
hmmm, close to a confession, but not quite.

It's been a long time, since I have been called ignorant. But ok. We just have oposing opinions, and that often results in people finding each other ignorant.garyb wrote:fine,
ignorance is bliss.![]()
Well, I find it to be conspiracy theory too. It might be true, but at this moment it is still conspiracy theory. Here comes another one: That criminologist could be closely associated with the gun manufacturers. This could give him two reasons to say the "tin can" thing.it's a fact that the officil story doesn't hold water, look at the video clip i posted. the guy there is a criminologist with the university of florida who said that he originally thought there was a shotgun or a military assualt rifle involved. he said the type guns used were for shooting at tin cans ...
And it makes sense. Still you could be fooled as easily as anyone else. You choose to believe the guy who says the official storry (would I be wrong in guessing, that you have a tendensy towards defaulting to this choice?). Others believe in the official storry. Personally, I am still happy, that guns are not alowed in Denmark.... and that it's almost inconceivable that a trained killer could get a 60% kill rate out of those guns, let alone some demented kid. this is just facts about the weapons that we're told were involved. the official story is not always correct or complete. that's my point in my post.
I don't Gary. It takes much more to get me there. I still fully believe you are a man of good and positive intentions.i go by logic, sense and what is in the public record in saying what i do. it's important to think things out for yourself, right? please don't hate me because you disagree with me.
As I said, your world could easily by means of history and constitution be quite different from my world. And by the way, having worked for Amnesty International, it is not like I always default to believe in official stories either.someday we may get some time, i might show you some things that might change your opinions on some things in this world.
Often times, seeing things negatively is confused with being realistic. Still, your world may vary. And I don't doubt the respect goes both ways. Remembering some of your other posts throughout time here at Z, I might even understand, why you (in your world/neighbourhood) find it important to be allowed to cary guns. I just don't think it counts for my neighbourhood, and I don't think it has to count for anybodys neighbourhood ... though I know, that this view is overly simplified and kind of disattached to the actual situations in many parts of the world.we all live and learn, and i used to agree with most of the posters that disagree with me on many of these controversial topics. your mind might change or not, i still respect you even if you think i'm a crazy twit.
What happened in New Orleans after the flood? Would there be less killing, if the tough guys didn't have guns and only had to scare or beat up their victims instead of going for the easy way - shooting at a distance?scope4live wrote:Just imagine this scenario Petal.
When I was five years old, we practiced nuclear bomb drills @ school. My oldest brother was killed in Vietnam that year.
Then " a lone gunman " takes out JFK when I was 7.
Then the best hopes in uniting a peaceful racial solution was gunned down by another " lone gunman ". The largest cities in the USA were on fire, and thousands were killed.
RFK was about to become President when I was young, and there again is the " lone gunman ".
What about brotha' man Malcolm X ? What about Cleophus Robinson ?
Do you see a pattern emerging?
Everytime someone wants to give me a statistic on gun control I gotta laugh. I AM MY OWN GUN CONTROL !!
Actually many of the stories I read were simply beatings, for example a friend watched an old man get beat to death for simply crossing the street at the wrong time while walking his dog. And again, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the guns used there weren't 'legally owned' & purchased. Statistics are always so widely skewed that I hear them in either direction based on what sources are quoting them (this goes beyond gun control obviously). I'm using my own experience here as a judge.Immanuel wrote:What happened in New Orleans after the flood? Would there be less killing, if the tough guys didn't have guns and only had to scare or beat up their victims instead of going for the easy way - shooting at a distance?
Your reply might be somewhat pointed, but if you wish to be clear that's fine. To be clear myself,.I'm simply listing some the 'interpretations' I've come across. My loose wording in reference to the 2nd amendment was not the foundation of any argument on my part, merely to reference the *fact* that the interpretations I listed do exist in our country, and people do argue over them. Feel free to define it as you will, but it still stands that there is not 100% consensus. Of course there is little outside of basic mathematics that there is 100% consensus on so...garyb wrote:well said Valis, except that regardless of what some say about the line in the constitution:
1. a militia is the armed citizenry. always has been, always will be. it is NON-professional by definition.
2. "well regulated" in military parlance means "accurate and well adjusted". so a well regulated militia means, "citizens with accurate and good quality arms".
3. the line is not about a militia at all. the secion about "a well regulated militia" is a prepositional phrase. the subject is "the right of citizens to bear arms". the verb is "shall not" what "shall not" happen to the "citizen's rights" is infringement by the government. the reason given by the constitutional framers? the government can't be trusted, because the corrupt are drawn to power and power tends to corrupt.
once again, i'm not saying i want/have a gun, but i am not relinquishing my right to want/have/get one either.
The genie is out of the proverbial bottle at this point..You are right ... and ... because he was able to get a gun
I am personally NOT a fan of guns. I do not, and likely never will own one.I'm just trying to understand why you guys over there cling to your guns as you do
Well, part of it is cultural, but I know part of it is also that some major citites have made it illegal to own firearms.Most gun owners are rural people. City people are more numerous yet rural people seem to have more power than they deserve.
I dont think it is about overthrowing a govt. per say..You are not seriously thinking you are going to overthrow the government are you Gary?
I just googled murder rates..i think guns make killing too easy - make it personal an visceral and see how many people can carry it through.
Take it up with historians man. I'm just telling ya what I read.Yeah, they kept really good crime stats back in the medieval days didn't they
That would be an amusing signature, but it wouldn't be a very logical argument.i think i may have to have a signature to the effect: "Just 'cos it's on Google, don't mean it's true."