Because obviously you need some help with this.
YOU:
6. They don't read law;
the "title" alone will make them think they can shoot trespassers on sight, many of the most rabid RWers think this is their *right*.
And are quivering at the chance to show how brave they are.
ME:
16. And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use
Of course is so balanced and informative that there is no chance at all it might possibly be misleading people.
And get a clue. Nobody is "quivering" at the chance to shoot people. Stop visiting gunguys.com and their ilk.
YOU:
27. krispos42
That chip looks precarious.
:eyes:
My carry is a HK P2000SK, 10 shot. Backup is a Beretta Tomcat.
I'm licensed where I reside.
You're the one frothing, and clearly did not really read my post, you just "reacted to what you perceived", which is exactly my point.
If a law suggests to people, especially those that cook-off on half-cock (nudge), that it's ok to kill people *while defending your castle*, some-one will get hurt.
In this instance a boy was wounded, physically and emotionally and a woman was killed.
Is that tragic enough for you?
This isn't a gun-law; it's a killing law. The statute has nothing to do with guns. The law doesn't mention guns, just lethal force.
Now, go away and imagine that your pitbull attitude has us all quaking, or grow up and join in with civility.
BUT, most of all, *read* before you spray spittle all over the screen.
ME:
40. Karl Rove, is that you?
"reacted to what I perceived"?
You rant about right wing nuts just quivering for a chance to kill somebody, and I'm frothing and spraying spittle?
A tactic worthy of Rove, indeed. Bald-faced lie combined with a complete reversal of truth.
YOU:
44. 2:30 AM and *this*
is the best you can come up with? You've had nearly 12 hours!
Sorry for keeping you up all night thinking...
Or were you just trying to sneak in the last word so you get to win?
"Bald faced lie with a complete reversal of truth"
Syntactical redundancy, my unlearned friend. And so lame to play the association game, "If I fling some mud at him, maybe it'll stick."
Point is, some of your brethren do lust for old-west style fame. Some. Are you saying there are *NO* armed killers in this country?
No more Eric Rudolfs out there?
Not another McVeigh in the whole country?
Guns don't kill folks, krispy. Killers do.
You're a fool, and you don't argue well at all.
ME:
46. I work nightsHence the delay. Don't flatter yourself.
"Syntactical redundancy"? I think not. A lie does not have to be the reversal of truth. "I didn't due it" when you did do it is a lie. "I didn't do it, you did!" when you did do it and are being faced by an accuser that didn't do it is both a lie and the reversal of truth.
Point is, some of your brethren do lust for old-west style fame.
Yup, doubtless there are a few out there. It's a big country full of people and if you look hard enough you can find just about anybody. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find a left-landed homosexual Muslim orthodontist with a lisp. Doesn't mean that characterizing all orthdontists as lisping gay southpaws who follow the prophet Muhammad is appropriate or honest.
And so lame to play the association game...
<snip>
No more Eric Rudolfs out there?
Not another McVeigh in the whole country?
<cough>
Ahem...
YOU:
48. krispy, you keep picking
at that scab it's going to fester.
In addition to fully reading my posts you need to re-read your own.
In your 1st response to me, you accused me of being an anti-gun nut, even though I'd already qualified my support of the 2nd Amendment. "And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use..."
You also stated unequivocally that "Nobody is "quivering" at the chance to shoot people".
When I pointed out that this is *not* a law concerning guns at all, you turned to the tried and trite tactic of equating me to a republican strategist, an NRA member, BTW. WTF does Karl Rove have to do with this discussion?
I don't want someone stabbed in the neck with a sharp stick in "defense" of the "castle", but you want to shriek about gun laws. "Get a clue" (sound familiar?), this is a law about legalized murder you're trying to justify. It has *nothing* to do with guns.
After panning through the detritus of your last post, this is the only small glint of substance to be found: "Yup, doubtless there are a few out there."
Which is exactly my point.
So, after wasting all that time, we're in agreement. Too bad you can't be a bit more gracious and civil in your surrender. You're like the drunk that name calls the bouncer as he's picking himself up in the alley.
See you around, krispy. You better get some sleep before hitting the clock tonight.
Now that the entire conversation is plainly laid out for all to see, maybe you'll see the error of your ways.
In your 1st response to me, you accused me of being an anti-gun nut, even though I'd already qualified my support of the 2nd Amendment. "And the frothing hyperbole the anti-gun people use..."
No, I never accused you of being an anti-gun person. Hence "And the frothing hyperbole
the anti-gun people use..." "The", not "you".
I was talking about the hyperbole that they use. I don't recall ever interacting with you, so I don't know what your political stance is. I DO know that repeating their ridiculous memes and talking points does not help anybody. It does not improve the Dem's position, real or apparant, on guns and gun-control.
You're the one frothing, and clearly did not really read my post, you just "reacted to what you perceived", which is exactly my point.
I clearly did read your post, which contained anti-gun frothy talking points. I reacted to what you
said. The fact that you then pretend you didn't say what you said and spin my response as being to something that you didn't say is something I would expect of Faux News.
Then you drop this little gem:
This isn't a gun-law; it's a killing law. The statute has nothing to do with guns. The law doesn't mention guns, just lethal force.
In your response to MY response to you talking about
"the 'title' alone will make them think they can shoot trespassers on sight, many of the most rabid RWers think this is their *right*."You talk about shooting people, I state that it's not productive to repeat anti-gun hyperbole, and you then start talking about how the law is not a gun law! If the issue is about lethal force, which you apparantly claim, then why do you expressly use the word "shoot"?
Your comment was about gun owners quivering to legally shoot and kill somebody, not about the appropriateness of the use of lethal force. In point of fact, I specifically addressed that legal question further downthread in a response to Iverglas' post.
You also stated unequivocally that "Nobody is "quivering" at the chance to shoot people".
So nit-picking is your path to personal victory? Attributing inapproprate levels of precision to a conversation is how you're going to justify this in your own mind? You, the same person who said:
the "title" alone will make them think they can shoot trespassers on sight, many of the most rabid RWers think this is their *right*.
And are quivering at the chance to show how brave they are.
:rofl: at the lameness.
When I pointed out that this is *not* a law concerning guns at all, you turned to the tried and trite tactic of equating me to a republican strategist, an NRA member, BTW. WTF does Karl Rove have to do with this discussion?
You talked about "many" people quivering for a chance to shoot people, which was the point
I was discussing, then try to turn it around and say "Hey, this discussion is about lethal force, not guns". And then you continue to act all innocent and confused? Can't
imagine where anybody got the idea that you were talking about guns? But you're being
unjustly called on something you
never ever ever said, and oh by the way the person calling you on it must obviously be a frothing gun nut? Oh, those silly right-wing quivering gun nuts!
Spin, spin, spin.
I don't want someone stabbed in the neck with a sharp stick in "defense" of the "castle", but you want to shriek about gun laws. "Get a clue" (sound familiar?), this is a law about legalized murder you're trying to justify. It has *nothing* to do with guns.
Ah, I see. When you said
"the 'title' alone will make them think they can shoot trespassers on sight, many of the most rabid RWers think this is their *right*. And are quivering at the chance to show how brave they are" you obviously meant one of those pointy-stick-shooting guns.
Or perhaps a longbow.
Crossbow?
Double-torsion ballista?
Oh, wait, I'm "unlearned". Forget I said anything about double-torsion ballista.
After panning through the detritus of your last post, this is the only small glint of substance to be found: "Yup, doubtless there are a few out there."
Which is exactly my point.
So, that was your point, huh? And you had to wait until I said it to figure out what your point was? Because lord knows you never said that.
So, after wasting all that time, we're in agreement. Too bad you can't be a bit more gracious and civil in your surrender. You're like the drunk that name calls the bouncer as he's picking himself up in the alley.
You're saying I'm right, but I'm surrending to
you?:rofl:
And you still don't see any Rovian influence here at all?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And now I'm an unlearned drunk!