoted you above from a
past article. Now I challenge you to quote any article I've ever posted
verbatim & show me saying that I believe that all guns should be
eliminated from our society. You'll be unable to locate such a quote,
since I never posted such a statement, here or in any other newsgroup.
I additionally challenge you that, upon your inevitable failure to
accurately quote me saying such a thing, you immediately retract this
false statement about me. Were I to make such a false statement about
you, I would *immediately* retract it the moment it was demonstrated to
me that it is false. You will now behave with exactly the same degree
of honesty that I do, with no difference whatsoever, correct?

I never *once* said that all guns should be "eliminated" or "banned" or
whatever similar term one chooses. Never said anything at all like
that. Merely suggesting certain individual *restrictions* to ownership
of guns, & merely suggesting that there are certain individual
*situations* in which people should not be allowed to carry guns, isn't
at all the same thing as advocating an outright complete ban. That's
all I've ever, ever, ever said, is that there should be *some*
restrictions.

Because someone else is too stupid to
know how to use a tool, you want to take that tool away from everyone.

That's an outright lie. You know perfectly well you have never once
actually read any article by me in which I uttered any statement like
that. I challenge you to immediately quote me saying such a thing, or
immediately retract.

When Mark challenged me in precisely the same manner, I did indeed
immediately retract some things I foolishly said, in the very first
article I posted in reply to his challenge, so I've already demonstrated
that I'm not asking you to do anything that I do not already
unhesitatingly do.

Why
don't you want to go back to the stone age? That's where your logic will
take us, I'm afraid.

No, that's where your imaginary *interpretation* of my argument will
take us, your claim of an argument I've never once made. Prove me wrong
by quoting me saying this. I know damned well you can't, because I know
damned well I never posted such an absurdity.

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.

Constitutional Schmonstitutional......Criminals already have, and will carry
guns. But you want to disarm us honest ones.

Quote me saying anything like that, or immediately retract. I said no
such thing in that paragraph.

That's what I am arguing
against.

Then you're arguing against thin air, as you're arguing against
something I never once suggested.

And therin lies the illogic in your argument.

No, therein lies the illogic of your imaginary interpretation of my
argument.

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

Did you read this in a comic book somewhere?

Never read a comic book in my life, actually, apart perhaps from
occasional & very infrequent glances. Never have been particularly
interested in such things for some reason. Where did you "read" that
I've ever suggested that all guns should be eliminated? It certainly
wasn't in any article I've ever posted.

This hypothetical criminal
could kill me just as easily without any gun. So what?

No, not "just as easily." One usually has to be in very close proximity
to use a knife for example, & knife throwing isn't particularly
accurate. One has to be in direct contact with you to strangle you with
his hands. But one can be a good deal farther away when using a gun, &
have a better chance of inflicting fatal damage to your body than with
almost any other type of weapon. Where did you read this "just as
easily" nonsense, in a comic book?

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.

Speak for yourself. I have carried guns all of my life, and I haven't shot
anyone yet.

"Yet" is the operative word. Why do you think you're carrying the
damned thing in the first place? Just for "show"? You're quite
obviously carrying it because you expect that someday a situation may
arise in which you *will* need to shoot someone. Is your judgment on
when the proper time might be to use a gun completely infallible? How
could it be, when you're a human? Being a human all by itself
automatically guarantees that you *are* fallible. It isn't only
"stupid" people who are fallible. ALL humans are fallible, from the
most rabid conservative to the most insipid liberal, from the most
intelligent to the most mentally-impaired. No human who has ever lived
is completely infallible. You are just as capable of making the wrong
decision when the time comes, if it ever comes (which I hope it won't)
as anyone else. Or is there some sort of "evidence" you can produce
here & now which demonstrates that it is an utter impossibility that you
will ever, as long as you live, shoot anyone for a mistaken reason?

And good gawd, you're the person who, on a much more minor matter,
accuses me, of all people, of advocating a complete ban of guns, even
though you've never seen me say such a thing. If you're that obviously
fallible on such a minor matter, who knows how much *more* fallible
you'll be in a much more urgent situation, when quick thinking may make
the difference between life or death? I'm not seeing anything about
your character as you have demonstrated it here which makes me
especially confident that you'd be dependable in shooting only when it's
absolutely necessary.

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

We've been over this ground before. "Anyone & everyone" are your words, not
mine.

Excuse me, all THREE of those words may not be yours, but one of them
certainly is, the word "everyone":

'It assumes that everyone, including criminals, has, and always has had,
that right.'

You do see the word "everyone" there, correct? That's your exact text,
verbatim, & unaltered in the slightest, quoted in fuller context above.

See how I'm quoting you verbatim saying precisely what I claimed you
said, which directly disputes your more recent denial? This proves
beyond all possible doubt that I am NOT concocting a strawman as you've
done with me. You did indeed say "everyone," which means the same thing
as "anyone & everyone," & you additionally said "including criminals,"
which further supports the "anyone" part. So this indeed was your
earlier argument.

In stark contrast, however, not even once did I make any statement to
the effect that all guns should be eliminated. You'll be unable to
quote me saying that, very much unlike my precise quote of you making
the exact argument I said you made.

Now you'll do exactly the same thing as me, with no difference
whatsoever, & either ***QUOTE*** me saying that all guns should be
banned, or immediately retract & admit that you do not know for an
actual fact that I have ever said such a thing.

Correct?

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

Let's not.....I am tired of your stupidity............

No, you're tired of your own stupidity. You're objecting to an argument
you made up on my behalf, & have falsely attributed to me.
--
"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.