Text 31916, 124 rader
Skriven 2009-04-30 13:36:44 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 31902 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Why guns rights must remain in America
==============================================
30 Apr 09 19:30, David Drummond wrote to Roy Witt:

 DD> Roy Witt -> David Drummond wrote:

 BA>>>> "An *armed* society is a *polite* society."  Robert A. Heinlein
 BA>>>> (emphasis mine)

 DD>>> Heinlein was WRONG.

 RW>> He's dead, Jim!

 DD> Was he dead when he made his incorrect comment?

He might as well have been.

 DD>>> An armed society is a scared society.

 RW>> Hardly.

 DD>>> People are not polite, they are in fear.

 RW>> Wrong...that only happens in societies where the government takes
 RW>> away the right of non-criminals to own guns. Like Australia or GB...

 DD> Huh?

You heard me.

 DD> There are quite a few Australians who legally own firearms -

But not you.

 DD> some of them even have a practical reason to.

None required, it's a right...

 DD> Most don't care to though.

The other nutters.

 DD>>> They lose the "right" to free speech

 RW>> Wrong. They lose the right to 'abusive' free speech. Polite people
 RW>> don't address you as 'Hey asshole'...

 DD> Having a firearm doesn't make them polite, just scared.

I have more than a few firearms and I'm not scared.

 DD>>> for fear some one takes offence and shoots them

 RW>> Wrong again. A polite person has no fear of being shot or beaten up
 RW>> for what he says.

 DD> Therefore he has no need of a firearm.

Need isn't the criteria for owning or possessing a firearm, freedom to
do so is.

 DD>>> And yet most of the US shootings we hear about do not appear to be
 DD>>> anything to do with drugs or gangs.

 RW>> BS! The majority of shootings is because of gang activity or nut
 RW>> cases like yours. Normal people don't go around shooting each other.

 DD> Normal people don't have firearms.

Abnormal people don't have firearms either. You're living proof of that.

 DD>>> Even Roy openly threatens to "use his piece" - is he a druggo or in
 DD>>> a gang?

 RW>> Of course I'd use it - in self-defense!

 DD> You'd use a firearm to defend against verbal assault?

I can't believe you're this stupid to actually think someone would
defend himself against a nutter with a big mouth...

It's against the law to even brandish a firearm to settle a verbal
assault.

That's why they make you take a test to find out how much you know about
the law, and you must also prove through field testing that you can handle
a firearm before the powers that be allow you a license to carry one.

And sure, you can carry one without a license, but the consequences are a
lot harsher if you do and end up using it to settle petty verbal
abusiveness, aka verbal assaults.

Just remember that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will
never harm me.

 RW>> Something you're incapable of comprehending or doing.

 DD> Of course - the situation is so alien to me - I have nothing to
 DD> defend myself from,

Oh, I dunno about that. With a mouth like yours, I don't doubt that it'd
get you in trouble sooner than later. I'll bet  you're a hoot when you get
your mouth going after you embibe in a few drinks.

 DD>  bugger all people here have firearms so the likelihood of me being
 DD> confronted by one is so slim as to be inconsequential.

Just like here, one doesn't use a firearm to settle stupid verbal assaults
such as yours. If it was legal down there, you would have been dead long
ago.

 RW>> Nor do I go around threatening to shot anybody. If I did, I'd not be
 RW>> here but in jail for doing so.

 DD> Yeah - sure.

Your ignorance is showing again. You should update yourself with facts
before you open your big mouth again.

                R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)