🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:16:48 +0000 (UTC), soupdragon <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

>ozarkheart@yahoo.com wrote in news:7rnpc8t7c4qdkuk26nqgn3gegigf1rra6o@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:15:34 +0000 (UTC), soupdragon <me@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>ozarkheart@yahoo.com wrote in news:tnepc8dk8tparnhumq1m2lqvsjukorolku@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:09:59 +0000 (UTC), soupdragon <me@privacy.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>ozarkheart@yahoo.com wrote in 
>news:5p1pc816j3douclp90fm358tg6npj6rvvi@
>>>>>4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:23:36 +0000 (UTC), soupdragon 
><me@privacy.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>Libertarian Lilly <LLil@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>news:9K2dnXdI-OjhuazNnZ2dnUVZ5gGdnZ2d@giganews.com: 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This couldn't have been done in one of the cowardly countries 
>that
>>>>>>>> oppress the human rights to self defense and to keep and bear 
>arms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah. Those ghastly cowardly countries that don't allow loons
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So you think citizens are "loons"?
>>>>>
>>>>>No. Just those obsessed with owning guns. 
>>>> 
>>>> Clarify: Ar eyou saying that anyone who wants to own a gun is a loon?
>>>
>>>No, I didn't say that either. You do like your strawmen. I said those
>>>_obsessed_ with owning guns.
>> 
>> OK: So when is one defined, by you, as "obsessed"?
>> 
>> And how will you differentiate between those "obsessed" and those who
>> are not "obsessed"?
>
>Anyone who cites RKBA as a reason to own a gun is a good starting point.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Also I'd like to know which country denies you the right to defend
>>>>>yourself. Is this one of those mythical construct gun loons are 
>>>>>so fond of?
>>>> 
>>>> I haven't mentioned in this thread anything about "defending" one's
>>>> self.
>>>
>>>Read the first two lines of the OP.
>> 
>> I am not the OP. 
>> I haven't mentioned anything about "defending" ones
>> self. 
>
>
>I know you're not, but the context of this exchange is his post and its
>contents. If you don't want to answer that point, that's fine - I'll 
>leave that to the OP.
>
>> But, if one does not allow the good citizen the right to arm
>> themselves then one is, in fact, denying them one of the most
>> efficient means of self defense.
>
>'Most efficient means of self-defence'? That's quite a statement.

You failed to quote correctly. "***One*** of the most efficient..."


>Would you care to do a costs vs benefits analysis on that?

What is the weapon of choice forpersonal defense carried by policemen
and the military?


>
>> 
>>>
>>>> However, the subject is guns.
>>>
>>>The OP couched it in terms of 'human rights' and 'self defence'. He 
>>>didn't even mention guns.
>> 
>> We can certainly discuss the human right to self defense - but it will
>> include guns.
>
>Why not expand it to include all weapons, then?

Because not all weapons are personal weapons of self defense.

>
>
>>>> And there are countries where the
>>>> government will deny a person to buy a gun for the express intent of
>>>> self defense.
>>>
>>>I know that. There are countries that also deny a person the right to
>>>buy missiles and heavy calibre machine guns for 'the express intent of 
>>>self defence'. So what?
>> 
>> Are you lumping heavy machine guns and missiles into this? That is a
>> pretty far stretch for anyone who wants to have an honest discussion.
>
>Why not? The point stands - where do you draw the line? 

As above - heavy machine guns and missles are clearly not personal
self defense weapons.

And the line has already been drawn.


> There are
>those in the gun lobby who argue they should have free and unfettered 
>access to any weapon under RKBA, just in case the govt goes tyrannical
>and they have to save the people.

There are always fringe nuts.


> 'Honest discussion' is not something 
>gun nuts generally engage in.

Quite to the contrary - the anti-freedom gun control nuts tend to be
very dishonest.



>
>>>>>>> access to 
>>>>>>>guns and have a much lower violent crime rate as a result.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Some do - some don't
>>>>>
>>>>>Most do
>>>> 
>>>> Present your data.
>> 
>> Waiting for your data.
>
>Oops. Original post was truncated.
>
>I'm sure you know how to use Google. I've better things
>to do than do your homework for you.

It is your home work. If you want to make a claim you need to support
it.