dd514b5b   
   XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   Matt wrote:   
   > On Nov 7, 7:36 am, "Scout"    
   > wrote:   
   >> Matt wrote:   
   >>> On Nov 6, 11:34 pm, "Scout"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>> 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.g   
   oglegroups.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)"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:c625d3fb-f8ab-4ef8-a74b-   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8ae131e3d...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 5:14 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  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.   
   >>   
   >>> Fair enough.   
   >>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >>> That's just silly, we did a lot more than aid them.   
   >>   
   >> Really? I don't seem to recall us sending in the US Army to do the   
   >> fighting. Seems the afgands did all of that.   
   >   
   > We sent in arms that allowed them to proceed. The Afghans were never   
   > going   
   > to win, we just allowed them to stave off the USSR until they gave up   
   > and left.   
   > I should point out that we are falling into the same trap.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>>> WWII   
   >>   
   >>>>> Note the 'successful' part.   
   >>   
   >>>> Really? I am unaware that Switzerland was ever successfully invaded   
   >>>> in WWII.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)