Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

Trying to intimidate Dwellars into silence, are we? Classy.

Would me calling you a moron silence you? I hope not.

But I do think anyone who would agree with the statement in question to be moronic; should I actually wait for someone to do so they can call it a "personal attack"?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I agree. Somehow yesman's gone from "firearms training" to "hunting"...I suppose he'll say if the son doesn't go hunting the training is superfluous.

I am beginning to "respect" your opinions less and less the more you write. I am taking my son to a local club for training PRIOR to any hunting - period. That has not, nor will it change. You are totally offbase (which is becoming more frequent, the more you type) and now going so far as to make assumptions about me as a parent - eff you.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Were the quote marks an error?

No, they weren't.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Would me calling you a moron silence you? I hope not.

But I do think anyone who would agree with the statement in question to be moronic; should I actually wait for someone to do so they can call it a "personal attack"?

You just made another on me so there you go. You've answered your own question.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

But I do think anyone who would agree with the statement in question to be moronic; should I actually wait for someone to do so they can call it a "personal attack"?

That's two straw men in a row.

Don't you have enough real people to spar with that you have to invent imaginary opponents like your "morons"?

Also, in the quote above, why didn't you leave it at "should I actually wait for someone to do so?" Why did you have to invent what your imaginary opponent would accuse you of?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

Why did you have to invent what your imaginary opponent would accuse you of?

Because I've been there, done that, and burned the T-shirt.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by yesman065

No, they weren't.

Then what do they denote?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by yesman065

You just made another on me so there you go. You've answered your own question.

I wasn't addressing you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh stop bickering and argue something substantial. I want meat, bloody meat, not this gruel you guys have been serving. :p

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Because I've been there, done that, and burned the T-shirt.

Well now we know. MaggieL no longer enters wet T-shirt contests. She doesn't own a uniform.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

No, that's the first time you suggested that. Previously you said:



Not at all the same thing.

No, it's not the first time I've suggested it. Go back and have another look.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Popcorn...<munch munch munch>

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

Well now we know. MaggieL no longer enters wet T-shirt contests. She doesn't own a uniform.

Man, I love it when you crack a joke tw.

[Hippikos]

So, ergo conclusio memorandum : Guns make a country more safe, right?

rotflmao tw...

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Oh stop bickering and argue something substantial. I want meat, bloody meat, not this gruel you guys have been serving. :p

Sorry; I actually have a life, a job, and in addition have been addressing some serious family healthcare issues, so I don't have the energy for this I sometimes do.

It's also boring having the same tired old liberal misconceptions and excuses about gun prohibition trotted out by yet another round of noobs who either haven't read the last round or have but didn't absorb any of it.

How many times are you going to hear interesting responses to the usual drivel like "If it saves one child it's worth it" or the "would you want your neighbor to have a {nuke|tank|machine gun}" slippery slope or "guns have no purpose except to kill" or "The constitution didn't really mean that" or "the constitution really did mean that but we should change it" or "prove that you really *need* a gun" or "if you try to prove it you're a dangerously sick paranoid".

The usual do-gooder motivations apply: to be seen publically advocating putatively noble goals. Practical issues and unintended consequences are unimportant.

It's freaking boring...especially when the advocacy comes from sour grapes in places where the local government has already disarmed everybody but the criminals and is blaming the lack of positive effect on the fact that the same prohibitionist mistakes haven't been applied *everywhere*, or expanded to kitchen knives, cricket bats, morningstars, slingshots or bullwhips.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

So, ergo conclusio memorandum : Guns make a country more safe, right?

The same way drugs make a country more healthy.

Once again: it's not das ding an sich, it's the motivations and intents of the people using them.