XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell
From: leg@sea
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> "leg@sea" wrote in news:hd4erl$edd$2@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>> 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?
>
> No, but it alters the other side's possibility of seeing it. We used to
> see where people making a presentation would have a typo or a word
> spelled wrong. In many cases, no one paid any more attention to the
> presentation or message, instead they were looking for more typos or
> mispellings.
You seem, for all your many years here, not yet to have grasped the
utter futility of uselessnet.
Sad.
At work there are standards, accountability, a paycheck on the line.
Here - nada.
Capisce?
>> That's almost as ludicrous as Matty's assertion that inanimate objects
>> can alter peoples' behavior.
>
> That depends on whether or not you can truly understand what was said and
> why.
Like I said, you two get a room, you're making my stomach churn.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
