7be2e1fe
XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell
From: claypoolbrian@gmail.com
Matt wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:59 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Matt wrote innews:11133d34-286a-405b
95ed-9cd7f1ed066b@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "RD (The Sandman)" >> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Matt wrote
>>>> innews:64cd7060-e8e2-437f-abec-10f68a
>>> 25c...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> @yahoo.co
>>>>>>>>> m>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> antigunner
>>> s
>>>>>> 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?
>>>> If I was also armed.....yes. I was one of them for awhile.
>>> Somehow, I'm guessing your reaction time is not quite up to that of
>>> an 18-21 year old. Just a hunch, because I know full well that mine
>>> isn't.
>> But you didn't ask that. You asked if I would go up against an armed
>> soldier. I said, yes, if I was armed.
>
> One would hope, for our country's sake, that you would stand no
> chance.
> I happen to believe that. Your mileage may vary.
>
>>>>> I'm tired of you people trying to have it both ways.
>>>> We get a little tired of you and your tired ideas, too, Matt, but I
>>>> think that you are probably all right as a person.....just a little
>>>> soft in the head... ;)
>>> There are days when I remember why I like you. I disagree with you,
>>> but I like you.
>> Thank you for that.....it is mutual.
>>
>>>>> Guns are defensive, except, of course when they aren't.
>>>> That is true. Guns are instruments that can be used both ways.
>>> The issue is really more the attitude of *many* (not all) pro-gun
>>> folk. That
>>> guns are good because they can defend you, and when people use them
>>> badly (as in the army story, or any newspaper story these days) that
>>> it is
>>> 'gang-bangers' or 'bad guys'. Um, they weren't always gang-bangers or
>>> bad
>>> guys. Could it possibly be that using the gun made them bad?
>> Not unless you believe the gun is capable of influencing someone's
>> thoughts like the Shadow. Guns are inanimate. People may influence
>> themselves when they have a gun, but that was a failure within the
>> person.
>
> This is one area where I 'disagree'. Yes, obviously, a gun is
> inanimate and
> cannot change someone by itself. But, carrying a gun has
> ramifications. I
> have watched people who are otherwise intelligent enough to stay out
> of
> altercations get involved in serious situations because they have a
> weapon.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
