If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
In article V0Ukd.283472$a85.23475@fed1read04,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote: Whew!! See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom here, which lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines??? Good grief. You've too much time on your hands. I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that? OK. You've been told. Type 'til the cows come home... I call everyone to note that once again Mark has utterly refused to back up his claim that Al Jazeera never broadcasts criticism by Muslim clerics of Islamic terrorism & refuses to answer the extremely simple question of exactly how often he has watched Al Jazeera, or refuses to retract his claim when he cannot produce even the most meager shred of evidence to support it, even though he demanded on November 2 that I back up my own claims about what Bush "said" or retract them, which I did indeed retract unequivocally in the very first article I posted in reply to his challenge, on November 4 only 2 days after he made it. But Mark has refused to act in exactly the same way, with no difference whatsoever, that he expects me to act, since he was first challenged on the Al Jazeera issue on November 1. He is now giving the flimsy & utterly transparent excuse that my articles are too long & rambling, even when the article is a mere 115 lines, which is a trivial length for Usenet. Mark is a blazing hypocrite, who expects me to do exactly what he himself consistently refuses to do, even though I do it without hesitation or equivocation. -- "God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04. |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:07:02 -0800, Mark² wrote:
Whew!! See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom here, which lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines??? Good grief. You've too much time on your hands. I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that? OK. You've been told. Type 'til the cows come home... Um...are you signing off for a second time, Markie? You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often. |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:07:02 -0800, Mark² wrote:
Whew!! See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom here, which lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines??? Good grief. You've too much time on your hands. I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that? OK. You've been told. Type 'til the cows come home... Um...are you signing off for a second time, Markie? You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often. |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
DALLAS wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:07:02 -0800, Mark=B2 wrote: Whew!! See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom here, which lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines??? Good grief. You've too much time on your hands. I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that? OK. You've been told. Type 'til the cows come home... Um...are you signing off for a second time, Markie? You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often. Yer so right Dahms! He's hellishly easy and we gonna bait him real good! )) Just you wait and see. We gonna bait you too, Boer man! STAY TUNED!!!!! Were *all* gonna be slappin our knees red! http://www.DallasDahms.com |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
DALLAS wrote:
You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often. If that's all you have to say, you're not making this NG much better yourself. |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
DALLAS wrote:
You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often. If that's all you have to say, you're not making this NG much better yourself. |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:57:04 -0800, BARD ROCK wrote:
DALLAS wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:07:02 -0800, Mark² wrote: Whew!! See what I mean? Blah blah blah. I skipped right to the bottom here, which lets me see there near the bottom that you're counting lines??? Good grief. You've too much time on your hands. I'm not reading it, Rob. Are you getting that? OK. You've been told. Type 'til the cows come home... Um...are you signing off for a second time, Markie? You are so easy to bait because you chase your own tail so often. Yer so right Dahms! He's hellishly easy and we gonna bait him real good! )) Just you wait and see. We gonna bait you too, Boer man! STAY TUNED!!!!! Were *all* gonna be slappin our knees red! http://www.DallasDahms.com You don't have the brain power, Polson. |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
In article N4Ukd.496983$mD.204341@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" wrote: "Rob Mitchell" wrote in message ... In article p6hkd.15031$V41.1706@attbi_s52, "William Graham" wrote: I think that it is uniquely liberal to make a law that is 1: In violation of the Constitution. and 2: Is unenforceable. Nobody knows what I have in my pocket, and it is unconstitutional to search me at random, so it is a stupid law that prohibits me from carrying a concealed weapon, even if it were not for the second amendment. the second amendment simply makes it unconstitutional, as well as stupid. Whatever; will you finally admit that most liberals don't advocate gun control because of accidents, but instead advocate it because of high levels of crime with guns? Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth. There is no doubt about it. I believe that most of the liberals that I have known argue for gun control based on the accident rate with guns. Then you must have "known" only an extraordinarily atypical set of liberals. Even Mark has disagreed with you on this. It is my argument that they (guns) help prevent crime, and do not increase it. As a deterrent to *some* types of crime in *some* situations, I certainly agree. Certain crimes would be less likely to be committed when the criminals know that more of the people are carrying guns. Sure. That's fine. But there are *other* types of crime which might actually *increase*. How, for example, would more people having guns have prevented the Maryland snipers from doing what they did? They shot people at a distance before anyone knew what was going on, much less had time to draw a gun on them. On most of those occasions no one even actually *saw* them do it, so no one would have even known who to fire at. The element of surprise was essential in that. Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more often drive-by shootings & similar things will occur. How does carrying a gun help you when you're already shot before you realize there's a need to draw it? How does it help you when their car is already out of range, gone around a corner, let's say, before any gun-carrying bystanders realize that they need to draw their guns to shoot at those who have committed the drive-by shooting? When it's already too late to shoot back? Oh yes, William, more law-abiding citizens carrying guns will indeed deter *some* types of crimes in *some* situations. And how does having a gun in your house help you in the slightest when the intruder who has come into your house in the middle of the night has already shot you as you lay in your bed before you have had time to reach for your gun? Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more such intruders there will be. Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your *fatal* disadvantage. Yet I've seen with my own eyes you yourself say that not even convicted criminals should be prevented from owning firearms. That's the height of folly if I've ever seen it. Let's see: no matter how many times a person has been *convicted* of murder with a gun, we're still to assume that just because a *possible* interpretation of the Second Amendment should be that there should be absolutely no restriction of any type for all American citizens, without a single exception, to bear arms, that "automatically" means that we absolutely "have" to abide by this one single interpretation to the exclusion of all others, even if some other interpretations are equally valid, & just let anyone & every bear arms any time they please, even if they've already committed multiple murders with guns. Ya right, that just "must" have been what the writers of the Constitution "meant." No other interpretation whatsoever is at all likely. Strange then that even you yourself have plainly stated that we, in actual truth, have no possible way of knowing for certain exactly what they meant; you've already said this exact thing regarding whether or not they would have agreed that anyone at all can take a gun aboard a passenger airplane. You yourself have said that we have no way of knowing for certain. Of course we don't; we can't "ask" them, as they've all been deceased for well over a century. The last of them died many decades before the Wright brothers did their trick at Kitty Hawk, & even longer before passenger airplanes first began being used, & even longer before the first time weapons of any type had ever been banned aboard any airplane. And oh dear, but let's do talk about "accidents" now. But not about children accidentally hurting themselves because their parents are careless with their guns. Let's instead talk about this scenario: Let's say we're living in a country in which any of us can carry any type of gun we please any time we please & anywhere we please. Let's then say that you're walking down the street & someone comes up to you in a manner which you perceive to be "threatening." You get the impression that the person is about to draw a gun on you, so you shoot the person first. It then turns out that the person did not even have a gun, & was not actually intending to harm you in any way. All adult humans who have ever lived in the entire history of our species, without a single exception, have been imperfect, which automatically means that all adult humans are capable of making mistakes, & indeed *do* make mistakes. It is inevitable. Quite obviously, the more people who are carrying guns, the more often such mistaken shootings will occur. It is inevitable. This means even *more* innocent people will die than are *already* dying as a result of shootings. Please explain to me how more people carrying guns in more situations "reduces" the likelihood of people being killed by guns unnecessarily. I'm still not seeing it. Oh but wait: not even I am one of these "liberals" who is claiming that "accidents" (under which category you might put these sorts of "mistaken" shootings) should be the *primary* reason for *some* sort of gun control. See what I said about the "element of surprise" above? You carrying a gun won't make the slightest difference when the criminal shoots you in the head for the money in your wallet before you've even realized that you need to draw your gun. You'll already be incapable of drawing your gun as your brain will have already been destroyed, so it won't be able to send the message to your hands to draw your pistol on your attacker. You can be wearing a trenchcoat, & carrying as many "assault weapons" as Rambo, & still this won't help you in the slightest when the criminal carrying nothing but a single pistol (which you say he has the "constitutional right" to carry, no matter how many times he's been convicted of exactly the same crime) sneaks up behind you & fires just one bullet into your brain. With all your weapons, you're still dead anyway, & the criminal still gets your wallet. Now, do amuse me by attempting to argue that when more people are allowed to carry guns, this sort of attack will nevertheless occur "less" often. Oh, & let's go back to the "accidents" again now. Since you're a human being, it is absolutely certain that at some point you may mistakenly believe that someone is about to attack you when in actual fact that person is intending no such thing. This means that beyond any possible doubt you may indeed some day shoot someone who in actual truth did not intend you any harm. Yet you of course will not feel the slightest twinge of remorse over having killed a completely innocent person. Oh, but you might say, the person shouldn't have "acted" in a threatening manner. But you're a human, which automatically guarantees that you are capable of misunderstanding another person's intent. Thus it would be your fault, not that of the person you shot, that you misunderstood what that person intended to do. There are millions of other people like you, who are equally capable of totally misunderstanding a variety of situations, & thus equally capable of shooting when it was in actual fact not even slightly necessary to do so. Yet you still believe that anyone & everyone should be allowed to carry a gun anytime & anywhere they please. Only you, plus some other extremists, would actually believe such a thing to be at all desirable. Oh dear, & let's talk about the "news" again. Let's talk about quotations of the "other side" in the news this time. I know perfectly well that the *majority* of times that I've seen anyone quoted on the news as being *against* gun control, they *still* don't specifically say that even convicted murderers should be allowed to carry any type of firearm they please any time they please anywhere they please whenever they are released from prison. Not even the majority of the *anti*-gun-control advocates say exactly that on the news. See how I'm much more fair-minded than you? See how I unequivocally acknowledge that *neither* of these extremes is in truth represented by the *majority* of either side? The Liberals say that the tremendous number of accidental killings and maimings with guns is their reason for wanting to control their proliferation in the society. No, you, *alone* in this thread, *claim* that for "the Liberals" (as in the majority of them) this is "their reason," as in their *primary* reason. You remain the only person in my lifelong recollection to make such a claim. Simple common sense suggests otherwise. Also, don't you watch...oh what is it called again?...oh yes, the "news"? Apparently almost everyone but you has already known for years that the *majority* of times liberals are quoted in the media as being in favor of some sort of gun control, they specifically state that it is because of the high volume of violent *crime* committed with guns, with accidental killings & maimings being a somewhat lesser part of their argument. According to the "news," you're still only talking about a minority of liberals. So it isn't that I don't understand you. I just disagree with you. No, your replies made it quite obvious that at first you did not even *understand* what I was asking you, since at first you did not even *acknowledge* what I was asking, whether it was to agree or disagree. In one of your replies you even went so far as to clearly state that you did not understand what I "wanted" you to say, & instead addressed *only* issues which I had *not* asked you to address. This is the first time that you have even *acknowledged* that the exact thing I was challenging you about was your claim that the majority of liberals favor gun control primarily because they are concerned about accidents with guns. I am supremely confident that the majority of times over the past 4 decades that I have seen and/or heard and/or read of any liberal being directly quoted in the broadcast and/or print media as being in favor of gun control, they have said that their primary reason is because of the high volume of violent crime being committed with guns. Apparently you have either watched the news less often than I have for the past 40 years, or you don't pay as much attention to what you hear coming out of the television speaker as I do. It's just as foolhardy to claim that the majority of one side represents the most extreme view as it is to claim the analogy for the other side. Oh, & do I, personally, think that *you* *yourself* don't have the "right" to bear arms? No, I do not. To your claims of carrying a pistol with you "at all times" (or something like that) I am in ardent support. But you'd better damned sure not ever make a mistake, & shoot someone who did not in actual truth intend any harm to you, or my support for you will vanish in an instant. -- "God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04. |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
In article N4Ukd.496983$mD.204341@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" wrote: "Rob Mitchell" wrote in message ... In article p6hkd.15031$V41.1706@attbi_s52, "William Graham" wrote: I think that it is uniquely liberal to make a law that is 1: In violation of the Constitution. and 2: Is unenforceable. Nobody knows what I have in my pocket, and it is unconstitutional to search me at random, so it is a stupid law that prohibits me from carrying a concealed weapon, even if it were not for the second amendment. the second amendment simply makes it unconstitutional, as well as stupid. Whatever; will you finally admit that most liberals don't advocate gun control because of accidents, but instead advocate it because of high levels of crime with guns? Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth. There is no doubt about it. I believe that most of the liberals that I have known argue for gun control based on the accident rate with guns. Then you must have "known" only an extraordinarily atypical set of liberals. Even Mark has disagreed with you on this. It is my argument that they (guns) help prevent crime, and do not increase it. As a deterrent to *some* types of crime in *some* situations, I certainly agree. Certain crimes would be less likely to be committed when the criminals know that more of the people are carrying guns. Sure. That's fine. But there are *other* types of crime which might actually *increase*. How, for example, would more people having guns have prevented the Maryland snipers from doing what they did? They shot people at a distance before anyone knew what was going on, much less had time to draw a gun on them. On most of those occasions no one even actually *saw* them do it, so no one would have even known who to fire at. The element of surprise was essential in that. Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more often drive-by shootings & similar things will occur. How does carrying a gun help you when you're already shot before you realize there's a need to draw it? How does it help you when their car is already out of range, gone around a corner, let's say, before any gun-carrying bystanders realize that they need to draw their guns to shoot at those who have committed the drive-by shooting? When it's already too late to shoot back? Oh yes, William, more law-abiding citizens carrying guns will indeed deter *some* types of crimes in *some* situations. And how does having a gun in your house help you in the slightest when the intruder who has come into your house in the middle of the night has already shot you as you lay in your bed before you have had time to reach for your gun? Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more such intruders there will be. Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your *fatal* disadvantage. Yet I've seen with my own eyes you yourself say that not even convicted criminals should be prevented from owning firearms. That's the height of folly if I've ever seen it. Let's see: no matter how many times a person has been *convicted* of murder with a gun, we're still to assume that just because a *possible* interpretation of the Second Amendment should be that there should be absolutely no restriction of any type for all American citizens, without a single exception, to bear arms, that "automatically" means that we absolutely "have" to abide by this one single interpretation to the exclusion of all others, even if some other interpretations are equally valid, & just let anyone & every bear arms any time they please, even if they've already committed multiple murders with guns. Ya right, that just "must" have been what the writers of the Constitution "meant." No other interpretation whatsoever is at all likely. Strange then that even you yourself have plainly stated that we, in actual truth, have no possible way of knowing for certain exactly what they meant; you've already said this exact thing regarding whether or not they would have agreed that anyone at all can take a gun aboard a passenger airplane. You yourself have said that we have no way of knowing for certain. Of course we don't; we can't "ask" them, as they've all been deceased for well over a century. The last of them died many decades before the Wright brothers did their trick at Kitty Hawk, & even longer before passenger airplanes first began being used, & even longer before the first time weapons of any type had ever been banned aboard any airplane. And oh dear, but let's do talk about "accidents" now. But not about children accidentally hurting themselves because their parents are careless with their guns. Let's instead talk about this scenario: Let's say we're living in a country in which any of us can carry any type of gun we please any time we please & anywhere we please. Let's then say that you're walking down the street & someone comes up to you in a manner which you perceive to be "threatening." You get the impression that the person is about to draw a gun on you, so you shoot the person first. It then turns out that the person did not even have a gun, & was not actually intending to harm you in any way. All adult humans who have ever lived in the entire history of our species, without a single exception, have been imperfect, which automatically means that all adult humans are capable of making mistakes, & indeed *do* make mistakes. It is inevitable. Quite obviously, the more people who are carrying guns, the more often such mistaken shootings will occur. It is inevitable. This means even *more* innocent people will die than are *already* dying as a result of shootings. Please explain to me how more people carrying guns in more situations "reduces" the likelihood of people being killed by guns unnecessarily. I'm still not seeing it. Oh but wait: not even I am one of these "liberals" who is claiming that "accidents" (under which category you might put these sorts of "mistaken" shootings) should be the *primary* reason for *some* sort of gun control. See what I said about the "element of surprise" above? You carrying a gun won't make the slightest difference when the criminal shoots you in the head for the money in your wallet before you've even realized that you need to draw your gun. You'll already be incapable of drawing your gun as your brain will have already been destroyed, so it won't be able to send the message to your hands to draw your pistol on your attacker. You can be wearing a trenchcoat, & carrying as many "assault weapons" as Rambo, & still this won't help you in the slightest when the criminal carrying nothing but a single pistol (which you say he has the "constitutional right" to carry, no matter how many times he's been convicted of exactly the same crime) sneaks up behind you & fires just one bullet into your brain. With all your weapons, you're still dead anyway, & the criminal still gets your wallet. Now, do amuse me by attempting to argue that when more people are allowed to carry guns, this sort of attack will nevertheless occur "less" often. Oh, & let's go back to the "accidents" again now. Since you're a human being, it is absolutely certain that at some point you may mistakenly believe that someone is about to attack you when in actual fact that person is intending no such thing. This means that beyond any possible doubt you may indeed some day shoot someone who in actual truth did not intend you any harm. Yet you of course will not feel the slightest twinge of remorse over having killed a completely innocent person. Oh, but you might say, the person shouldn't have "acted" in a threatening manner. But you're a human, which automatically guarantees that you are capable of misunderstanding another person's intent. Thus it would be your fault, not that of the person you shot, that you misunderstood what that person intended to do. There are millions of other people like you, who are equally capable of totally misunderstanding a variety of situations, & thus equally capable of shooting when it was in actual fact not even slightly necessary to do so. Yet you still believe that anyone & everyone should be allowed to carry a gun anytime & anywhere they please. Only you, plus some other extremists, would actually believe such a thing to be at all desirable. Oh dear, & let's talk about the "news" again. Let's talk about quotations of the "other side" in the news this time. I know perfectly well that the *majority* of times that I've seen anyone quoted on the news as being *against* gun control, they *still* don't specifically say that even convicted murderers should be allowed to carry any type of firearm they please any time they please anywhere they please whenever they are released from prison. Not even the majority of the *anti*-gun-control advocates say exactly that on the news. See how I'm much more fair-minded than you? See how I unequivocally acknowledge that *neither* of these extremes is in truth represented by the *majority* of either side? The Liberals say that the tremendous number of accidental killings and maimings with guns is their reason for wanting to control their proliferation in the society. No, you, *alone* in this thread, *claim* that for "the Liberals" (as in the majority of them) this is "their reason," as in their *primary* reason. You remain the only person in my lifelong recollection to make such a claim. Simple common sense suggests otherwise. Also, don't you watch...oh what is it called again?...oh yes, the "news"? Apparently almost everyone but you has already known for years that the *majority* of times liberals are quoted in the media as being in favor of some sort of gun control, they specifically state that it is because of the high volume of violent *crime* committed with guns, with accidental killings & maimings being a somewhat lesser part of their argument. According to the "news," you're still only talking about a minority of liberals. So it isn't that I don't understand you. I just disagree with you. No, your replies made it quite obvious that at first you did not even *understand* what I was asking you, since at first you did not even *acknowledge* what I was asking, whether it was to agree or disagree. In one of your replies you even went so far as to clearly state that you did not understand what I "wanted" you to say, & instead addressed *only* issues which I had *not* asked you to address. This is the first time that you have even *acknowledged* that the exact thing I was challenging you about was your claim that the majority of liberals favor gun control primarily because they are concerned about accidents with guns. I am supremely confident that the majority of times over the past 4 decades that I have seen and/or heard and/or read of any liberal being directly quoted in the broadcast and/or print media as being in favor of gun control, they have said that their primary reason is because of the high volume of violent crime being committed with guns. Apparently you have either watched the news less often than I have for the past 40 years, or you don't pay as much attention to what you hear coming out of the television speaker as I do. It's just as foolhardy to claim that the majority of one side represents the most extreme view as it is to claim the analogy for the other side. Oh, & do I, personally, think that *you* *yourself* don't have the "right" to bear arms? No, I do not. To your claims of carrying a pistol with you "at all times" (or something like that) I am in ardent support. But you'd better damned sure not ever make a mistake, & shoot someone who did not in actual truth intend any harm to you, or my support for you will vanish in an instant. -- "God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04. |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
In article N4Ukd.496983$mD.204341@attbi_s02,
"William Graham" wrote: "Rob Mitchell" wrote in message ... In article p6hkd.15031$V41.1706@attbi_s52, "William Graham" wrote: I think that it is uniquely liberal to make a law that is 1: In violation of the Constitution. and 2: Is unenforceable. Nobody knows what I have in my pocket, and it is unconstitutional to search me at random, so it is a stupid law that prohibits me from carrying a concealed weapon, even if it were not for the second amendment. the second amendment simply makes it unconstitutional, as well as stupid. Whatever; will you finally admit that most liberals don't advocate gun control because of accidents, but instead advocate it because of high levels of crime with guns? Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth. There is no doubt about it. I believe that most of the liberals that I have known argue for gun control based on the accident rate with guns. Then you must have "known" only an extraordinarily atypical set of liberals. Even Mark has disagreed with you on this. It is my argument that they (guns) help prevent crime, and do not increase it. As a deterrent to *some* types of crime in *some* situations, I certainly agree. Certain crimes would be less likely to be committed when the criminals know that more of the people are carrying guns. Sure. That's fine. But there are *other* types of crime which might actually *increase*. How, for example, would more people having guns have prevented the Maryland snipers from doing what they did? They shot people at a distance before anyone knew what was going on, much less had time to draw a gun on them. On most of those occasions no one even actually *saw* them do it, so no one would have even known who to fire at. The element of surprise was essential in that. Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more often drive-by shootings & similar things will occur. How does carrying a gun help you when you're already shot before you realize there's a need to draw it? How does it help you when their car is already out of range, gone around a corner, let's say, before any gun-carrying bystanders realize that they need to draw their guns to shoot at those who have committed the drive-by shooting? When it's already too late to shoot back? Oh yes, William, more law-abiding citizens carrying guns will indeed deter *some* types of crimes in *some* situations. And how does having a gun in your house help you in the slightest when the intruder who has come into your house in the middle of the night has already shot you as you lay in your bed before you have had time to reach for your gun? Rather obviously, the more people who have guns, the more such intruders there will be. Criminals have brains too, & plenty of them are quite easily able to use the element of surprise to their advantage, & to your *fatal* disadvantage. Yet I've seen with my own eyes you yourself say that not even convicted criminals should be prevented from owning firearms. That's the height of folly if I've ever seen it. Let's see: no matter how many times a person has been *convicted* of murder with a gun, we're still to assume that just because a *possible* interpretation of the Second Amendment should be that there should be absolutely no restriction of any type for all American citizens, without a single exception, to bear arms, that "automatically" means that we absolutely "have" to abide by this one single interpretation to the exclusion of all others, even if some other interpretations are equally valid, & just let anyone & every bear arms any time they please, even if they've already committed multiple murders with guns. Ya right, that just "must" have been what the writers of the Constitution "meant." No other interpretation whatsoever is at all likely. Strange then that even you yourself have plainly stated that we, in actual truth, have no possible way of knowing for certain exactly what they meant; you've already said this exact thing regarding whether or not they would have agreed that anyone at all can take a gun aboard a passenger airplane. You yourself have said that we have no way of knowing for certain. Of course we don't; we can't "ask" them, as they've all been deceased for well over a century. The last of them died many decades before the Wright brothers did their trick at Kitty Hawk, & even longer before passenger airplanes first began being used, & even longer before the first time weapons of any type had ever been banned aboard any airplane. And oh dear, but let's do talk about "accidents" now. But not about children accidentally hurting themselves because their parents are careless with their guns. Let's instead talk about this scenario: Let's say we're living in a country in which any of us can carry any type of gun we please any time we please & anywhere we please. Let's then say that you're walking down the street & someone comes up to you in a manner which you perceive to be "threatening." You get the impression that the person is about to draw a gun on you, so you shoot the person first. It then turns out that the person did not even have a gun, & was not actually intending to harm you in any way. All adult humans who have ever lived in the entire history of our species, without a single exception, have been imperfect, which automatically means that all adult humans are capable of making mistakes, & indeed *do* make mistakes. It is inevitable. Quite obviously, the more people who are carrying guns, the more often such mistaken shootings will occur. It is inevitable. This means even *more* innocent people will die than are *already* dying as a result of shootings. Please explain to me how more people carrying guns in more situations "reduces" the likelihood of people being killed by guns unnecessarily. I'm still not seeing it. Oh but wait: not even I am one of these "liberals" who is claiming that "accidents" (under which category you might put these sorts of "mistaken" shootings) should be the *primary* reason for *some* sort of gun control. See what I said about the "element of surprise" above? You carrying a gun won't make the slightest difference when the criminal shoots you in the head for the money in your wallet before you've even realized that you need to draw your gun. You'll already be incapable of drawing your gun as your brain will have already been destroyed, so it won't be able to send the message to your hands to draw your pistol on your attacker. You can be wearing a trenchcoat, & carrying as many "assault weapons" as Rambo, & still this won't help you in the slightest when the criminal carrying nothing but a single pistol (which you say he has the "constitutional right" to carry, no matter how many times he's been convicted of exactly the same crime) sneaks up behind you & fires just one bullet into your brain. With all your weapons, you're still dead anyway, & the criminal still gets your wallet. Now, do amuse me by attempting to argue that when more people are allowed to carry guns, this sort of attack will nevertheless occur "less" often. Oh, & let's go back to the "accidents" again now. Since you're a human being, it is absolutely certain that at some point you may mistakenly believe that someone is about to attack you when in actual fact that person is intending no such thing. This means that beyond any possible doubt you may indeed some day shoot someone who in actual truth did not intend you any harm. Yet you of course will not feel the slightest twinge of remorse over having killed a completely innocent person. Oh, but you might say, the person shouldn't have "acted" in a threatening manner. But you're a human, which automatically guarantees that you are capable of misunderstanding another person's intent. Thus it would be your fault, not that of the person you shot, that you misunderstood what that person intended to do. There are millions of other people like you, who are equally capable of totally misunderstanding a variety of situations, & thus equally capable of shooting when it was in actual fact not even slightly necessary to do so. Yet you still believe that anyone & everyone should be allowed to carry a gun anytime & anywhere they please. Only you, plus some other extremists, would actually believe such a thing to be at all desirable. Oh dear, & let's talk about the "news" again. Let's talk about quotations of the "other side" in the news this time. I know perfectly well that the *majority* of times that I've seen anyone quoted on the news as being *against* gun control, they *still* don't specifically say that even convicted murderers should be allowed to carry any type of firearm they please any time they please anywhere they please whenever they are released from prison. Not even the majority of the *anti*-gun-control advocates say exactly that on the news. See how I'm much more fair-minded than you? See how I unequivocally acknowledge that *neither* of these extremes is in truth represented by the *majority* of either side? The Liberals say that the tremendous number of accidental killings and maimings with guns is their reason for wanting to control their proliferation in the society. No, you, *alone* in this thread, *claim* that for "the Liberals" (as in the majority of them) this is "their reason," as in their *primary* reason. You remain the only person in my lifelong recollection to make such a claim. Simple common sense suggests otherwise. Also, don't you watch...oh what is it called again?...oh yes, the "news"? Apparently almost everyone but you has already known for years that the *majority* of times liberals are quoted in the media as being in favor of some sort of gun control, they specifically state that it is because of the high volume of violent *crime* committed with guns, with accidental killings & maimings being a somewhat lesser part of their argument. According to the "news," you're still only talking about a minority of liberals. So it isn't that I don't understand you. I just disagree with you. No, your replies made it quite obvious that at first you did not even *understand* what I was asking you, since at first you did not even *acknowledge* what I was asking, whether it was to agree or disagree. In one of your replies you even went so far as to clearly state that you did not understand what I "wanted" you to say, & instead addressed *only* issues which I had *not* asked you to address. This is the first time that you have even *acknowledged* that the exact thing I was challenging you about was your claim that the majority of liberals favor gun control primarily because they are concerned about accidents with guns. I am supremely confident that the majority of times over the past 4 decades that I have seen and/or heard and/or read of any liberal being directly quoted in the broadcast and/or print media as being in favor of gun control, they have said that their primary reason is because of the high volume of violent crime being committed with guns. Apparently you have either watched the news less often than I have for the past 40 years, or you don't pay as much attention to what you hear coming out of the television speaker as I do. It's just as foolhardy to claim that the majority of one side represents the most extreme view as it is to claim the analogy for the other side. Oh, & do I, personally, think that *you* *yourself* don't have the "right" to bear arms? No, I do not. To your claims of carrying a pistol with you "at all times" (or something like that) I am in ardent support. But you'd better damned sure not ever make a mistake, & shoot someone who did not in actual truth intend any harm to you, or my support for you will vanish in an instant. -- "God defines the law now? Does black rod bang on the almighty one's front-porch anually only to get a harp slammed in his face for his trouble?" - Subtext Whore on 10-28-04. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PUBLIC DATA - William Graham | William Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | July 21st 04 07:37 AM |
Cowardly Groupline Cut #4 Ping Snuh: *TRUCE* - I'm being serious this time. | ß¡g ®êÞ Hë£müt | Digital Photography | 1 | July 17th 04 03:14 AM |
[SI] A reminder, and Ping Bandicoot | Al Denelsbeck | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 16th 04 03:23 AM |
Ping Rec.Photo.Digital | Daedalus | Digital Photography | 0 | July 8th 04 09:42 PM |
William E Graham Data | Mark M | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | June 16th 04 03:38 PM |