XPost: alt.politics, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.art-bell
From: leg@sea
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> "Scout" wrote in
> news:E6nJm.20415$gg6.12619@newsfe25.iad:
>
>> 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.googlegro
>>>>>>>>>>> ups.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.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
