Re: Note to Phil

swamp <swampmunge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:oba9o41e2emh5uisqe03dkl1jaa7q7fogv@xxxxxxx:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:48:26 -0600, Bama Brian
<bamaNOTbrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:00:58 -0800, swamp wrote:



Making any sort of gun control argument in tpg results in an
immediate flood of DGU "facts," followed by
misinterpreted/misapplied analysis of the data, sometimes
calculated, sometimes ignorant.

[snip]

--- swamp

Really? Did you ever read any of Steve Krulick's anti-gun 2,000 line
posts? No thought, no debate - just line after line of boilerplate
HCI/ VPC nonsense. Repeated day after day in post after post, ad
nauseum.

Newsreader skipped over those (too long), but can't imagine they
excuse pro-gun's inflexible position. Should I go back and read one?

OK, I see you skipped over Krulick's usual 3,571 lines of prose to say he
disagrees with the previous poster....but if you wish to see one who is
inflexible.... Need I say more?

Every new anti-gun poster comes in to t.p.g. with the same tired old
arguments, almost as though they're all quoting Sarah Brady's
playbook. Most of which cannot stand the light of reason, or of
Constitutional scrutiny, or even be backed with statistics. Most
anti-gunner arguments are of the emotional "Ain't it awful" type, or
the "Do it for the children" type.

Hmm...

Reason isn't on pro-gun's "side," nor is the US Constitution, imo.

There are good reasons on both sides of the equation....I just don't
think that controlling my firearms will do squat to solve violent crime
and, after all, isn't that what the anti gunners really want? ;)

However, the Constitution is on our side, although that was just made
official in Heller.

I
don't believe (yes, it's only a belief) the drafters were thinking of
self-defense when they wrote 2A.

No, they weren't. The Founders thought about self defense and that is
apparent from some of their writings, but the Second Amendment was about
protecting the natural right to keep and bear arms so that the militias
would not be disarmed by the federal government.

You also commit the classical pro-gun
flaw in assuming gun control = no guns. Not necessarily true.

The devil is in the details. No felons, children, mental adjudications,
etc.. are fine. It is when those laws and regulations interfere with
honest citizens instead of the previous types that the differences become
arguments.

If
things go nationally haywire, a gun couldn't be in a better place than
hands like yours. When things go locally haywire (Wilmington, CA for
example), guns tend to be used by the wrong persons. "I didn't want my
children to be a burden," he said.

While correct, in that specific case, guns in the hands of honest
citizens are in the right place. It is the criminal element which is the
wrong one.

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/01/developing_7_dead_in_apparent.ph
p

Emotional, yes, but then so is pro-gun's argument.. even more so.
There's just too much of this sort of thing to ignore.

Then we need to do a better job of identifying those who would do that.
Because some nut (out of 300 million) decides between him and wife that
they and the kids are better off in a cemetary somewhere is not a reason
to remove guns from those who are not the problem.

As an aside, fortunately for this country, we typically do not make
new law over knee-jerk anecdotes.

Erm.. Patriot Act comes to mind. Perhaps not typical, but certainly
knee-jerk and weapons-related. Been to the airport lately, Shoeless
Joe?

There are a lot of problems with Patriot Act, Carnivore, Patriot Act II,
etc.. but those are fixable.

When we pro-gunners try to be civil with the anti-gunners, most of
them substitute Ad Hominems for reasoning. Especially when they
realize that we pro-gun folk are not going to fall at their feet in
awe of the anti- gunners' logic. Iarnrod is a good example of that;
even RD, as civil a man as ever was, is treated quite poorly by her
for no perceptible reason.

Agreed there's no place for ad hominem. Never gets anyone anywhere,
and I apologize to RD on Iarnrod's behalf. However, I've yet to see
substantive pro-gun "logic."

Oh, well, it comes with the territory here on the internet and in
newsgroups. It is part of that freedom of speech thingy we love,
although, IMHO, that was directed at political speech.

Most of the posters from Oz have their own justifications on why a
police state is a good thing - and seem to cry, "Come on in, the
water's fine!".

And you wonder why none of us take anti-gunners seriously?

You wouldn't be making such protestations if you weren't worried about
gun control, so you take anti-gunners seriously. As to the Ozzies,
that's their business. A Colombine here and a VTech there, and every
Ozzie will be asking himself these same questions.

Yes, I agree, but I think that their solution is wrong. So do a lot of
their countrymen.

BTW, swamp, you yourself never presented an acceptable - or even new -
anti-gun argument; which appears to be the reason for your present
sour grapes post.

Never claimed to be original, just fundamentally, rationally sound.
What you call "sour grapes" is merely observation of another poor sap
going through the same exercise of frustration.

ps: We don't circulate e-mails among ourselves. If such are sent, I
seem to have been excluded for the entire 15 years I've been posting
here.

So *you're* the one they excluded?? ;) Like I said, I have no proof of
emails, but the URLs sure match up. Maybe they're all plucked from the
same NRA site.. would that be good or bad in your opinion?

Part of the reason that they are much the same is not the NRA as a
source, many of those cites are from government sources, but the fact
that most of us have been here for awhile. I, myself, started in these
kinds of discussion in the old CIVLIB group on 600 baud BBSs. That is a
long time to be collecting cites. Sometimes, I even go through and clean
out some of those left over from the 70s and 80s. ;)


--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman


"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Note to Phil
    ... flood of DGU "facts," followed by misinterpreted/misapplied analysis of ... Most of which cannot stand the light of reason, ... flaw in assuming gun control = no guns. ... Yet that is exactly what the anti-gunners have in mind. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership
    ... While the word "guns" does not appear, ... historical and legal facts about the Second Amendment? ... I give you the truth and you choke on it. ... How am I anti-gun, dumbass? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Note to Phil
    ... In fact, gun advocates would argue, more guns ... posters, some of whom aren't sock puppets. ... Every new anti-gun poster comes in to t.p.g. ... Most of which cannot stand the light of reason, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: hlob vaj pov tub nkees, rau reason
    ... please, please, provide me with some strong 'facts' and 'proof'. ... reason wrote: ... LOL! ... Guns are nothing without the will. ...
    (soc.culture.hmong)
  • Re: Futile John Francis- Lying Piece Of Shit-#2
    ... > perfectly legal weapons because they hurt your feeeeeeeeeelings. ... > weapons for reasonable and legal uses" into "GUNS ARE BAD. ... They're the reason you ... have to try so hard to defend your right to have guns. ...
    (rec.scuba)
Loading