BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/26/05 2:44 AM:

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 2/25/05 10:02 PM:

KMAN wrote:
...snip ...

Sigh. It sounds reasonable even if John Kerry has an atomic bomb
in
his
basement.

So is it alright for Kerry to have an assault weapon since he is
breaking the law. Would you want a law breaker having access to
the
A-Bomb, as long as he is your man, bought and paid for?

I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is
not
"my
man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea?

Different music being piped than in Nov, I guess I need to learn
some
different dance steps to keep up with you!

Geezus Tinkerntom, when the hell did I say Kerry was "my man" or
anything
like that?

Well you sure did not want Bush, who would be your alternative?

A nice head of cauliflower would have been preferable.

If he's got illegal
weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up
next to
him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses.

As far as Kerry being strung up, he has paid the price for his
duplicity!

Fine.

President Bush is still operating within the scope of his
autority, no false pretenses that I can indite him on.

And if you tried, the republicans on the supreme court would turn you
down
anyway. LOL.

You ask if I am one of these gun nuts too? Please define your
label,
which you seem to be willing to stick on everyone and anyone who
doesn't agree with you. Personally I have come to prefer
dispensing
aspirin. Tnt

A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then
the world
would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is
some
"liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to
invade
everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take
over.
Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts.

Gun nut, I guess your definition again doesn't fit me.

Good.

I would not want
everyone to have a gun, though I believe that if they are of sound
mind, that they should be able to possess a gun if they desire.

Everyone who owns a gun now thinks they are of sound mind,
Tinkerntom. And
yet more than 30000 Americans will die this year. And next year. As
they
have for decades.

And many more will die of auto accidents. Do I hear a call to ban
autos?

On no, Tinkerntom, that's a typical gun nut argument. I'm afraid such an
argument puts you firmly in the nut category, unless you can figure out why
it is a silly argument that can only be promoted by the type of guy who
dreams of the day he is attacked by a faceless mob and he gets to unleash
his arsenal of assault weapons in defense of 'merica.

The
term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they
use
it to demonize all firearms

If they wanted to demonize all firearms it would be foolish to create
the
special category of assault weapons.

So do you not have problems with private ownership of other types of
firearms, for example a Browning semi-auto Deer rifle, with scope,
30-06? Or Winchester 30-30 lever action? or Winchester Mod 12 shotgun?
or a Weatherby Mark IV .460?

How does this question follow from what I just said? Wait, don't answer
that, it's easier and more timely to move on without trying to figure out
why your mind jumps around that way, or why it is you seem incapable of
absorbing a point and instead prefer to leave a subject just when you are on
the verge of being forced to think.

So, to your question.

I don't like any guns, Tinkerntom. Not one of them. Just not a fan. But I
realize the total eradication of guns is not happening. To me it would be
reasonable that no gun could fire more than one bullet at a time, but that's
probably not happening, so I figure it's most logical to start with weapons
that are most obviously of little use save for the spraying of a lot of
ammunition in a short period of time. Most of those weapons fit nicely into
what most people understand as the category of "assault weapons."

which infact actually demonstates their
underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the
function,
limit, and value of particular weapons.
Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples
homes,
confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a
typical
target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems
with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for
liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how
to
handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt

Tinkerntom, do you own a gun? I really really really hope not.

Why would you really, really hope that I don't own a firearm?

Because you seem extremely unstable and a lot of your thinking is quite
nutty.

I have
never shot in anger, of even self defense. I was on a shotgun team in
highschool, and did not do to badly in trap. Then in college, a
competetive rifle team, and have never shot anyone even accidentally,
or had a firearm discharge in a hazardous fashion. I think that I have
always handled them in a demonstatably safe fashion, and have taught
other to do so as well. There have been no accidents with any of my
students. So what was your point?

That I find you to be a bit of a scary person, and a scary person with a gun
is always worse than a scary person without a gun.

That because I get on this forum and
present an opposing view point to what you advocate that I should not
have a firearm.

No. See above.

Who made you the final arbiter of our Constitution?

You are sounding nutty again.

That is rather presumptious of you is it not? If having an opposing
view point to you is the main criteria for determining our exercise of
our rights, I would say that you are a greater danger to our
Constitution than any gun nut! TnT

Wow, I didn't expect this wild tangent, but nuttiness can be fun, so I'll go
with it.

Being a danger to the constitution can be a good think Tinkerntom. I would
like to think that had I been there back in the day, I would have loudly
advocated that a black person not be constitutionally valued as less than a
white person.

The consitution is just a document slapped together by some dudes a long
time ago, Tinkerntom, and it has been changed in many ways many times,
because the world has changed, and attitudes have changed. Well, for some.