E-rock

Tired of being reminded of your "inadequacies", Peter?

Suppose the 1st ammendment said this: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Now suppose, the second ammendment said this: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Neither of these ideas were intended.

I'd pop a cap in yo' ass, Owen Meany.

You're not frustrating me at all, I hope I'm not frustrating you. I can't believe I got as into this as I did. Perhaps I'm the one who is mistaken. I just think that neither of these cases, when examined individually in a bubble, does anything to support the "right" or "need" to carry a concealed weapon. In the first instance, a concealed weapon would have done nothing to create a more favorable outcome, and perhaps would have contributed to a less-favorable one. In the second instance, the intruders were at a tactical disadvantage, and a shotgun was effective at protecting a home, a very different situation than an open air confrontation. This particular case has no bearing whatsoever on the handgun/concealed weapon argument, other than to reinforce the notion that a shotgun is a sufficient tool for protecting a home from intruders. My overall point, I guess, is that EXAMPLES that ostensibly support unrestricted gun-ownership in society, don't always do so under close scutiny, and for each one, a counter example exists. These types or arguments are less compelling to me that a philosophical argument such as the one you presented above (i.e. it is not our decision as a culture to take the gun out of an individual's hand.

That's fine, others on the opposite side of the argument don't, however. And I don't believe that the constitution grants gun-ownership as an inalienable right free from restriction, as many gun-rights advocates argue it does.

That's the point I was driving at. I'm aware that the first story counters the argument I presented in response to the second story. But the story taken alone (without the counter example), could be used to make a logical argument in support of INCREASED gun control, based on many gun control arguments that are made today (i.e. handguns are unnecessary tools designed to kill other humans only, and claiming that they are NEEDED to protect one's home and safety is not necessarily true).

You first statement seems to assume that if he had a gun with him he could have been shot--but ignores the fact that he could have been shot anyway. And saying that the example of the girl protecting herself with a shotgun is proof that others who want a gun for self protection shouldn't need a handgun just doesn't make sense. I mean, can you picture the guy in the first story stopping by McDonalds with a shotgun slung over his shoulder? Your first statement implies that a criminal who is threatened is not any more dangerous than one who is not. The fact is, that in this particular scenario, the victim was NOT shot. A conclusion that a concealed weapon would have done little to change for the better, and perhaps much to change for the worse. Your second statement assumes that I was treating these two separate incidents as dependent variables, whereas I was treating them as independent variables. I understand that my argument is flawed in this respect, but each case in isolation from one another does little, in my mind, to strengthen any "pro-gun" arguments. I am not a gun-control liberal. I was merely pointing out that these two reports have very little to do with the thread's title.

ANYTHING at Maple Canyon, UT. What an overbolted shitpile that place is.

So, the first story, sort of supports the argument that a gun is NOT necessary for self defense. In fact, one could argue that if the State Rep HAD pulled a handgun out of his pocket in self defense, he could have been shot. The second story, only re-enforces the gun-control argument that handguns are not necessary weapons in society, even for self-defense, and that a firearm designed for hunting, such as a shotgun is just as effective as a handgun, if not more so, in situations where guns ARE used for self defense.

So now you're equating murder with recreational drug use?

Pretty much EVERYTHING makes me fart. And my ass is fuckin' STANK. I'm the worst you've ever met. Believe it.

They need to outlaw these goddamn GPS devices. They're just a recipe for destruction. Someone tell Big Brother to put criminalization with stiff penalties on their list because we're too stupid to use GPS responsibly. I think my GPS-head neighbors have a lab or something next door, and their damn kids wander around the neighborhood, directionally challenged because of being GPS-babies.

I've got an issue of "GI Joe Vs. Transformers" somewhere in my old comic box at mom's house. Cobra lost, btw.

And yet, after this quote, you go on to explain exactly the ways you think the system should think for them. It seems to me that you're the kind of person who believes you have higher credentials than everyone else merely because you believe it. For example, you believe that you know exactly who should be on a particular mountain at a particular time - e.g., anyone (including yourself) who -after the fact- doesn't get in an accident! How are WE to know that YOU'RE not the kind of idiot who needs an MLU on Hood, a railing on Half Dome, or Big Brother making sure you don't watch Cheetos commercials before nap time? You're credentials seem only to be the fact that you claim to have them. True or False - 90% of people are idiots. If you answer T to this one, you need to spend a lot more time checking yourself and a lot less time worrying about what fat people watch on TV.

will most likely up the spray quotient, today.

We've got one of those one-cup Keurig fuckers. No dice.

I was afraid you might lose respect for me Oly, but I took a chance, knowing that integrity is a virtue, and others with integrity will embrace your personal Truth's.

pus

Lame

Whew, I was afraid I was going to loose my title. I earned it from a friend. Good thing I worked from home today.

If you get these, you bleed out of the follicle.

Mine. I was trying to get the ones with the thick follicles of coagulated sebum.

During a teleconference today I stood in my office with the door closed and pulled out pubic hairs.

Choada Boy just outed himself

Some fish I think you can do this with, but most sushi grade fish has been frozen before hand to kill bacteria. Freezing is not going to kill bacteria, it will some but not all. The freezing is to kill parasites, not bacteria.