XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   RD (The Sandman) wrote:   
   > "Scout"  wrote in   
   > news:AN%Gm.334$SY4.278@newsfe22.iad:   
   >   
   >> RD (The Sandman) wrote:   
   >>> "leg@sea"  wrote in   
   >>> news:hchrio$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.   
   >   
   > I screw up from time to time and violate my own ideals on that.  Have   
   > to watch it more.  ;(   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > As I have found, name calling detracts from the discussion.  One   
   > reason why Harrison is in the Bozo Bin.  He does come up with some   
   > interesting points but obliterates them with his constant use of   
   > names that he thinks demean his debator.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > If you are talking about Matt Telles, he and I continue to discuss   
   > things and I have a track in mind.  If you are talking about Leg@sea,   
   > I will have to watch him and see how he does.  I am not as familiar   
   > with him as I am with Matt.   
      
   Most of my message was for legs, I just was piggybacking on your message.   
      
   :-)   
      
      
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Yep.   
   >   
   >> In short, keep handing him rope until he hangs himself.   
   >   
   > With some of them, that rope is quite short.  ;)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)