I just love the crisis posting style with a reply to almost every sentence of your opponents.

I also love your avatar - for a guy that are anti-gun! A man with a bloody machine-cannon, or maybe its just a fishing pole?

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

So you can legally shot and kill a guy that tries to steal your motorcycle?
In any other state his ass would be grass.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Here is my quote-
Basically all that can be said for widespread gun proliferation and the law of the jungle you suggest is that it would lead to mayhem. It means not only do you need to worry about people who may mean you harm, you need to worry about people who overreact or escalate relatively harmless situations.

Nothing about "constant shootouts" and "streets flooded with violence". Those are your words. Unfortunately for you mine are note sensational enough so you need to insert your own spin on what I said. And what I said is totally supportable.
widespread gun proliferation and the law of the jungle (in which I mean every man for himself i.e. carrying a gun to defend yourself) means not only do you need to worry about people who may mean you harm, you need to worry about people who overreact or escalate relatively harmless situations which is exactly the type of situation I posted.


No you are simply ignoring that which you don’t want to see. The case I posted is one of many . It exists only as an example of that which you said never happens. I will try to make it as simple as I can for you. The mentality you have that everyone should have a gun to protect themselves means there are going to have to be millions of guns in circulation legal or otherwise then there are millions available for people to get hold of legally or otherwise. Legal owners misuse them. They then become criminals who may not any longer be able to legally acquire them but by this time they have already done harm.
If there are millions of guns in circulation then there is more of a chance that someone doing something wrong can do it with a gun.

I posted this -
I don’t believe you need a licence to carry a concealed weapon in that state!
The website I looked at said you didn’t need one however I was wary of its veracity given it was an anti gun website citing what laws existed hence my usage of the term “I don’t believe you need a licence”. But I should have been more clear on my ambiguity in this case.
The concealed issue is a non issue in the case I posted anyway. That was your spin. There is no evidence the guy had it concealed as he shot from his car in which case he needed no licence to have it there and he may have even had a concealed carry licence. So you are going off half cocked as usual.

You already got it but as usual you don’t seem to read everything before going off.

Here it is again –

EricOKC brought in the concealed carry issue as usual to spin what I said. My original statement has now been reposted several times and again is above for your viewing pleasure.
You chimed in on the end of it to a response I made to him hence my confusion.


Well with the way actual quotes get fed back to you all arse up I feel it is necessary to keep the replies in context. Some people also need reminding of what they actually said.

It’s a cool pic. Its screams gun nut redneck. I am sure the guy thinks he looks really tough/cool/hard/hung or whatever a gun that size is supposed to make you look.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

I was responding to what you wrote:

Which demonstrates that you are completely unwilling, as usual, to make the effort to get your facts straight. Makes me wonder what other facts you have pulled out of your ass.

Are you sure? I've done the legwork, and know for sure. Have you?

I would suggest you do the same. I am responding directly to you. Check your facts, or get called on it.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Under certain circumstances, yes. Would I? Probably not - it IS insured after all.
In this one too my friend.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

In fact it demonstrates that I am willing as usual, to make the effort to get my facts straight but in this case I posted something I found that turned out to be incorrect and I admit it. How many references need I seek before I take the plunge. One is 1000x more than most of my adversaries.

Sure about what?
That what I said was correct for Georgia? As you agreed?

Gwinnet Atlanta Georgia.


Have you changed your mind?

In any case you are grasping at straws. The discussion was never about any such laws but about the results of gun proliferation and the notion that it should be every man for himself to which I contend that in such a case one not only need worry about people who may mean you harm, you need to worry about people who overreact or escalate relatively harmless situations. This is the situation I posted.

So check your facts, or get called on it.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

Ah - got it. One anecdotal example is valid proof of your belief that guns should be outlawed, and yet an anecdotal example of someone saving his life with a gun is not a valid reason for them to be allowed.

There was no intent to insert spin crisis. I don't consider your example to be indicative of "mayhem" caused by private gun ownership, but merely criminal behavior.

You keep saying "if he didn't have the gun, blah blah blah" as if he wouldn't have it if they were illegal to own. This of course overlooks the plain simple reality that criminals, by their very nature, ignore laws. People intent upon harming others are not going to be stopped from doing so just because it is illegal to own a gun.

The rest of your post is merely the same inane blather you've vomited up before.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

What certain circumstances?
You made it sound like he (the guy who shot two burglars at his neighbors house) wouldnt be convicted of anything by a Texas court.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Try as you may and spin as you will I will not allow you to get away with such deception.
The one anecdotal example was to refute your stupid claim.
I don’t believe guns should be outlawed.
Try to debate intelligently and honestly and address the points that people make and the words they use.

Criminal behaviour resulting from a person with a gun who overreacted to a relatively harmless situation. Exactly what I said. I consider it to be an example of mayhem when people shoot at each other from their cars. So do others.


Mayhem:
• the willful and unlawful crippling or mutilation of another person
• havoc: violent and needless disturbance

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In fact I nailed it really!
But then again facts never stand in the way of what you consider to be real.
Writhe on.


Your use of the term criminal is ambiguous. If we define it as someone who has committed a crime whether or not they are found guilty then this guy may not have been a criminal until he fired that first shot. It is irrelevant anyway. It was a person with a gun in his car and he used it in response to a trivial situation out of all proportion to the fact he thought the guy in the other car was a hippy. In the state he lives he can carry a gun in his car. The type of person he appears to be should not have access to a gun but he can. He may not be able to again if he is caught but now it is too late. He has shot someone. The guy didn’t just ignore a law. He lost the plot. You try to mix everything up in some dumbarse simpleton notion that "criminals, by their very nature, ignore laws" What nature?

Meaning you either
1. Don’t understand it.
2. Cant mount a sensible counter argument.
3. Cant produce a spin.
4. Lose.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

If someone were to try to take it from my garage, he might find himself with a few extra holes, for example.
It would be difficult to find a jury in Texas who would convict a man of anything other than perhaps disturbing the peace for shooting a couple criminals in the act. Not impossible mind you, but difficult. The simple fact that the Harris County DA, who is extremely anti-gun and anti-self-defense, hasnt brought charges is a pretty clear indicator that even he realizes there isnt a chance in hell of getting a conviction.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Get back to me when you're ready to discuss an issue as an adult. Your childish tactics and endless redefinition of terms has worn out my patience.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

The guy in Texas is fucked.

He's not fucked because he felt threatened by the two burglars so he shot them. If that was the extent of it, he could, quite possibly, beat any charges.

The problem is that he can be heard tellinig the 911 operator "I'm going to kill them", and he did exactly that. When he said that, he wasn't being threatened in the least.

Yet he proclaimed a clear intention to kill them.

Any rookie prosecutor, needing one more conviction to get a raise or a promotion, will be salivating to prosecute this one.

It's a clear case of premeditation, and one which I think a jury would have a hard time being able to acquit...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"