[smoothy]

Everyone has the right to defend themselves... and no lefty has the right to decide who can or when.

After all its the left that murders over 20 million babies a year then argues convicted murderers and other criminals have a "right" to life.

[excon]

Hello again, smoothy:

Everyone has the right to defend themselves... and no lefty has the right to decide who can or when.

What's stupid, is to say that black is white... As in, going through a background check MEANS people can't defend themselves..

Do you want to argue with me about what the words mean?

Excon

[Tuttyd]

Everyone has the right to defend themselves...and no lefty has the right to decide who can or when.

I assume this is in response to my post.

Show me where in my responses I am denying anyone of this right.

After all its teh left that murders over 20 million babies a year then argues convicted murderers and other criminals have a "right" to life.

This is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

[smoothy]

I assume this is in response to my post.

Show me where in my responses I am denying anyone of this right.



This is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.

Not really... its the stated position of the same people who are against the average citizen who has the right to defend themselves and their property.

Until the Supreme court struck down Washington, DC's illegal antigun laws... it was common for a homeowner who shot an intruder in their own home during a robbery or home invasion to be charged for MORE time for having an unregistered gun than the repeat offender criminal would be with their illegal gun in the commission of a crime..

[speechlesstx]

The added word doesn't make it any more sensible, Tut. Thinking one needs to defend themselves, their families, their property is NORMAL, thinking otherwise is NUTS. If she had said what you did I'd have a different answer, but that is not what she said.

[Tuttyd]

The added word doesn't make it any more sensible, Tut. Thinking one needs to defend themselves, their families, their property is NORMAL, thinking otherwise is NUTS. If she had said what you did I'd have a different answer, but that is not what she said.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that defending themselves is anything but normal. To think otherwise is crazy.

My point is this:

From the information provided via the conservation thus far, it is not possible to conclude that Wondergirl is actually supporting the idea that people should not be allowed to defend themselves.

You can show otherwise?

[talaniman]

Nobody has said you don't have a right to protect yourselves, or take away your guns. That's you guys making a common sense thing like trust but verify into an issue that serve no ones best interest but the ones who can't pass a background check because they don't have too.

Get over yourselves my gosh and stop being fed by the gun manufacturer and think of yourself and your neighbor with the crazy nephew, or the ex convict with a stupid girlfriend or the millions of people who take money from a dope dealer to buy guns. Or even consider the guy who sells his guns to anyone with cash, off the books.

Yeah the way you want to exercise your rights suck. You even want to protect foreign arms dealers and what good does that do when they sell to people for cash to overthrow the law where ever?

Wake up why don't you and stop making it so easy to break the law and kill people.

[smoothy]

Remember YOUR President and Messiah was giving thousands of guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels... and he and Erik Holder are still not in jail for doing it. WHere were the background checks THEY were supposed to be doing? Or are they above those laws too?

If you or me gave ONE gun to a criminal... we would be rotting in jail before the sun sets.

[speechlesstx]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that defending themselves is anything but normal. To think otherwise is crazy.

My point is this:

From the information provided via the conservation thus far, it is not possible to conclude that Wondergirl is actually supporting the idea that people should not be allowed to defend themselves.

You can show otherwise?

I made no suggestion she was. I made it clear that the subject of my comment was the same as hers, "the left." Seeing as how she stated earlier that she is a "registered Republican" I believe we were both referring to OTHERS.

But go ahead, keep trying to find something that isn't there.

[Wondergirl]

From the information provided via the conservation thus far, it is not possible to conclude that Wondergirl is actually supporting the idea that people should not be allowed to defend themselves.

WG has no problem with people wanting to defend themselves. There are guns of all types in her house, and she is okay with that. They are safely locked up (finally!) and have been used correctly (so far). She herself learned how to handle a gun and shoot around the age of 10. WG DOES have a problem with paranoia, meaning people who have to own lots of guns because they think they have to be fully armed and be able to defend themselves from boogeymen that don't exist.

[Tuttyd]

Not really...its the stated position of the same people who are against the average citizen who has the right to defend themselves and their property.

I don't know about the stated position of some people. I was assuming you were responding to my post. If this was the case then I am not against self-protection.

Until the Supreme court struck down Washington, DC's illegal antigun laws....it was common for a homeowner who shot an intruder in their own home during a robbery or home invasion to be charged for MORE time for having an unregistered gun than the repeat offender criminal would be with their illegal gun in the commission of a crime..

Again, I don't know about the type of justice administered in these particular circumstances. Documentary evidence would be useful.

[smoothy]

I don't know about the stated position of some people. I was assuming you were responding to my post. If this was the case then I am not against self-protection.



Again, I don't know about the type of justice administered in these particular circumstances. Documentary evidence would be useful.

Actually its wasn't a direct response to your post...

As far as Documentary evidence...

Google them up including Washington Post and Washington Times (the Two major DC newspapers) in the search query and the results will be numerous. And far from complete... because only what was printed will show up... there were innumerous comments by TV news anchors belittling the homeowner for not letting the police deal with it when faced by an armed intruder. Saw so many over the nearly 30 years I've been in this area it nauseated me. And one of the reasons you couldn't PAY me enough to live in DC. And its one of the reasons I moved to Virginia rather than MD when I returned from Europe. I lived in MD before going to Europe after College..

I don't fault you from not being aware of that... as you don't live in this country much less this area... but its extremely well known and they even gloated over the fact for years on the TV and radio news.

Also it was standard practice to threaten them publicly that charges were being considered... fewer charges were actually ever made.

[Tuttyd]

I made no suggestion she was. I made it clear that the subject of my comment was the same as hers, "the left." Seeing as how she stated earlier that she is a "registered Republican" I believe we were both referring to OTHERS.

But go ahead, keep trying to find something that isn't there.

Yes, the subject was the left.

"Well that's rather stupid. The left doesn't think people need to defend themselves?"

This is a guilt by association fallacy. In other words, it is an attack on a person because of the possible similarities between their views and other people (the left) who are are putting forward a particular point of view.

[speechlesstx]

Do you ever just talk or just come to analyze me, tom and smoothy?

[Wondergirl]

Do you ever just talk or just come to analyze me, tom and smoothy?

HOW or WHY or IN WHAT CONTEXT you say something is often more interesting than WHAT you say.

[speechlesstx]

HOW or WHY or IN WHAT CONTEXT you say something is often more interesting than WHAT you say.

And ASSUMPTIONS and ASSIGNING motives that aren't there is counterproductive.

[Wondergirl]

And ASSUMPTIONS and ASSIGNING motives that aren't there is counterproductive.

That is why we ask and challenge and comment.

[speechlesstx]

That is why we ask and challenge and comment.

??

[Wondergirl]

?????

That's what you do too, hence, this is on a Discussion board.

[speechlesstx]

I think we ask and challenge for different reasons.