Re: Yet another reason why we need gun control...

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:15:57 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:epvhr3l11gsmnnjkousq6cu1n8si672tkk@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:50:08 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5rpgr394aaedsen2phfc20hqs3aoil7rbq@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:30:30 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gunfr3pqdu036vj2h88p5206hqci6icrsq@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:38:49 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tmffr39g89ogviipvhhn3jpl738kfq0pdc@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:52:59 GMT, "Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lv6fr3hrvq9dsn6b1eh3birdb5gisg8clt@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:24:19 GMT, "Blinky Bill"
<nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"RSweeney" <dockscience@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eaGdnS6FD_EKHyranZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Blinky Bill" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VhLtj.15778

You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the
active
drug.
THAT is why some users OD.

Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.

Do you believe that liquor stores sell antifreeze and methanol
laced
booze?

Are you capable of making a post that addresses the subject under
discussion?

Are you able to think in the abstract?

Apparently my thoughts aren't as abstract as the previous poster.

Not only are they not as abstract - they seem to be missing.

It only seems that way to you because you have the attention span of a
gnat,
and the intelligence to go with it.

LOL You are the one who missed it - not me.

That's just how it seems to you <chuckle>





If you miss his point, perhaps
you will undertand when you finish high school.

And when you finish pre-school you might be able to explain the
ratiionale
behind using an analogy to explain another analogy which didn't
explain
the
original subject of discussion.

LOL The rationale is very clear:

It only seems that way to you because you have the attention span of a
gnat,
and the intelligence to go with it.

And again.

Indeed <chuckle>

Glad you agree

Why wouldn't I agree that you have the attention span and intelligence of
a
gnat? I wrote it originally and you've done nothing to change my opinion.






So you are either dumb or dishonest.

Or rational.

Not quite

Very quite.



You pick.

Rational - one of the others fits you.

LOL Keep trying grassiopper

Um, whatever.





Shall I explain it for you?

Explain using an analogy to explain an analogy that failed to explain
the
original argument being made? Don't hold back - go for it - I could do
with
a laugh.

LOL I wil use small words so you can understand (probably about a
50/50 proposition): Your comment "Decriminalising would not
necessarily change that." - referring to the quality of the product -
is wrong.

A statement of fact in a hypothetical situation - you are as mad as your
fellow gun-loons. No-one knows what other laws would change if drugs
were
decriminalised, or how those laws would change.

No one knows exactly what will happen in any future circumstance,

Thank you - that's what I have been saying for quite some time.

dimbulb. However, even an fool such as yourself should be able to
predict there would be government controls.

And even a moron such as yourself should be able to see that such controls
won't stop overdoses, which was what was being discussed.

Nope - here is what I responded to:

You were replying to what I wrote and what I wrote involved an analogy that
apparently incorporated the notion that decriminalising drugs would
eliminate overdoses.

Nope - when I stepped in it was about the part on unknown qauality.




ILLEGAL drugs are of UNKNOWN quality and purity.

There is no reason to suppose that decriminalising them would
necessarily change that.

You do not know precisely what's in them or how much of the active drug.
THAT is why some users OD.

Decriminalising would not necessarily change that.

And I repeat that "even a moron such as yourself should be able to see that
such controls
won't stop overdoses, which was what was being discussed."

It's just a few lines up - the bit about OD.

Pay attention.




And, government controls would indeed stop overdoses for the items
listed.

Just like they have for prescription drugs - don't be an idiot.

Nope - not on unknown quality, etc. Better pay attention grasshopper.








But then again, I may be overanticipating your capabilities.

Sure - point out how there are no overdoses from prescription drugs
subject
to government controls, idiot.

Not my intent;

You certainly can't do it.

Pay attention grasshopper



if you ere to read you would jhave known that rather
than me having to point it out to yiou right above.

You quite obviously do not undestand how a product such as
drugs would be handled.

And neither do you, since it is a hypothetical situation. But you think
the
world will conform to your fantasy.

LOL As opposed to your unrealistic fantasy? Mine is just about a
sure thing - whether you agree or not.

Then use you fantasy to explain exactly how overdoses will be prevented,
retard.


Didn't claim they would entirely. Read right above - it explains it.

Sure does
"government controls would indeed stop overdoses for the items listed."
Just like they did for Heath Ledger.


Not for the part I was addressing.



Again; you are either stupid or dishonest - I think i may have to vote
for both.

No indecisiveness from me - you are both a cockhead and a fuckwit.

Ah yes, a sure sign that I have spanked you.......
.