| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: 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. Sure it is. No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation about "that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something like that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as though it is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture. Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't. Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of "gun culture" is specious. Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our culture? Not. Would you be more unsafe? Yes, most definitely. You're dangerously wrong. You also show a deep mistrust of your fellow citizens. I trust that we don't need to shoot each other. Which is true, until it's not. 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. So, it's okay with you that people are killed because they are rendered defenseless by you and your ilk? Amazingly enough, thus far my walking around without a gun hasn't gotten anyone killed. But your advocating that other people not be allowed to walk around with guns almost certainly has. 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. And, it doesn't work. What do you think the registry is intended to do? It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no other purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible one of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a gun registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns because it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who register guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose whatsoever for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to eventual bans and confiscations. How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. 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? Why don't you do some research and get back to me. Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Then perhaps we have little to argue about. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. What plan? I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun threads is the elimination of assault weapons. Other than that, what plan have I put forth? That'll do. 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. What a singularly ridiculous statement. According to you, one who loves his life is wrong to wish to protect it. That's not what I said. That's what you implied. 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. Not very often at all Extremely often. How often, exactly? particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime? You made the claim, so you tell me. Bad things happen. People get killed in accidents every day. More children die by drowning than are accidentally killed by firearms, and the number of children accidentally killed by firearms is at an all-time low and continues to go down, thanks in large part to the NRA. Heehee. What a group of saints they are. Indeed. 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? Indeed. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Hold on their pardner. What happened to the police? And the armed forces? Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants. I don't think you know what is meant by "culture." I do. But the question is whether you do or not. You can have a culture that includes guns without having a gun culture. Since you have yet to define "gun culture" your statement is non sequitur. 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. To make it clear that even your utopian icon was wrong. My utopian icon? Who or what are you talking about now? You mean Gandhi? I think you brought him up, not me. But just because the world is a violent place full of gun nuts doesn't mean Gandhi was wrong...in fact, the state of the world might be proof that he was right. Er, no. 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. Actually, you're spouting long-debunked HCI claptrap again. Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in self-defense. 22 times more likely. Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books. But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun. Sad. No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark. 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. Do you have a fire extinguisher? How about accident insurance on your car? When fire extinguishers and insurance start killing people, get back to me. You miss the point, again...predictably. - 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. And why would that be an issue for you? It will probably be an issue for you, and the person you kill. Um, I believe we're talking about suicide here, so the only person killed would be me. 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! Indeed. Lucky too. Have you checked that fire extinguisher lately? There's an awful lot of lucky people. Yup. Some not so lucky though. 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. My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man. Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north america. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the chances are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying a gun. Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's most likely to be a law-abiding citizen. LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows a law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily. So does driving a car, only more so. Your wife has a vagina, which allows her to turn into a prostitute quite easily. Should we therefore conclude that she is a prostitute? Strawman argument that has been conclusively disproven by facts and history. 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. And you're free to do so because people with guns secured the right and the ability for you to do so. Sorry, gun nuts like yourself have nothing to do with the freedoms I enjoy. Wrong. 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. Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward. What is courageous about carrying a gun around? It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it, at significant risk to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous. What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to provide for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police, or on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their safety on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil and cowardly. I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to the ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life. The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly that, for you, one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so because it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity you weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone like you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society. You take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are unwilling to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable. I guess to you the bravest person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park. Yes, that would be your guess. -- 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 © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 4:51 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: 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. Sure it is. No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation about "that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something like that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as though it is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture. Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't. Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of "gun culture" is specious. I wasn't talk about all of Canada. Evasion. Now you're trying to backpedal again. And yes, one could write books and books about what constitutes a gun culture, but I know I am not in one. People here are more interested in identifying bird species than they are in guns. And you know this because you personally listen in on every conversation in Canada simultaneously? Your megalomania is showing. I trust that we don't need to shoot each other. Which is true, until it's not. I should probably carry a machine gun waiting for that special day when it's not, and yet, I manage to carry on happily each day without it. Well, a compact handgun is probably adequate... What do you think the registry is intended to do? It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no other purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible one of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a gun registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns because it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who register guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose whatsoever for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to eventual bans and confiscations. The gun registry has the same intent as an automobile registry. Not hardly. Automobile registries are for collecting taxes and providing information to police about a specific vehicle on the highway that may be breaking the law. Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or effect other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the location of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a stolen gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and description is entered in the national stolen property database. It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only to facilitate the return of stolen guns. How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and I believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases. Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the occupant is doing something wrong. Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information on where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can provide specious analogies. 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? Why don't you do some research and get back to me. Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun. Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now you're trying to weasel out of your lie. I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Then perhaps we have little to argue about. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. What plan? I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun threads is the elimination of assault weapons. Other than that, what plan have I put forth? That'll do. Why are assault weapons needed? It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault weapons" are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole populace is armed with military-capable arms. 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. Not very often at all Extremely often. How often, exactly? I note you cannot answer this question. particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime? You made the claim, so you tell me. A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. You're parroting debunked gun-banner propaganda. What happened to the police? And the armed forces? Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants. You have a tyrant now. How so? Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in self-defense. 22 times more likely. Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books. Somehow I thought you would say that. Truth hurts, doesn't it? But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun. Sad. No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark. If you were not afraid you would not need to carry a gun. You have that exactly backwards. It is because I carry a gun that I am unafraid. Walking through Capitol Hill at night without a gun is a pretty scary proposition. I do it frequently and without fear because I know I'm prepared to defend myself. And I look the part, so criminals avoid me like the plague. If you walk like a sheep, the jackals will eat you alive. Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even keep their shoes tied. My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man. Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north america. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic tasks in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone else's brains out. Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally aren't issued CCW permits. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the chances are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying a gun. Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's most likely to be a law-abiding citizen. LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows a law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily. So does driving a car, only more so. Check your statistics. There's a lot of cars out there. Not too many of them get used as murder weapons. Not so for guns. The issue is not the numbers, it's the potential. Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than guns. The point is, however, that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to be so to suit your anti-gun agenda. Your wife has a vagina, which allows her to turn into a prostitute quite easily. ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but again you miss the point. Should we therefore concludethat she is a prostitute? No, we should conclude that you are a blithering idiot, LOL. Evasion. Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward. What is courageous about carrying a gun around? It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it Oh, that's just beautiful! Particularly when you're waiting for someone to shoot you dead in the Luby's cafeteria and you don't have a gun. , at significant risk to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous. Man, you can't WAIT for the chance to play hero and kill somebody, can you? Really, be honest...you just can't WAIT! I can wait. I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun, much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't if it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need, whereas I'm willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to provide for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police, or on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their safety on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil and cowardly. I've actually devoted most of the last ten years of my life to supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and doing my best to ensure their safety has had nothing to do with carrying a gun. Good for you. Too bad you're wrong, and too bad that you can't "ensure" anything, and too bad that people believe your claptrap...it might get them killed. Not everyone has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous. Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible is when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete safety, and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament, their blood is on your hands. The police here don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all carry weapons around. What the police feel about is is not relevant. They are public servants, and if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens may be armed, so be it. Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers who are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what Wilson did just the other day, and he died doing so. In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts like you. Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians. Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW" argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie. I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to the ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life. The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly that, for you If you are representative of the vast majority of armed citizens, that's because you spend much (if not most) of your day fantasizing out getting the opportunity to kill someone with your gun. I know you'd like to think that¹s what I think, but in reality you are just trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself. one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so because it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity you weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone like you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society. You take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are unwilling to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable. Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun. No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when they make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others. I guess to you the bravest person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park. Yes, that would be your guess. By the way, were you by any chance kicked out of the police academy for being too trigger-happy? Nope, I graduated and was certified and went to work as a police officer for many years. That would explain a lot, particularly your latest furious outburst. What, you don't like being called a coward and a despicable piece of human flotsam? Why ever not? You richly deserve it. -- 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 © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 4:51 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: 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. Sure it is. No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation about "that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something like that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as though it is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture. Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't. Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of "gun culture" is specious. I wasn't talk about all of Canada. Evasion. Now you're trying to backpedal again. No backpedal. I wasn't. There are parts of Canada that do have a gun culture. And yes, one could write books and books about what constitutes a gun culture, but I know I am not in one. People here are more interested in identifying bird species than they are in guns. And you know this because you personally listen in on every conversation in Canada simultaneously? Your megalomania is showing. I'm not talking about all of Canada. It's a big place with many extremely diverse communities, a number of which likely have a gun culture. I trust that we don't need to shoot each other. Which is true, until it's not. I should probably carry a machine gun waiting for that special day when it's not, and yet, I manage to carry on happily each day without it. Well, a compact handgun is probably adequate... What if it's not! I'll be underprepared! What do you think the registry is intended to do? It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no other purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible one of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a gun registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns because it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who register guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose whatsoever for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to eventual bans and confiscations. The gun registry has the same intent as an automobile registry. Not hardly. Exactly. Automobile registries are for collecting taxes and providing information to police about a specific vehicle on the highway that may be breaking the law. Right. Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or effect other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the location of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a stolen gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and description is entered in the national stolen property database. It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only to facilitate the return of stolen guns. It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!? How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and I believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases. Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the occupant is doing something wrong. Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles too! Are you fighting against that at present? Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information on where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can provide specious analogies. The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be. 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? Why don't you do some research and get back to me. Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun. Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now you're trying to weasel out of your lie. ROFL. I was not lying. I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were identical processes. It's easy to buy a gun. That was the point of the obvious employment of humour regarding the gum. I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Then perhaps we have little to argue about. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. What plan? I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun threads is the elimination of assault weapons. Other than that, what plan have I put forth? That'll do. Why are assault weapons needed? It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault weapons" are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole populace is armed with military-capable arms. Why are assault weapons needed? 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. Not very often at all Extremely often. How often, exactly? I note you cannot answer this question. I not that you cannot answer this question. particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime? You made the claim, so you tell me. A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. You're parroting debunked gun-banner propaganda. Prove it. What happened to the police? And the armed forces? Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants. You have a tyrant now. How so? A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner...sounds like Duhbyuh to me! Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in self-defense. 22 times more likely. Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books. Somehow I thought you would say that. Truth hurts, doesn't it? Your truth almost always causes pain to intelligent people. But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun. Sad. No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark. If you were not afraid you would not need to carry a gun. You have that exactly backwards. It is because I carry a gun that I am unafraid. Walking through Capitol Hill at night without a gun is a pretty scary proposition. Right. As I said. You carry a gun because you are afraid. Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even keep their shoes tied. My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man. Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north america. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic tasks in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone else's brains out. Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally aren't issued CCW permits. I'm not talking about clinically impaired. I'm talking about the tens of millions of folks who have trouble driving at an appropriate speed and maintaining a reasonable level of personal debt (other examples could follow, but hopefully you get the point.) I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a decision about blowing someone's head off. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the chances are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying a gun. Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's most likely to be a law-abiding citizen. LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows a law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily. So does driving a car, only more so. Check your statistics. There's a lot of cars out there. Not too many of them get used as murder weapons. Not so for guns. The issue is not the numbers, it's the potential. The issue is the reality. Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than guns. Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!? The point is, however, that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to be so to suit your anti-gun agenda. An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife. Your wife has a vagina, which allows her to turn into a prostitute quite easily. ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but again you miss the point. The point was stupid. Should we therefore concludethat she is a prostitute? No, we should conclude that you are a blithering idiot, LOL. Evasion. Accuracy. Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward. What is courageous about carrying a gun around? It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it Oh, that's just beautiful! Particularly when you're waiting for someone to shoot you dead in the Luby's cafeteria and you don't have a gun. , at significant risk to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous. Man, you can't WAIT for the chance to play hero and kill somebody, can you? Really, be honest...you just can't WAIT! I can wait. But you WANT it. Bad. I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun, much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't if it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need. A big part of my life has been doing just that, it's pretty much a daily return. I just think of it as part of being human. whereas I'm willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I'm willing to take daily action to help people rather than engage in grand delusions about being a gun-toting superhero. You really sound like a pathetic loser when you talk about this. What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to provide for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police, or on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their safety on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil and cowardly. I've actually devoted most of the last ten years of my life to supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and doing my best to ensure their safety has had nothing to do with carrying a gun. Good for you. Too bad you're wrong, and too bad that you can't "ensure" anything, and too bad that people believe your claptrap...it might get them killed. Too bad I do good every day while you walk around dreaming of the day you get to kill someone. Not everyone has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous. Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible is when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete safety, and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament, their blood is on your hands. I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed. I don't like gun culture. I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks. But I haven't done a thing to try and take away your guns. Unless you happen to have an assault rifle, in which case I think that's nutty and you don't need to have one and should not have the option. The police here don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all carry weapons around. What the police feel about is is not relevant. The police were relevant to you a while ago when you said I was being unfair by expecting them to do all the gun work for me. They are public servants, and if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens may be armed, so be it. LOL. Their lives are on the line every day, they carry guns. I think the fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your idiotic ramblings. Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers who are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what Wilson did just the other day, and he died doing so. The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community safer. In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts like you. Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians. There's no such political action up here, the cops don't want it because they know it makes the community more dangerous. Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW" argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie. The cops don't want it. I'll go with their view over yours. I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to the ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life. The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly that, for you If you are representative of the vast majority of armed citizens, that's because you spend much (if not most) of your day fantasizing out getting the opportunity to kill someone with your gun. I know you'd like to think that¹s what I think, but in reality you are just trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself. I bet you'd like to pull your gun on me right now eh? one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so because it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity you weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone like you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society. You take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are unwilling to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable. Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun. No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when they make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others. They may have delusions of grandeur that lead them to believe that is what they are doing but that thinking is just as nutty as the preacher on the corner keeping them out of hell. I guess to you the bravest person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park. Yes, that would be your guess. By the way, were you by any chance kicked out of the police academy for being too trigger-happy? Nope, I graduated and was certified and went to work as a police officer for many years. Ah...I figured some involvement in law enforcement. What happened? Is that why you are so angry and want to shoot someone? That would explain a lot, particularly your latest furious outburst. What, you don't like being called a coward and a despicable piece of human flotsam? Why ever not? You richly deserve it. LOL. Doesn't bother me a bit, I live my life every day helping others in real ways, not carrying a gun hoping I can shoot someone. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or effect other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the location of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a stolen gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and description is entered in the national stolen property database. It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only to facilitate the return of stolen guns. It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!? I'd like for there to be some legitimate reason to collect and retain the data beyond providing a tool for confiscation that this list could actually accomplish. What do you see its purpose as? How does it enhance gun safety? How does it prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns? What, precisely, is its purpose? How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and I believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases. Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the occupant is doing something wrong. Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles too! Are you fighting against that at present? No, because there is no constitutionally prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and drive a car. That's not the case with guns. They have a higher level of protection against government interference. Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information on where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can provide specious analogies. The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be. For what purpose? Why is the government interested in who owns what gun? What possible difference does it make if I own one gun or twenty, so long as I do so legally? The answer is that there is no legitimate government objective to be achieved by registering guns. The only possible reason is to provide a tool for future confiscation and gun owner harassment, much like is taking place in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere. I note that even you cannot explicate a rational reason for collecting this information. Your argument boils down to "because it's there." Not good enough. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun. Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now you're trying to weasel out of your lie. ROFL. I was not lying. Certainly you were. Or, you're just a moron. Which is it? I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were identical processes. Except that precisely what you said: "You can buy a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum." You lie. It's easy to buy a gun. That was the point of the obvious employment of humour regarding the gum. Backpedaling evasion. Why are assault weapons needed? It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault weapons" are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole populace is armed with military-capable arms. Why are assault weapons needed? Asked and answered. I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic tasks in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone else's brains out. Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally aren't issued CCW permits. I'm not talking about clinically impaired. I'm talking about the tens of millions of folks who have trouble driving at an appropriate speed and maintaining a reasonable level of personal debt (other examples could follow, but hopefully you get the point.) I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a decision about blowing someone's head off. Once again, this is specious claptrap. You presume wrongly that merely because someone possesses a gun that they will inevitably become berserk killers. Problem is that you're just wrong. The vast majority of people would no sooner randomly and for no reason shoot someone than they would randomly and for no reason deliberately drive their car into a crowd standing at a bus stop. Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than guns. Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!? Every DUI-caused death is a murder. Every crash caused by deliberate negligence is a murder. Someone does something they aren't supposed to do, and somebody else dies. Happens all the time in cars, and lots of people are convicted and sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter for killing someone with a car, many more than are convicted and sentenced to prison for shooting someone with a gun. The point is, however, that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to be so to suit your anti-gun agenda. An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife. Which falsely presumes that the majority of people are idiots. Your wife has a vagina, which allows her to turn into a prostitute quite easily. ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but again you miss the point. The point was stupid. Not at all. It just destroyed your argument, and you can't defend yourself, so you dismiss it. I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun, much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't if it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need. How would you know? You wouldn't, but you'll be insulting anyway just because you're intellect is not up to the task of arguing rationally. whereas I'm willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I'm willing to take daily action to help people rather than engage in grand delusions about being a gun-toting superhero. One does not preclude the other. You really sound like a pathetic loser when you talk about this. Coming from the likes of you, I take it as high praise. Not everyone has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous. Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible is when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete safety, and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament, their blood is on your hands. I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed. It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, and I've explained it to you numerous times. You choose to ignore that information. I don't like gun culture. Well, they don't like you, so I guess you're even...except that they have guns and you do not. I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks. The only people who need to be scared of me are criminals. If the shoe fits, wear it. But I haven't done a thing to try and take away your guns. Unless you happen to have an assault rifle, in which case I think that's nutty and you don't need to have one and should not have the option. Well, that's why you're a Canadian slave-boy and I'm a free American. The police here don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all carry weapons around. What the police feel about is is not relevant. The police were relevant to you a while ago when you said I was being unfair by expecting them to do all the gun work for me. Different issue. They are public servants, and if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens may be armed, so be it. LOL. Their lives are on the line every day, they carry guns. Yup. I think the fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your idiotic ramblings. Whatever. Wear your chains however you wish. Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers who are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what Wilson did just the other day, and he died doing so. The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community safer. They are enamored of their own opinions. Down here, the police work for us, we don't do obesience to them as our masters and superiors like you do up there in Canada. In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts like you. Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians. There's no such political action up here, the cops don't want it because they know it makes the community more dangerous. Except, of course, that they are wrong. They just don't like the competition. They want to feel like they, and only they are in charge. Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW" argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie. The cops don't want it. I'll go with their view over yours. Again, that's why you're a Canadian slave and I'm a free American. I know you'd like to think that¹s what I think, but in reality you are just trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself. I bet you'd like to pull your gun on me right now eh? Don't be silly, of course not. You aren't even very annoying much less dangerous. Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun. No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when they make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others. They may have delusions of grandeur that lead them to believe that is what they are doing but that thinking is just as nutty as the preacher on the corner keeping them out of hell. You really are deranged. -- 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 © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/9/05 9:56 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or effect other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the location of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a stolen gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and description is entered in the national stolen property database. It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only to facilitate the return of stolen guns. It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!? I'd like for there to be some legitimate reason to collect and retain the data beyond providing a tool for confiscation that this list could actually accomplish. What do you see its purpose as? How does it enhance gun safety? How does it prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns? What, precisely, is its purpose? It's exactly like a car registry. It tells you who the rightful owner is. So what? Why do you need to know who the "rightful owner" of a gun is? As with being able to match a car to who the rightful owner is, this information can be useful for any number of purposes ranging from returning one that is stolen to the owner, to finding a starting point for investigating a crime. What other purposes? As for "starting point for investigating a crime," since the vast majority of crimes involving firearms involve firearms that have been stolen and are being used by criminals, knowing who the firearm belonged to before it was stolen can be accomplished through the stolen property registries without having to register every firearm on the off chance that it will be stolen. As I said, the reason for car registration is not identification as much as taxation. The license plate that comes with the registration is used for traffic enforcement and is intended to allow identification of the car from a distance, by a witness or police officer, in order to facilitate apprehending a violator. Unless you are proposing that every firearm be supplied with a 6"x10" number plate so that convenience store clerks can identify the owner of the gun from a distance, there is no congruence between the motor vehicle registry and a gun registry. Again, the actual purpose of gun registries is to give the government information on who owns what guns and where they are. The only reason the government needs to know this information about *every* gun is to facilitate confiscation. There is no other legitimate purpose that cannot be better served by only "registering" guns reported stolen. How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and I believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases. Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the occupant is doing something wrong. Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles too! Are you fighting against that at present? No, because there is no constitutionally prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and drive a car. That's not the case with guns. They have a higher level of protection against government interference. LOL. I see. Somehow I doubt it. Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information on where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can provide specious analogies. The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be. For what purpose? Why is the government interested in who owns what gun? What possible difference does it make if I own one gun or twenty, so long as I do so legally? The answer is that there is no legitimate government objective to be achieved by registering guns. The only possible reason is to provide a tool for future confiscation and gun owner harassment, much like is taking place in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere. I note that even you cannot explicate a rational reason for collecting this information. Your argument boils down to "because it's there." Not good enough. You never asked previously, that I can remember. Thus far I have been trying to explain to you that the gun registry is just a list that tells you the name of the person corresponding to the serial number on the gun. Indeed. But the important question is what the government plans to do with that information. It has not greater or lesser purpose than the registration of vehicles, a widely accepted practice. I understand that there is a bicycle registration available in many places. They had it here when I was a kid. But it's VOLUNTARY. You are not compelled to register your bike. The only reason that you're compelled to register your car is so that they can collect use and ownership taxes. In Colorado, for example, we pay an "ownership" tax each year on automobiles, whether we license them and drive them on the streets or just leave them parked in our garage. Unless the government plans to impose an "ownership tax" on firearms, the only reason to compel registration is to facilitate confiscation. I have no problem with voluntary registration schemes at all, but mandatory registration served no useful purpose that outweighs the danger of using such registries for confiscations. You may come up with specious reasons why you think a gun registry is necessary, but the real reason is, without exception, to provide the information required for the eventual confiscation of firearms. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun. Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now you're trying to weasel out of your lie. ROFL. I was not lying. Certainly you were. Or, you're just a moron. Which is it? Neither. Sorry, but you lied, and you got caught. Now you're weaseling. I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were identical processes. Except that precisely what you said: "You can buy a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum." You lie. No, Scotty. That's a precise quote, and it is a lie. It's like when I say "Scott Weiser is nuttier than a fruitcake." Sorry, but you don't get off the hook by claiming hyperbole at this juncture. Your clear claim, in context, was that one could buy a "wicked assault weapon" at the corner convenience store with no more scrutiny or difficulty than that of buying a pack of gum. That's a lie. You did not qualify your statement by saying that it was your opinion that guns are too easy to acquire at the time. Now that you've been caught, you're trying to backpedal. You could just admit that you were wrong. Even though it may be easily proven (I'm assuming this is true) that there are more nuts in a fruitcake than may actually be found on your physical person, few people (only those who are nuttier than a fruitcake) would interpret this as lying. The point of my comment was to indicate that I think it is too easy to acquire a gun. Well, of course you do. Any ability to get a gun would be "too easy" for you. Are you admitting that you made a false statement? I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a decision about blowing someone's head off. Once again, this is specious claptrap. No, it isn't. I really don't want those people making such decisions. I'm sure you don't, but your delusions don't dictate public policy. You presume wrongly that merely because someone possesses a gun that they will inevitably become berserk killers. No, I assume they will be normal people, only being normal people with a gun, instead of giving someone the finger, they might shoot someone instead. Not good. And yet you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is any credible risk...because it's not. Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than guns. Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!? Every DUI-caused death is a murder. Every crash caused by deliberate negligence is a murder. Someone does something they aren't supposed to do, and somebody else dies. Happens all the time in cars, and lots of people are convicted and sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter for killing someone with a car, many more than are convicted and sentenced to prison for shooting someone with a gun. I think you are stretching the definition of "murder" pretty far there Scotty! Not at all. Deliberately engaging in conduct that results in the death of another human being that is not permitted by law is murder. What degree of murder it is is determined by the circumstances and mens rea, but it's all murder. I'll ask it another way. What is the ratio of people who aimed their car at someone else with the intent to kill them and succeeded vs the number of people who aimed their gun at someone else with tthe intent to kill them and succeeded? What's the ratio of otherwise law-abiding citizens with no prior history of criminal violence randomly going berserk and shooting someone with their lawfully-carried firearm to known violent felons shooting people with stolen, illegally possessed firearms. I don't know the exact numbers, but if it's less than 50 million to one I'd be very surprised The point is, however, that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to be so to suit your anti-gun agenda. An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife. Which falsely presumes that the majority of people are idiots. Since an idiot test is not required before buying the gun, your point is moot. Remember, you managed to get one. Indeed. Not only that, but I got my CCW permit (the tenth issued) from a Sheriff who previously didn't issue them to ANYONE, after a detailed background investigation. Oh, by the way, "idiots" cannot buy firearms legally, federal and state law prohibits it. I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun, much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't if it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need. How would you know? You wouldn't, but you'll be insulting anyway just because you're intellect is not up to the task of arguing rationally. Well Scotty, I believe you made the initial accusation that I wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need. It turns out I help people in need as a daily routine. Wiping up feces at the nursing home is not the same thing as putting your life at risk to protect others. I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed. It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, and I've explained it to you numerous times. You choose to ignore that information. I didn't ask you about the Bill of Rights. I asked you why assault weapons are needed. And I've explained it to you several times. Go look it up. I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks. The only people who need to be scared of me are criminals. If the shoe fits, wear it. Well Scotty, I'm not a criminal, but someone who admits to having delusions of grandeur about being a gun-toting superhero (and actually carries a gun hoping to make the fantasy come true!) is very scary indeed. I said "need." You may, of course, be as paranoid as your medication allows. I think the fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your idiotic ramblings. Whatever. Wear your chains however you wish. No chains on me. The cops are 100% clear that lives are endangered by goofs like you walking around hoping to shoot someone and be a hero. They're wrong. What makes you think cops are infallible? Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers who are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what Wilson did just the other day, and he died doing so. The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community safer. They are enamored of their own opinions. Down here, the police work for us, we don't do obesience to them as our masters and superiors like you do up there in Canada. LOL. So all cops in the US want goofs like you walking around with concealed weapons? Most line cops in the US, at least outside of the leftist liberal bastions like New York, Chicago and LA understand that armed citizens benefit the community and pose no credible risk to police officers. I've been in contact with police officers on numerous occasions and not one of them has shown your sort of paranoia when I tell them I'm carrying a weapon. Not everybody lives in your paranoid, delusional world. Most cops live in the real world and understand their place in society quite well, and they respect and appreciate citizens who are willing to step up and fulfill their duties to society. And yes, they don't have a problem with "goofs" like me because they know that we pose no risk to them, are indeed likely to assist and defend them at need, and serve as a potent deterrent to criminals, which makes the cop's job easier. If it would be safer here with goofs like you walking around with concealed weapons, why wouldn't the police say so? Because in Canada there is a political predilection towards tyranny, and the police, as I said, are enamored of their own opinions and they think that THEY are in charge, and that citizens exist to obey them. Sir Robert Peel puts it best: "To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence." It must be some sort of national conspiracy, perhaps Fidel Castro is behind it. It is indeed a national conspiracy, and given Canada's distinctly leftist leanings, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Castro had something to do with it. Again, that's why you're a Canadian slave and I'm a free American. I'm free from goofs like you, which makes being Canadian even sweeter than it already is. The more I hear from you, the more happy and grateful I am to be Canadian. The hilarious thing is that you really think that just because you have anti-gun laws you're "safe" from guns. But, I'm in agreement with you that it's a good thing you're a Canadian. -- 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 © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
What, precisely, is its purpose? The purpose of gun registration is to allow politicians to pretend that they are doing something useful and to allow many people to get a false sense of security that something is being done to protect them. Unfortunately, registration does nothing to prevent the spread of illegal guns. Mike |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: What, precisely, is its purpose? The purpose of gun registration is to allow politicians to pretend that they are doing something useful and to allow many people to get a false sense of security that something is being done to protect them. Unfortunately, registration does nothing to prevent the spread of illegal guns. Mike I don't understand how the registry ever got understood as some sort of superhero that would dive in front of bullets. It's just a list that matches names with numbers. It is not useless, it just has a much more limited purpose than is commonly discussed, and there's no way maintaining a list has to cost so much. They should have given the contract to the private company that does the vehicle licensing in Ontario. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: What, precisely, is its purpose? The purpose of gun registration is to allow politicians to pretend that they are doing something useful and to allow many people to get a false sense of security that something is being done to protect them. Unfortunately, registration does nothing to prevent the spread of illegal guns. I'm amazed! We actually agree on something. -- 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 © 2005 Scott Weiser |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
