XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au   
      
   On 4/23/2013 8:30 AM, Scout wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message   
   > news:atkfi3Fr1mrU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >> On 4/22/2013 4:45 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:atk47kFoj0aU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>> On 4/22/2013 4:17 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message   
   >>>>> news:atjmslFm001U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>> On 4/22/2013 12:07 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>> news:atjh2kFku7dU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>>>> On 4/21/2013 7:35 AM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>> message   
   >>>>>>>>> news:atev54Fkl0sU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>> message   
   >>>>>>>>>>> news:atec94Fgv0lU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 11:19 AM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ate4m7Ffj68U1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 9:44 AM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson"  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ate2shFf89pU1@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 9:27 AM, Scout wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson"    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:ate000Fek8tU2@mid.individual.net...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2013 8:39 AM, Dechucka wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "RD Sandman"    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:XnsA1A782B5E82D8hopewell@216.196.121.131...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson    
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:atc1j0F11bvU1@mid.individual.net:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 7:56 AM, Dechucka wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... something as simple as universal background   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checks   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't be   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed. Maybe the US is just a sick and violent   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> society   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Not so much. The US is saddled with a bunch of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gutless   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> politicians,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who value the opinions of the NRA more than their   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constituents.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of Americans are probably disgusted with   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elected   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> senators. They need to be reminded of just how weak   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creatures   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're not interested in the well-being of the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are interested in re-election.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sad, so election is more important than dead Americans   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **It would seem so. Except to a tiny handful of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republican   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> senators   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the majority of Democrat senators. Americans should   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names in mind. Both the brave ones and the gutless ones.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, the ones that voted for it need to go,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **Why do you support a criminal's right to obtain firearms?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who said I do?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **You object to good, sane controls on guns.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> I do? Where did I do so?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> **In every single discussion you and I have had regarding gun   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> control   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> laws.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> In every single discussion there was no good, sane gun control   
   >>>>>>>>>>> being   
   >>>>>>>>>>> proposed.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> **That would your opinion. As shown by events, a wrong opinion.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> If it's a matter of opinion then that means you can't really   
   >>>>>>>>> define   
   >>>>>>>>> exactly what a good sane gun control law is other than it's   
   >>>>>>>>> something   
   >>>>>>>>> YOU approve of.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> **Wrong. Good, sane gun control laws acheive results.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Not necessarily.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> **Yes, necessarily.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So if you can't show results that were actually caused by that law,   
   >>>>> then   
   >>>>> we can both agree it wasn't a good, sane law?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> **I've already provided the results of the Australian gun control   
   >>>> laws. All good.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, you've asserted them, and you claimed they were the result of the   
   >>> change in the laws.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>>>  Bad, tyrannical, even evil laws can also achieve   
   >>>>>>> results.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> **Indeed. Bad results.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So simply pointing to results, assuming you can actually prove any,   
   >>>>> doesn't automatically mean it was a good, sane law. You still have to   
   >>>>> PROVE that.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> IOW, you've just made the criteria of proof even harder for yourself.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>  Just because you have results doesn't make the law good and sane.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Exactly, and thanks for stepping into the trap.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> **There is no trap to step into. I've cited the changes to gun laws in   
   >>>> Australia. You cannot show where these changes are bad. In fact, the   
   >>>> reverse is true.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't have to show the changes were bad, you have to show they were   
   >>> good by the standard you set.   
   >>>   
   >>> So let's see the causality you claim exists.   
   >>>   
   >>> Until then, it's just a matter of opinion.   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>   
   >> **I've just unsnipped my questions and comments that you failed to   
   >> respond to.   
   >   
   > If you can't show causality, then all the questions and comments in the   
   > world are irrelevant.   
   >   
   > So let's see the causality. If you can't then you've got nothing to   
   > support your claim these laws had a positive result.   
   >   
   >   
   **I've just unsnipped my questions and comments that you failed to   
   respond to. Gutless worm. Just because you know you're beaten, doesn't   
   mean you can snip my questions.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)