3f614496
XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell
From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
Matt wrote:
> On Nov 6, 6:30 pm, "Scout"
> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 11:57 am, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost)
>>> wrote:
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" wrote
>>>> innews:Xns9CBB668B08A2hopewell@216.196.97.130:
>>
>>>>> Matt wrote in
>>>>> news:64cd7060-e8e2-437f-abec-10f68a25c196@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 5:58 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Matt wrote
>>>>>>> innews:2a516e09-93ad-4cbe-93f1-a143ae
>>>>>> 3bb...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 5:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Matt wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:c7f26fc7-8253-4119-ab1f-
>>>>>>>>> a4c6c8c0b...@g10g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 4:12 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>>>>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Matt wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:c625d3fb-f8ab-4ef8-a74b-
>>>>>>>>>>> 8ae131e3d...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 5:14 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude >>>>>>>>>>> @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns Matt wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 7:26 am, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns Matt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do see his point. The problem is, you are only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at it from one viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have rights as well, and your rights stop where mine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My gun ownership has zero effect on your rights.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your gun CARRYING does have an effect on my rights.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My carrying a gun has absolutely ZERO effect on your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rights.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really. "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try again. Better yet, don't. You disagree with me, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's fine. But simply repeating the same old rhetoric
>>>>>>>>>>>> with more and more hyperbole isn't getting anyone anywhere.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or you. Please be specific about how my carrying of a gun
>>>>>>>>>>> affect s your "life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness".
>>>>>>>>>>> None of those are affect ed unless your pursuit of happiness
>>>>>>>>>>> includes disarming me.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you are carrying a gun in a place that I *Must* frequent
>>>>>>>>>> (as opposed to
>>>>>>>>>> may, or could) then I consider my life at risk.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Two questions:
>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. The only place I can think of where you *MUST* frequent
>>>>>>>>> would be a government office. Guns are usually banned in
>>>>>>>>> there. Do you ha ve so me other place in mind?
>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Just how would my having a gun put your life at risk? Are
>>>>>>>>> you planning to attack me or threaten my life?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you seriously going to
>>>>>>>>>> tell me that no gun owner or carrier has ever killed anyone
>>>>>>>>>> that wasn't threatening them?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, because it has happened. Of course your odds of being
>>>>>>>>> killed in a Tornado or be struck by lightning are higher that
>>>>>>>>> that occurrence. If you have proof of the contrary, then feel
>>>>>>>>> free to post it.
>>
>>>>>>>> FORT HOOD, Texas – A military mental health doctor facing
>>>>>>>> deployment overseas opened fire at the Fort Hood Army base on
>>>>>>>> Thursday, setting off on a rampage that killed 11 other people
>>>>>>>> and left 31 wounded. Authorities killed the gunman, and the
>>>>>>>> violence was believed to be the worst mass shooting in history
>>>>>>>> at a U.S. military base.
>>
>>>>>>>> The shooting began around 1:30 p.m., when shots were fired at
>>>>>>>> the base's Soldier Readiness Center, where soldiers who are
>>>>>>>> about to be deployed or who are returning undergo medical
>>>>>>>> screening, said Lt. Gen. Bob Cone at Fort Hood.
>>
>>>>>>> Yep, aware of it. You do realize that most Democrats and
>>>>>>> antigunners feel that guns should be restricted to just law
>>>>>>> enforcement or the military. How did that work for you at Ft
>>>>>>> Hood?
>>
>>>>>> How did it work for YOU? Could you stand up to an armed soldier?
>>
>>>> Civilains, properly armed have been standing up to soldiers
>>>> throughout
>>>> history. You use your civilian gun to get yourself some military
>>>> hardware.
>>>> Don't you read?
>>
>>> On a very small scale, I will agree with you. There has not,
>>> however, been an
>>> armed revolt against the military that has worked in quite some
>>> time. There have
>>> been some guerilla efforts that have worked for a short time. Can
>>> you name a time
>>> in modern history when the armed populace have successfully stopped
>>> a large
>>> scale army?
>>
>> First Chechen War
>
> Not sure which one you mean, the first was a civil war.
That maybe, but that's how the history books record it. You asked, you were
given a valid answer.
>> Afghanistan
>
> Certainly not, if you mean the Russian invasion. We were backing them,
> as you may recall. If you mean currently, they aren't doing much of a
> job of defending themselves.
Sure we were backing them, supplying them with arms, and they stood off the
Russian army.
You didn't say they couldn't get aid.
>> WWII
>
> Note the 'successful' part.
Really? I am unaware that Switzerland was ever successfully invaded in WWII.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
