Right to bear arms

Paul Watson

You are an idiot, aren't you? No offense meant, just an observation.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Haydn Chapman

Although, it's a little easier to pull a trigger and point than unlocking a car, getting in, starting the ignition, putting it into gear (or drive in automatics), then doing something more destructive than running into the garage door or hitting a car coming out the driveway. Your arguments are normally more solid than that....wait wrong person, sorry. :laugh:

Stan Shannon

Paul Watson wrote:

I'm pretty sure there are laws that make it the responsibility of the gun owner to keep them in a safe place, out of the reach of the innocent.

I'm pretty sure thats the concern of the people of Baltimore County, Maryland.

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

Ilion

Paul Watson wrote:

No offense meant, just an observation.

How could a mental midget, such as yourself, possibly give offense? It's inconceivable, really.

Paul Watson

By revealing the truth about you. Quite simple really.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Ilion

John Davids wrote:

Although, it's a little easier to pull a trigger and point than unlocking a car, getting in, starting the ignition, putting it into gear (or drive in automatics), then doing something more destructive than running into the garage door or hitting a car coming out the driveway.

Even were this true ... but it must not be, since we're always seeing the ease with which four-year-olds disrupt traffic patterns ... would it be relevant? After all, it surely takes far more effort to set and set off a bomb than to fire a gun. So, there's no objection to private ownership of bombs? After all, it surely takes far more effort to load the weapons system of a tank, drive it to the mayor's office and give the fellow what he so richly deserves, than to fire a gun, or simply drive an auto. So, there's no objection to private ownership of tanks with operable weapons systems and freely available weapons/supplies for those systems?

John Davids wrote:

Your arguments are normally more solid than that....wait wrong person, sorry. :laugh:

You people are such an amusement. :laugh:

Ilion

Please, do reveal some truth. All you've done so far is make the same sort of lame and pedestrian assertions that you fools cannot seem to resist.

Lost User

Ilíon wrote:

their should be supplied by the public fisc

Can you re-write that so I can understand it.

Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription

Ilion

their[s] should be supplied by the public fisc

Haydn Chapman

How many 4 year olds have loaded the weapons system of a tank, driven it into the mayor's office and given him, in your opinion, what he so richly deserves? I thought the debate was about the ease at which children can inflict (normally)unintentional harm through the use of weapons that require very little knowledge, not the case for banning everything because there is a possibility that someone, somewhere with the know how may one day get into a situation where they do use a tank in the above fashion.

Even were this true ... but it must not be, since we're always seeing the ease with which four-year-olds disrupt traffic patterns ... would it be relevant?

Where did you get that nugget of information? I didn't realise there were so many 4 year olds driving about causing havoc in the streets. I bet it's all those hours spent playing GTA III, when will the parents learn!

Paul Watson

As opposed to your dramatic and irrelevant automobile comment. Call us both fools then.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Ilion

Paul Watson wrote:

Call us both fools then.

It's logically impossible to split the difference between error (your position, in case you're having trouble with the concept) and not-error (my position).

Paul Watson wrote:

As opposed to your dramatic and irrelevant automobile comment.

Drama? Please! It was a reductio ad absurdum; it was a test of assumptions and "logic" you are employing. And, in case you're still having difficulty with this, the assumptions and "logic" you are employing failed the test.

Paul Watson

Ilíon wrote:

you are employing failed the test.

I called you a name. You should have given up long ago. I am on two weeks holidays and can sit here for hours idly responding to your high-falluting responses.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Ilion

Paul Watson wrote:

I called you a name.

You're kidding! But, apparently, you're as willfully obtuse as so many of the other fine communitarians of this Soapbox. Please! Surely even a such bright light as yourself ought to be able to grasp that I would never refer to a minor attempt at insult as logic (or, as the case was, as "logic"). Here, let me try to put this in small words so maybe you can see: the "logic" of your first post fails the laugh test. Also, your toy insult didn't insult me, but that was another thing.

Paul Watson wrote:

I am on two weeks holidays and can sit here for hours idly responding to your high-falluting responses.

And I do not doubt that doing so is all the meaning, and quite possibly all the enjoyment, your life for at least the next two weeks will have.

Paul Watson

Ilíon wrote:

And I do not doubt that doing so is all the meaning, and quite possibly all the enjoyment, your life for at least the next two weeks will have.

Well, well, aren't we the day's judgment.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Ilion

You promised, at least by implication, to reveal some truth or other about me. So far, you've asserted that I am an idiot[^], while assuring me that no offense was intended. I assured you that no offence was given[^] and wondered whether it is even possible for one such as you to give offense. You claimed that you could give offense[^], as a simple matter revealing the truth about me. In fear and trepidation[^] (for, surely you know your own capabilities), I asked for some of this truth about myself. Apparently ... in your little world[^] ... if you recognize your own foolishness, that equates to me also being a fool. I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning[^] and you informed me that you had called me a name[^]. That's pretty much where we started, isn't it? And still, we're waiting for this truth ... it seems now fair to say alleged truth ... about me. Tsk!

Paul Watson

Boy, you did a lot of work for that response. Good for you.

regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa

Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:

At least he achieved immortality for a few years.

Rob Manderson

And Paul wins this years 'shooting fish in a barrel' award! :laugh:

Rob Manderson My bloghttp://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]

Ilion

Paul Watson wrote:

Boy, you did a lot of work for that response. Good for you.

Really, the 'copy and paste' function is all but effortless to use. The underlying technique of it seems to be based upon your mode of ratiocination.

73Zeppelin

Paul Watson wrote:

I called you a name.

Proper taxonomy isn't an insult.

Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.