Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Dead Corpse
Nope. Sorry. You've taken the argument so far off track you are no longer relavent. Did this guy have nukes? No? So what the heck are you going on about?

I see my error.

I laid out a "thought problem" for you.

Unfortunately, "thought problems" require...ahem...thought. My apologies for attempting to inflict such a burden upon you and your neuron.

People should arms themselves BECAUSE there are irrational people out there.

No problem there. I'd like to see the repeal of the NFA, the GCA, and the death of the AWB next year.

However, there are legitimate limits on "self-defense." When your "self-defense" cannot be used against an aggressor without infringing on multiple innocent third parties' right to the quiet enjoyment of their property, that's a sign that you've wandered far and away from the right of self-defense.

People like you who trust the government to be loaded to the hilt with the latest and greatest, but then you sh!t yourself at the idea that the Bubba down the street may have himself an "ugly rifle" or one the shoots too many bullets.

Wrong answer, see above.

I should have known better than to try and talk to you about this again. You still haven't grown up in the slightest.

Being accused by you of not having grown up is kind of like being called "fat" by Jerry Nadler. It really doesn't mean much.

325 posted on 10/31/2003 11:32:55 AM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies ]


To: Poohbah
Yet another attempt at wit I see. Keep at it, you'll get it right one of these days. OK, I'll bite.

Assume you can afford a nuke. Now assume you can shoot it off safely to get some "target practice". No one is being harmed. Why would there still be a restriction on ownership? A thought problem? You obviously aren't thinking at all.

However, there are legitimate limits on "self-defense." When your "self-defense" cannot be used against an aggressor without infringing on multiple innocent third parties' right to the quiet enjoyment of their property, that's a sign that you've wandered far and away from the right of self-defense.

Funny, who's Rights to equal enjoyment was this guy stepping on again? Who did he harm? Come on Pooh, you want to make the claim, you gotta pony up the evidence. This guy was mouthing off. That is all. One "informant" and some liberal media spin and you are ready to ride him out of town on a rail. I've yet to see you defend a single gun owner so demonized... even if there was no real crime committed by the supposed perp.

Sheesh Pooh... all that practice at this and you still suck. You should get a full refund.

328 posted on 10/31/2003 11:40:21 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson