XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell   
   From: leg@sea   
      
   RD (The Sandman) wrote:   
   > "leg@sea"  wrote in   
   > news:hd4fld$kbl$1@news.eternal-september.org:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > That was also very good.  I knew you had it in you.  ;)   
   >   
      
   As I always say, you get what you earn.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)