"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:08 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick
at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:12 PM:


snip..

as stupid and ignorant as
ever, but
it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well.
So,
unlike you, I
did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize.
==================
LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to
soembody else, not to me.

It was an apology to you, but apparently you were confused
about that.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me.
OK, if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it,
liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.

It could happen in any health care system. When my wife got
sick in Miami
with kidney stones and was writhing in agony with an as yet
undiagnosed
problem, she was initially refused treatment because the
administrator could
not get through on the phone to the insurance company.

I haven't seen any evidence that makes me long for a
different type of
health care system. Every Canadian knows that there are
problems with
certain types of specialized tests and providing service to
remote areas. We
all want to improve those situations and there is a national
will to do so.
============================
Willful ignorance.

Will to do better. Ignorance infers not knowing about the
problems involved, and I do.

snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation.
================
No, I have not.

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing
to
insist that I
did.
=====================\\\
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting
for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular
group of
people in
Newfoundland.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical
facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2
years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type
of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported
by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may
not be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are
'waiting' for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the
convenience of the system that is making them wait, as in
Canada, but their own. You then proceeded to claim that NO one
is waiting for treatment in Canada.

Where did I say that? Quit being so obscure. If I said "no one
is waiting for treatment in Canada" post that quote with the
full context so it can be explored.
=========================
LOL YOU just posted the context fool. Your statement was not in
the post about the boy in newfoundland.
It was in response by me to your nonsense about 'poor' people in
the US not getting TO the hospital for treatment.
I appropratly showed you that their convenince in getting to the
doctor does not equate with the systematic wait for treatment
recieved by mnay Canadains. THAT is where you made you ignorant
statement about no one waiting for treatment in Canada, liarman.
You did not make it at the time I posted the link about the boyi
Nfld.



You've just spent several days insisting that my quote about
Newfoundland proved your case, now you are dropping that (duh)
and moving on to some other accusation. Have some guts. Stop
being a scumbag. You were wrong, just apologize and move on.
But now, you are too big of a scumbag and a coward.
====================
No, fool. I'm not. You are the one that is keeping this going so
that you don't have to answer about the rest of your stupidity
and lies.

snip same old crap

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

snip boring old crap
restore relevent post that you would like to go away...
I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.


This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
========================
No need for me to. You made the statement, and have now admitted
it was wrong. I have accepted that you made a mistake and moved
on. You however seem to be stuck on the small details while
ignoring the fcat that people still die waiting for treatment.


Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
========================
No need for me to. You made the statement, and have now
admitted it was wrong.

end restore...



I never stated that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment,
and thus I have not admitted it was wrong, because I never said
it, nor do I believe it.
====================
Yes, you did, and you now admit that people do. You've been
proven a liar, again...

"KMAN" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

snip boring old crap
restore snip that you would like to go away...
I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.
======================
No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may not
be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are 'waiting'
for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the convenience of
the system that is making them wait, as in Canada, but their own.
You then proceeded to claim that NO one is waiting for treatment
in Canada. Youlied then, and you are lying now about your lie.
You have already admitted that this was in error. So, why not
move on and refute that people are dying in these wait lines that
you now agree too.


This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
========================
No need for me to. You made the statement, and have now admitted
it was wrong. I have accepted that you made a mistake and moved
on. You however seem to be stuck on the small details while
ignoring the fcat that people still die waiting for treatment.
end restore...



Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.
================
No need, you lied and have retracked your lie. I have
accepted that.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your
false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article
t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm
responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your
assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by
one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a
statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have
said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I
claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any
such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

Tink says:
===========
You have no knowledge of what the valid conclusion would
look like if you landed on it, and all invalid landings would leave you
even more disoriented. And the number of valid landing spots is
miniscule in comparison to all the invalid ones.
===============

Hmmmmm..... You provided me with evidence of a guy who shows no
foregiveness, love, or caring but primarily vengence on the topic of
capital punishment. What conclusion would you like me to come to?

Where I come from, those who advocate murder are not nice. You said JC
would be in favor of murder. Pray tell, what conclusions should I draw?

Perhaps you need to give me more evidence.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
bearsbuddy say:
================
Mark --Hopefully, most christians aren't reading Tinker's OT version
of the
NT
==================

I'm not a christian, so is it safe for me to accept Tinker's version?

As I am an avowed agnostic, my best guess is NO!

I'm sorely in need of guidance in these affairs.

You'd be much better off seekin' advice and *consent* from a Voodoo Witch
Doctor than from Tinker's Damn, IMMHO.

Is there a Voodoo Witch Doctor in the House, besides TnT, I mean?!

© 2005 Mark --neither leader, nor follower, just someone mingling in
between--TM


frtzw906

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:14 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:36 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a
gun. And
amazingly, no one gets shot there!

Prove it. Show me one community that you can certify does not
have a gun
in
it, and then show me how you can prevent a gun from being
brought into
that
community from outside.

I never said some whackjob like yourself couldn't bring a gun
into a place
with no guns.

Thanks for admitting that your utopian argument is nonsense.

I'm not making a utopian argument.

Of course you are, you're just too ignorant to understand it. And
you're
trying to evade the issue as well. You said,"There are lots of
communities
in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets
shot there!"

You were challenged to supply even ONE example of such a utopian
community.

Sigh. What I'm really talking about is communities that don't have
the type
of nutty gun culture that gets hearts pumping for freaks like you.

Nice attempt at backpedaling.

I've
lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not
belong to
a member of a police force.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don=B9t exist. In
fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.

Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon?
Also Yes.

Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people.

Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our
culture? Not.

Would you be more unsafe? No. Would the individuals who ARE shot by
criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend
themselves?
Probably, but the point is that it is immoral for YOU to disarm THEM
because
YOU are afraid of guns.

Nobody moves away from here because they think they'd be safer
somewhere where guns were more prevalent. You'd have to be totally
insane to
think like that.

So why is it that many Canadians are objecting to the draconian gun
laws in
Canada? Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration
scheme,
which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful?


You were unable to do so. Your implicit thesis is that if a
community
doesn't have guns in it, nobody will be shot. The first failure in
your
logic is the fallacious presumption that just because a community
does not
have a gun in it NOW, it will never have a gun in it. Your second
failure is
in assuming that the only way people can be injured, killed or
victimized by
violent criminals is with a gun. Even in Japan, where guns are
tightly
restricted, people still get killed. Sometimes with butcher
knives, or
swords or any number of other weapons...and sometimes with guns.

Mhmm.

How does that happen, pray tell? How is it that guns are used in
Japan to
commit crimes? Japan has very strict laws forbidding private
ownership of
guns, particularly handguns, and yet handgun crimes still
occur...and the
number is rising.

How can that be? Can you explain this dichotomy?

For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You
can buy
a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum.

That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it.

And then smuggle
it into a country like Japan where the people choose not to worship
guns
like they are the second coming of jesus christ.

Do you have any evidence that Americans are smuggling guns into
Japan? No? I
didn't think so. In fact, it's Japanese who are smuggling guns into
Japan,
and Englishmen who are smuggling guns into Britain, and Australians
who are
smuggling guns into Australia. And to debunk your claim in advance,
no, most
of those guns are not smuggled directly from the US, many of them
aren't
even manufactured in the US.

But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is
not being
met even in Japan.


Thinking that everyone having a gun is the path to non-violence
is beyond
utopian, it is evidence of a sick mind.

Thinking that the path to non-violence can be walked without a gun
is
evidence of a sick mind. Unless you LIKE being a martyr to
non-violence like
Gandhi. If that's what works for you, fine.

Geezus you are a loser.

And you're an ignorant ****wit.

You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease
some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****?

No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm
going
to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when
it's
required.

You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even
though
Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of
guns, not
to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that
non-violence
hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan.

Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which
is why
they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons.

Me, I'll achieve peace through
superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there
hiding in the
bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey.

ROFL.

The myth of the violent stranger in the bush.

That's not who is going to kill you.

That's who kills most of the people in the world.

You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a
member of
your own family

Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven.

- or on yourself.

That would be my right, now wouldn't it?

Or you'll put a big hole in some person
you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to
have your
chance to be a hero gunslinger.

I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day
of my
life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet. Nor do
the
vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The
"blood
running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen
where
concealed carry is made lawful.

Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every
round
I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun
should be
taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and
bulky,
and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat
of
summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the
day when
you're in public. Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it
*just
once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for
everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to
CHOOSE to
be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a
right to
deny them, ever.

But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I
choose
to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and
defend the
defenseless should it be necessary.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott did you see this article over the weekend. I realize it is in a
"suspect" source, Fox News, but I found it interesting none the less
and to your current point.

http://tinyurl.com/7xs53

I suppose if a person really wanted to read it, they might get some
interesting data, if they are interested in data, not just the normal
party line! TnT

"Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message
.. .

"rick" wrote in message news:xYWWd.3533

No, fool. That post was prior to this one. This one is about
your ignorant claims that because a poor person in the US may
not be able to get to the doctor right away, then they are
'waiting' for treatment. I pointed out that it wasn't the
convenience of the system that is making them wait, as in
Canada, but their own. You then proceeded to claim that NO one
is waiting for treatment in Canada. Youlied then, and you are
lying now about your lie. You have already admitted that this
was in error. So, why not move on and refute that people are
dying in these wait lines that you now agree too.

Rick,

Is it your position that Americans don't die while waiting for
health care, because of the convenience of the U.S. healthcare
system?
======================
Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper?
No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults.
My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the deliberate
lies that kman made about no one dying while waiting for
treatment in Canada. I have made no claims about any system
being better, or worse than any other.



If healthcare is convenient, yet unaffordable, is it still not
worthless?
=====================
I don't know anyone that doesn't get healthcare, so I guess
you'l, have to ask someone else.
Again, I have not promoted, or defended any health care system
over any other.



Mark

Tink says:
===============
Possibly you did, same data, same conclusion, same credentials,
indicate same limited processing function of alternative data or
conclusions, and limit of credentials.
===================

No. No. No. Tink, now you're falling into the denigration thing. I was
hoping to keep this at the level of a discussion (not a debate). We
don't need winners or losers, we just need to explore the topic.

Based on our exploration, with you providing the biblical background, I
drew my conclusions about the nature of JC. In light of your
interpretation of his take on capital punishment, I saw JC in a less
than positive light.

Since then, you've admonished me several times for jumping to
conclusions, not having data, and I don't know what all. All you need
to do, if this is to be a discussion, is explain to me how I somehow
got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...


Scott did you see this article over the weekend. I realize it is in a
"suspect" source, Fox News, but I found it interesting none the less
and to your current point.

http://tinyurl.com/7xs53

I suppose if a person really wanted to read it, they might get some
interesting data, if they are interested in data, not just the normal
party line! TnT

This was not a Fox News article, it was a commentary, by a very suspect
source. Leave it to Faux News to present such.
John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the
author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003) and More Guns, Less Crime
(University of Chicago Press 2000).



Mark --and the so-called data was of no interest to this hunter/gun owner--

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:14 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:36 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun.
And
amazingly, no one gets shot there!

Prove it. Show me one community that you can certify does not have a
gun
in
it, and then show me how you can prevent a gun from being brought
into
that
community from outside.

I never said some whackjob like yourself couldn't bring a gun into a
place
with no guns.

Thanks for admitting that your utopian argument is nonsense.

I'm not making a utopian argument.

Of course you are, you're just too ignorant to understand it. And you're
trying to evade the issue as well. You said,"There are lots of
communities
in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot
there!"

You were challenged to supply even ONE example of such a utopian
community.

Sigh. What I'm really talking about is communities that don't have the
type
of nutty gun culture that gets hearts pumping for freaks like you.

Nice attempt at backpedaling.

Call it what you want. There's probably an island somewhere with people who
don't have any guns. But that's not what I was wanting to talk about.

I've
lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong
to
a member of a police force.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don¹t exist. In fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.

I know they exist.

This is my point, it is not a gun culture.

Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon?
Also Yes.

Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people.

There'd have been less people shot without the guns.

But at least you don't have many people here who think that they need to own
an assault weapon or that the "right" to own an assault weapon is more
important than the right to not have your neighbourhood shot up with
semi-automatic fire.

Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our
culture? Not.

Would you be more unsafe?

Yes, most definitely.

Would the individuals who ARE shot by
criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend
themselves?

No, and other innocent people would be dead.

Probably, but the point is that it is immoral for YOU to disarm THEM
because
YOU are afraid of guns.

?

Nobody moves away from here because they think they'd be safer
somewhere where guns were more prevalent. You'd have to be totally insane
to
think like that.

So why is it that many Canadians are objecting to the draconian gun laws
in
Canada?

You just finished saying that gun ownership in Canada is quite high. How
does that mesh with draconian gun laws?

Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme,
which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful?

Because a bunch of incompetent bureacrats were given the job, and the fact
that it was a gun registry that they messed up has little to do with why
people are ****ed off. They are ****ed off because they fouled it up and
spent way to much. If the car registry system worked that badly, we'd be
just as ****ed off.

You were unable to do so. Your implicit thesis is that if a community
doesn't have guns in it, nobody will be shot. The first failure in your
logic is the fallacious presumption that just because a community does
not
have a gun in it NOW, it will never have a gun in it. Your second
failure is
in assuming that the only way people can be injured, killed or
victimized by
violent criminals is with a gun. Even in Japan, where guns are tightly
restricted, people still get killed. Sometimes with butcher knives, or
swords or any number of other weapons...and sometimes with guns.

Mhmm.

How does that happen, pray tell? How is it that guns are used in Japan
to
commit crimes? Japan has very strict laws forbidding private ownership
of
guns, particularly handguns, and yet handgun crimes still occur...and
the
number is rising.

How can that be? Can you explain this dichotomy?

For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can
buy
a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum.

That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it.

What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA?

And then smuggle
it into a country like Japan where the people choose not to worship guns
like they are the second coming of jesus christ.

Do you have any evidence that Americans are smuggling guns into Japan?

That's not what I said.

No? I
didn't think so. In fact, it's Japanese who are smuggling guns into Japan,
and Englishmen who are smuggling guns into Britain, and Australians who
are
smuggling guns into Australia. And to debunk your claim in advance, no,
most
of those guns are not smuggled directly from the US, many of them aren't
even manufactured in the US.

And many are.

But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is not
being
met even in Japan.

I don't have a Utopian ideal.

I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. I happen to believe
that a place where people don't associate their love of guns with their love
of life is a safer place to be.

Thinking that everyone having a gun is the path to non-violence is
beyond
utopian, it is evidence of a sick mind.

Thinking that the path to non-violence can be walked without a gun is
evidence of a sick mind. Unless you LIKE being a martyr to non-violence
like
Gandhi. If that's what works for you, fine.

Geezus you are a loser.

And you're an ignorant ****wit.

Good thing there's no such thing as being offensive, or I might be offended,
LOL.

You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease
some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****?

No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm going
to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when it's
required.

Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special hole in
the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable and
necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is children,
wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member of
their own family.

You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even though
Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of guns, not
to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that non-violence
hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan.

Uh.

And to you this is an argument for a stronger gun culture?

Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why
they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons.

Why are you pointing out that India has an armed forces? They have from
moment one.

Me, I'll achieve peace through
superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in
the
bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey.

ROFL.

The myth of the violent stranger in the bush.

That's not who is going to kill you.

That's who kills most of the people in the world.

Actually, it isn't. It's a relative or other person that is known to you.

But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting
for the stranger to pop out of the bush.

You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a member
of
your own family

Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven.

You keep waiting for the stranger then. Hopefully you won't be unlucky and
go your whole life without having to blast someone. I bet you'd die very
unhappy.

- or on yourself.

That would be my right, now wouldn't it?

Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if you exercise it one day.

Or you'll put a big hole in some person
you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to have
your
chance to be a hero gunslinger.

I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my
life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet.

I haven't shot anybody either! And I didn't have to carry a gun around for
20 years. Cool!

Nor do the
vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The "blood
running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen where
concealed carry is made lawful.

Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every round
I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun should
be
taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and bulky,
and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat of
summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the day
when
you're in public.

Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even
keep their shoes tied. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are
carrying around concealed weapons.

Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it *just
once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for
everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE
to
be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to
deny them, ever.

I disagree.

But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose
to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the
defenseless should it be necessary.

You take delusions of grandeur seriously, which is what a big part of
weapons ownership seems to be about.