Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I don't think I'm being paranoid, I just wanted to know why you put quotes around the word, surely a reasonable question. Why did you do that? "I wanted to avoid accidents." carries a very different meaning from "I wanted to avoid 'accidents'"; your use of scare quotes carries the implication that what you feared wouldn't actually be accidental.

Because accidents do happen. Thats all nothing more. Please don't try and read into what I write just read what is written.

And I chose not to take my son hunting because his grades were not what we discussed for him to EARN the right to do things like that.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Because accidents do happen. Thats all nothing more. Please don't try and read into what I write just read what is written.

I *read* what was written, and it was unclear; that's not my fault. "Because accidents do happen" does not explain your use of quote marks, which is what I was asking about. Were the quote marks an error?

Originally Posted by yesman065

...
1) No society is composed of Joe Average - but the laws should be designed to benefit the many, not the few.
...
BTW, I still respect your opinion, but expected more from you than simply disparaging remarks toward mine.

Of course I am, you have no idea how the law works, nor how it should work.
It is there to protect ALL, minorities included, in many cases BECAUSE they are the minority. This is why we are not a Democracy and never should be. The majority should not be able to take rights away from the minority, The Bill of Rights should never be touched. Hence inalienable rights.
I can think of VERY few reasons for the public to vote on laws, this is why we are a Representative Republic... the public, for the most part, have no idea how the law works and cares only for how things affect them and theirs and not minorities across the nation.
Democracy = mob rule/insanity.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Of course I am, you have no idea how the law works, nor how it should work.
It is there to protect ALL, minorities included, in many cases BECAUSE they are the minority. This is why we are not a Democracy and never should be. The majority should not be able to take rights away from the minority, The Bill of Rights should never be touched. Hence inalienable rights.
I can think of VERY few reasons for the public to vote on laws, this is why we are a Representative Republic... the public, for the most part, have no idea how the law works and cares only for how things affect them and theirs and not minorities across the nation.
Democracy = mob rule/insanity.

After rereading what I wrote, I apologize. I was incorrect. It was not what I intended, but nonetheless it was wrong.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Look, the guys that wrote the Constitution said the government shouldn't mess with a citizens weapons. They wrote that, thinking rifles, shotguns, pistols and maybe spears or tomahawks. I doubt they even considered canons. Since that time there has been a steady advance in the technology of those weapons, but so what? they are still what the guys were referring to.

Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

[JayMcGee]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

Indeed so......


(now, justwhich part of the Constition were you pickin'n'choosin' from?)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

What is confusing you about this statement?

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

This is what you're doing.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Look, the guys that wrote the Constitution said the government shouldn't mess with a citizens weapons. They wrote that, thinking rifles, shotguns, pistols and maybe spears or tomahawks. I doubt they even considered canons. Since that time there has been a steady advance in the technology of those weapons, but so what? they are still what the guys were referring to.

Now, along with the technological advance, in Joe Citizen's weapons, there has been a tremendous, exponential even, increase in the different types of weapons invented, right up to nuke tipped missiles. Virtually none of these were ever intended for Joe Citizen, nor would he have a use for them, other than bragging rights...or drinkin' beer and blowin' shit up. That's why there are laws preventing Joe and his buddies from having those weapons, and I think that's a good idea.

The rub comes when the people that think Joe shouldn't have any weapons, try to use those laws prohibiting that serious stuff as proof they have a right to take all Joe's shit, too. They try to make Joe look like a nut case by forcing him to defend the right to own an atomic bomb.....that he doesn't want anyway. He just wants his own stuff, like the Constitution says he can.

Now anybody with half a god damn brain knows what the Constitution framers were talking about. No cutesy dancing about is going to change that, or the Constitutional guarantees it gives Joe, no matter how many times they invoke, it's for the god damn children.

Actually, during that time, it was not unusual at all for private citizens on the coast to own cannons to protect their private coastlines & that law clearly included them as well.

[piercehawkeye45]

(warning, small, but naughy bits exposed, picture of Rage Against the Machine toward the bottom of the page)

Ouch! Great band though, one of my top five.

[Aliantha]

Thanks wolf. Interesting little group there although definitely far from my cup of tea.

Perhaps rkz has been taking lessons on how to be insulting from some of his compatriots.

[wolf]

The best way to avoid accidents is to teach firearms safety.

We used to consider it essential to teach a child to look both ways when crossing the street. Having nearly macked any number of children in parking lots while their clueless parents chat away on cellphones, I doubt that this is the case any longer. But it still makes sense to teach these very basic skills.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by wolf

The best way to avoid accidents is to teach firearms safety.

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.

[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.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by yesman065

No, they weren't.

Then what do they denote?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Then what do they denote?

Read the first or second explanation, Maggie. I have no need nor desire to go over this repeatedly. You are so paranoid and blatantly attempting to utilize the weakest diversionary tactic to avoid the real issues, its pathetic.
Forget about it - lets just agree to disagree about this and move on.
Better yet - go find my pic in the "show yourself" thread, print it out and use it for target practice.