XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   RD (The Sandman) wrote:   
   > "leg@sea"  wrote in   
   > news:hchrio$c9t$10@news.eternal-september.org:   
   >   
   >> Matt wrote:   
   >>> On Oct 30, 2:34 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" >> @comcast.net> wrote:   
   >>>> "leg@sea"  wrote innews:hcfe6s$aeg$1@news.eternal-   
   >>>> september.org:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Matt wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Oct 29, 8:29 pm, "leg@sea"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Matt wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Oct 28, 7:09 pm, "leg@sea"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Matt Telles felches spaniels in the break room.   
   >>>>>>>> Blah blah blah, Spammy is the 12 year old that rapes little   
   >>>>>>>> boys. Point proven.   
   >>>>>>>> Matt   
   >>>>>>> How's life by the reservoir, shall we up the ante?   
   >>>>>> Wow, you mean you are going to reveal my (*gasp*) name and   
   >>>>>> address, Spammy? Gee, anyone with a PHONE BOOK can do that.   
   >>>>> I _sure hope_ none of those 'crazed' gun owners you're always   
   >>>>> trying to disenfranchise finds there was over to Lakewood,   
   >>>>> Colorado, Matty...   
   >>>> They probably won't pay any attention to his address.....after all,   
   >>>> the vast majority of them are adult enough to realize that   
   >>>> differences of opinion exist....and always will.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> Done raping the 12 year old boys, Spammy?   
   >>>>> Done trying to take away peoples' rights to own guns Matty?   
   >>>> He hasn't tried to take mine away.....or yours if you have one.  He   
   >>>> simply has different ideas on gun control.   
   >>>   
   >>> Eh, Spammy and I go way back to his Uncle Sam days on co.general.   
   >>> Allegedly, he lives here. He doesn't like being shown up.   
   >>>   
   >>> As for gun control, I do have different ideas. I think that what   
   >>> works in   
   >>> one place won't work in another. In other words, I like the concept   
   >>> of local control over matters. Does anyone truly disagree?   
   >>>   
   >>> Matt   
   >>   
   >> Why yes, the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION does.   
   >>   
   >> You fucking piece of shit fascist gun-grabber.   
   >   
   > We can hold the discussion without the name calling....it simply makes   
   > you look like Lee Harrison or TMT or Lookout.   
      
   True, you need to keep things civil and respectful for as long as you can,   
   and should rarely be the one to start the name calling and then only when it   
   can be justified. Such as informing a person who knowingly posts lies that   
   they are a liar. In this case, legs needs to take a breath, sit back, calm   
   down, and try it again from the top. Maybe refering the 14th Amendment and   
   asking him why he thinks the 2nd shouldn't be applied as a restraint upon   
   the power of the state/local governments to infringe upon our right to keep   
   and bear arms. Possibly even pointing out examples of why they also   
   shouldn't be allowed to violate our freedom of speech, press, religon,   
   unreasonable search, ect.   
      
   And even then even if he agrees the 2nd via the 14th would disallow this, he   
   may still feel they should be able to do so. At which point you need to ask   
   him to explain why he feels they should be able to. If he comes back with   
   anything other than "because", then you have more to work with. Typically   
   the worst thing you can do for an anti-gunner is to allow him to talk. They   
   will typically end up sinking themselves and showing they lack any objective   
   logical reason for their opinion.   
      
   In short, keep handing him rope until he hangs himself.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)