Just keep telling yourselves "only the Government should have guns."

[DoNotRefill]

http://www.nbc10.com/news/3890831/detail.html

[MSgt213]

1. Yeah I guess if someone had a shotgun they could have stop the F16

[enfield collector]

2. a 50 cal would have done the job, of course no good if you're in

Cali since that sheisskopf ahhnuld banned them. nice of the repukes to show their true colors.

[Pert_UK]

11. I beg your pardon?

Are you being even vaguely serious here?

Please answer, I'm dying to know.....

[MrSandman]

13. Isn't a Barrett the weapon of choice to down airliners?...nt

[dljordan]

29. Arnold

Arnold is a fucking globalist shithead. Sorry for being so terse.

[iverglas]

30. wow, that was quick!

dljordan (8 posts)
Mon Nov-08-04 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
29. Arnold
Arnold is a fucking globalist shithead. Sorry for being so terse.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=1967547#1967738

dljordan (8 posts)
Mon Nov-08-04 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Justice Forum
Being an Anarcho/Libertarian I guess I'd better check out that "Right-Wing" Justice Forum.


Hmm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=91265&mesg_id=92170&page=

dljordan (8 posts)
Mon Nov-08-04 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
53. What to carry?
What do you want to do? What's the threat? .45 cal for concealed carry. .308, 168 Grain match for long distance. .308 M1A for combat. That should do it.


Someone seems to have found his/her home away from home.

[alwynsw]

3. Looks as though a pilot screwed the pooch on this one.

More importantly, glad to see that you're still among the living.

[DoNotRefill]

5. thanks

I'm still not well, but being sick beats the alternative.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. Yeah, right.

I'm reminded of what William S. Burroughs said. "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns were the police and the military."

[MrSandman]

6. At least in NJ and MD,

They don't have to worry about untrained civilians legally carrying weapons in public.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x91708#91882

[Romulus]

8. I thought this would be about the "Hugs for Puppies" raid (eom)

[slackmaster]

9. Hey! Welcome back.

Glad to see you are still with us!

:toast:

[DoNotRefill]

10. thanks.

eom

[Retired AF Dem]

12. Question of the day

If total Government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

[iverglas]

17. if the cow jumped over the moon

who would mind the children?


If total Government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

Just musing aloud, were we?

But since you asked:

- question is completely devoid of any evidentiary basis for its premise, and thus of relevancy; you pretend to be addressing someone who has said "total government control equals safety", when no one has said any such thing

(oh, except maybe DNR ...)

- even if "total government control" *could* equal safety, you fail to establish that the intention of "total government control" in any particular situation, and specifically in the situation of prisons, *is* safety

The fact that there is a shortage of safety in some situation that the government controls does not mean that, if the government chose, it could not achieve safety in another situation it controlled.

Which would be relevant if anyone had said that total government control were a good method of achieving safety in some particular situation, of course.

Care to quote anyone who has?

[Retired AF Dem]

26. Stand up

and back away from your computer. Go outside and enjoy the beautiful outdoors your country is in so much abundance of.

[goju]

27. and if grandpa had balls....

well, he'd still be grandpa, wouldnt he?

"-(the) question is completely devoid of any evidentiary basis for its premise, and thus of relevancy; you pretend to be addressing someone who has said "total government control equals safety", when no one has said any such thing"

Ok, lets pretend that we dont understand the meaning of the post and instead fire off semantics. Thats always helpful, and a waste of time. Maybe you can parse the phrase "total government control" a hundred different ways, but apart from all the scrutinizing and semantical gymnastics you have been endowed with, I cant imagine how you missed the point of the post. Perhaps you tried to miss the point?

How bout we address what the poster intended, forgiving his/her grammatical exaggerations? To suggest that the gun controllers do not think government control over firearms equals greater public safety is hogwash. They not only deem it necessary for the security of the US, but also Canada. The poster may have taken that logic beyond what has been explicitly said, be he nailed the sentiment dead on. Or do you now support some unregistered firearm ownership? In case you are actually confused, many of us believe registration equals control. The term "total", well, I have to leave you something to chew on.

"The fact that there is a shortage of safety in some situation that the government controls does not mean that, if the government chose, it could not achieve safety in another situation it controlled."

And how, prey tell, do you support that assertion? Are you pretending that government can "choose" to make situations safe, or not, depending on their whims? Are you further suggesting that they are not "choosing" to make prisons safe? Please tell me you are just musing aloud.

"Which would be relevant if anyone had said that total government control were a good method of achieving safety in some particular situation, of course."

And of course, no one has ever "implied" that total government control over firearms will make us safer, right? Hells bells Iver, you not only champion total control over firearms in Canada, you want it in the US too!

[LibLabUK]

14. Hmm..

How would anyone possessing a gun prevent accidents like this?

Oh and, when do you gun-toting democrats plan on rising up and overthrowing the Bush regime (that's what the 2nd ammendment is for right)?

[slackmaster]

15. Wow - Two sentences, two Straw Man arguments

Great work!

:toast:

[iverglas]

16. excellent work indeed!

'Cause the really big thing in the very first place was ...

who the hell hereabouts tells him/herself "only the Government should have guns" to start with??

I'd been meaning to ask DNR whom he was addressing. I mean, other than one of the trolls du jour, baaing away through those phoney firearms-control sheepskins of theirs ...

Seems to me that answering a straw person argument with another is just about right.

[goju]

18. Have you NEVER heard....

someone say only law enforcement and/or military should have guns down here? I have, and I havent been here near as long as you.

[iverglas]

19. did you REALLY not read ...

what I wrote?

I'd been meaning to ask DNR whom he was addressing. I mean, other than one of the trolls du jour, baaing away through those phoney firearms-control sheepskins of theirs ...

Can you cite an instance of anyone ELSE "down here" saying "only law enforcement and/or military should have guns"? I mean, you said you'd heard it ... and I'd hate to think you were just talking about the straw sheep.

Really, winning an argument with someone who is just pretending -- or even with someone who really hasn't given a moment's serious thought to the question on the floor -- really doesn't earn medals, or even the applause of one's peers. Well, depending on one's peers, I suppose ...

[goju]

20. Then why are you blathering?

"Really, winning an argument with someone who is just pretending -- or even with someone who really hasn't given a moment's serious thought to the question on the floor -- really doesn't earn medals, or even the applause of one's peers. Well, depending on one's peers, I suppose ..."

No wait, I guess the question should be, why am I bothering to ask you?

[iverglas]

21. uh, okay

Really, winning an argument with someone who is just pretending -- or even with someone who really hasn't given a moment's serious thought to the question on the floor ...
Then why are you blathering?

So ... are you just pretending, or have you not given a moment's serious thought to the question on the floor?

You must be in one of those categories, or I can't see why you'd be asking me why I'm talking to you ...

No wait, I guess the question should be, why am I bothering to ask you?

Damned if I know. Maybe you should think it out some more, and then try posting whatever it is.



M e a n w h i l e ... did you want to try answering my actual question, which calls for you to substantiate the claim you have made, which so far looks like ... hmm, could it be ... blathering?

[goju]

22. uh, no

Do you honestly think I would spend valuable time searching through archives to find evidence of what is obvious to anyone? If you want to pretend that no true liberal has ever made that claim, feel free. Id rather spend that time counting my toes, or something worthwhile.

[iverglas]

23. hey

Whatever turns you on.

You could report back with the toe count ... or with evidence to support your claim ... or not. No skin off *my* toes.

[goju]

24. yeah maybe, Or...

you could stop pretending that the 2 straw mans you so ardently defend are a valid argument. Or, you could stop pretending that you've never heard anyone make the claim that only law enforcement/military should have guns. Either way, I still dont see how it will change your perception, but you should at least try.

[iverglas]

25. hahahaha

you could stop pretending that the 2 straw mans you so ardently defend are a valid argument

Yeah. Or you could stop pretending that I did any such thing.

Or, you could stop pretending that you've never heard anyone make the claim that only law enforcement/military should have guns.

Yeah. Or you could stop pretending that I said any such thing.

Damn. Two more bloated straw bodies sent into battle by you. And dispatched with ease.



Either way, I still dont see how it will change your perception, but you should at least try.

Oh look. Some new unfounded allegation; I seem to have a "perception" that needs changing. So far it's really just an insinuation, I guess. Didja want to come right out and say what you mean, like somebody who really has a head and a heart and ... what was that other one ... courage?


Are we there yet?

[goju]

28. heheheheheeee

Goju - "you could stop pretending that the 2 straw mans you so ardently defend are a valid argument"

Iver - Yeah. Or you could stop pretending that I did any such thing.

Iver - "Seems to me that answering a straw person argument with another is just about right."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=91903&mesg_id=92127&page=

I guess I wasnt pretending, was I?

Goju - "Or, you could stop pretending that you've never heard anyone make the claim that only law enforcement/military should have guns."

Iver - Yeah. Or you could stop pretending that I said any such thing

Iver - "Can you cite an instance of anyone ELSE "down here" saying "only law enforcement and/or military should have guns"? I mean, you said you'd heard it ... and I'd hate to think you were just talking about the straw sheep"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=91903&mesg_id=92139&page=


I guess I wasnt pretending here either.


You may continue pretending that all this is untrue and you never said/implied/suggested/hinted any of that. I would understand.