XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell
From: leg@sea
Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns "leg@sea" wrote:
>
>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> In talk.politics.guns "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>
>>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote in
>>>>> news:aasaf5t7gsegekgjasnpcgl1mq9vc2llar@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "leg@sea" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affects
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 have some 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
>>>>>>>>>>> So you want ALL your fellow soldiers disarmed?!?!
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean 'fellow soldiers?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you insinuating that Matt is one of America's Fighting Men?
>>>>>>>>> Lol, not for a minute.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But his gripe was other people having firearms in places he *MUST*
>>>>>>>>> frequent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So ergo if he were in the military, HE would have BIG TIME problem
>>>>>>>>> with his fellow soldiers, yes?
>>>>>>>> Gotcha. If he could only, somehow, muster the courage and tell me
>>>>>>>> how my carrying a gun infringes on his rights, well, we might get
>>>>>>>> somewhere. But obviously his inability to describe this scenario has
>>>>>>>> caused him great mental conflict.
>>>>>>> Oodles, so he dissembles and decouples.
>>>>>> I just noticed the post where he describes his affection and
>>>>>> admiration for Sandman and dismisses us. I'm going to assume that
>>>>>> means I's going to avoid tackling the problem I gave him to work out.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly it is the approach and not the actual dialog on problems. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, in Leg@sea's place, if he would drop the name calling and
>>>>> invectives, he would have a lot more credibility in his statements.
>>>>>
>>>> Your premise being that my volume, inflection, or word choice somehow
>>>> carry the overriding ability to alter my message?
>>>>
>>>> That's almost as ludicrous as Matty's assertion that inanimate objects
>>>> can alter peoples' behavior.
>>> What seems abundantly clear is that when Matt is challenged on a
>>> statement like "carrying your gun infringes on my rights" ad then
>>> mumbles something about "life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"
>>> and then makes up excuses why he can't elaborate, the problem is not
>>> with volume, inflection, or word choice.
>> And recall as well that Matty quickly invited fisticuffs over the matter
>> when challenged, then retreated to an "I love you man" hug-fest with his
>> primary critics after the topic had been sufficiently decoupled from.
>>
>> I think we can all draw some sobering conclusions from that little
>> slithering sobriquet.
>
> It is an interesting series of reactions. I'm always intrigued when
> usenet discussions escalate to the point where the only way to
> conclude the debate is physical violence.
>
> And they wonder why we want guns.
Um...self defense?
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
