Summations Only

How can you tell? Is it because no one has changed their minds?The technique of posting a link and a single sentence imploring the group to "read this" is not real effective here. I just assume when I see an essentially bare link post from you, that the link points to the National Review or the Heritage Foundation web page, and I usually won't bother with it. This time I did read one of the articles, but I did not get to far into it. Perhaps I missed the point you were trying to make.Perhaps if you quoted your favorite paragraph from the articles, and that favorite paragraph did not appear to be the same old wing nut stuff that was in the NRA press conference, you might get more readers. Stop using vinegar. The one article I looked at was quite lengthy. What do you think will happen if you post it here without throwing us a bone, i.e. some commentary that is not just like this: I doubt you can get anyone but the already convinced to read an article whose point is the above.

That seems like one too many qualifiers. Statistically we know it not to be true for all civilian gun owners.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Incredible. Where is your faith?

No. She is saying that the loss of her guns wound be such a cataclysmic, soul rending event that surely the loss is a sign that she's been abandoned by God. It's as if the book of Job had never been written.

The Juice is loose. Again.

That's right Faith. The shooting on the Fort Hood Army base never happened. And Gabby Giffords could not possibly have been shot in Tuscon AZ, because that's just about the most gun friendly, concealed carry allowing, jurisdiction in the country.Except that those things did happen in places where any sane person would expect guns. Further, the shooters were captured alive in both cases. Enjoy your break, Ms. Pot. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It ought to be argument ending logic.You have repeatedly claimed that such events do not happen where guns are expected to be present. Surely you are not objecting to my using facts even you cannot dispute to refute your claim? They didn't get away with it. Where did that bit of nonsense come from? It is true that the shooters did not die in a killing field created by untrained civilians, but they were caught. Sheesh... Here is how the Gabby Giffords' shooting incident ended.

quote:

---

Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.The gunman was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger, who had been shot himself, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten the gunman

---

That's right. Gunman subdued without guns. How could you be more wrong?

Really? Then who typed the material below in all caps (emphasis added by me)? Yes, they do take those risks. And we don't need to cite the rare exception among mass shootings in order to show exactly that. I can accept your interpretation of what "get away with it" means. But I'm not going to accept that you didn't claim that shooters will not risk going to a place where they know that guns will be facing them. You did in fact say exactly that. No. I'm pointing out a several other things that ought to be quite obvious to the same. One, unarmed people did not have NO chance of taking down an assailant as you also claimed. Second, guns being present is not as effective a deterrent as you pretend. Third, the pause to reload was important in stopping the assailant in Tuscon.You are apparently so zealous that you will say just about any stupid extreme thing, often in all capitals. Then somehow it is my fault when I point out that what you have posted makes no sense or is contrary to the facts as we all know them. If you want to take something back that you've said, I have no problem with that, but denials of things we can also see in blue and white are not going to fly.Finally, you've made it quite clear, that in your mind, saving lives is nowhere near as important as whether or not you have your own guns. Shooting events are not God's judgment, but losing your guns would be. You seem to be completely unaware as to how completely such sentiments discredit your position.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Is that an informed opinion? What about Guam? or The Virgin Islands? There are actually five territories with representatives in Congress. Plus the District of Columbia.The power to admit states to the union is given to Congress in Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution. The president cannot grant statehood via executive order. The representatives are non-voting.When you divided 52 in half to obtain 21 what were you thinking?

ICANT has set up a scenario where his assumption is justifiable. Some drunk might stumble into my living room accidentally and mean me no harm, but if someone bursts through ICANT's steel door, I highly doubt that they are collecting for the red cross.I don't envy ICANT his paranoia. But anyone breaking into that citadel either has bad intentions or is coming to arrest someone in the house.

Do we know enough about the perp to know whether he should have been off the streets? He was a bit of an odd duck. He stuck to himself and was often seen to be armed. He had a court date for menacing someone.In my opinion, this last rant of yours is scary sounding stuff. Full of anti-government stuff along with a few things that I cannot make any sense of. (For example you claim you don't know who killed person X after telling us they were killed by a sibling or spouse. What point are you making with that statement?) You even admit to being paranoid and we know you are packing. What more should we look for before we send for the men in white coats? Standard gun nut rant. None of the proposed federal legislation has any provisions that would remove guns already in the hands of citizens. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Is that sufficient reason for you? Standard gun nut stuff. How many of those other countries had a second amendment? Does registration inevitably lead to confiscation? We know that despite your statements, confiscation hasn't even happened in Cuba.

This is likely the same ammo that the police in Florida use. And if the police (federal, state, or local) are carrying the ammo, they are also training with the ammo despite the expense.

Do you understand that you are under cutting your own argument? So hollow point bullets are used for practice exactly as I suggested, and contrary to what your post suggested?

Yes ICANT, I understand that your not being able to obtain five inch naval artillery is an infringement of the second amendment to your way of thinking. But if you are going to claim that Scalia is correct about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that would also include his acknowledgement of limitations that are not infringments. Taking this to be true for the sake of discussion, what's your point? The British would not care about some colonist document, would they? The question is whether the federal government is coming to get your cache. Other than the "any regulation is a step toward confiscation" paranoid faux-logic, there is no such indication.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.