🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C56418.2EE85D20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


  "Whizbang" <whizbang@correctopinions.com> wrote in message =
news:429944C8.F32955FF@correctopinions.com...
  Amateur Cichlids wrote:=20
     =20
      "Whizbang" <whizbang@correctopinions.com> wrote in message =
news:429529F0.53B16823@correctopinions.com...Gun grabbers? C'mon.=20
      Gun nuts all want all types of guns available all the time, with =
any kind of ammo, even when it's of a brand that should rightfully (as =
even Bush admitted before his balls shrivelled on him) be available to =
the military only.

    The term gun nuts already sets up a bias that really taints your =
entire argument. From where I sit, it seems you are saying anyone that =
would own a gun is a nut. Those like Michael Moore who speak against =
owning guns but make sure their bodyguards have them, where do they =
fall?
  No, I don't believe that all guns have to disappear. When I say gun =
nuts, I mean those who favor no reasonable limits whatsoever. Military =
style weapons have no place in civilian life, no self-defense purposes, =
and no sporting purpose.

  Please define what YOU consider reasonable limits.

  And what exactly do YOU mean by military style weapons? Most guns are =
either used by one military or another, were used by one military or =
another, or derived from guns used by one military or another. So what =
do you consider to be military style weapons, and explain to me why they =
have no purpose in civilian life. You claim they have no self defense =
purpose, but it seems to me a military style weapon will defend =
someone's life just as well if not better than any other sort of weapon. =
You claim they have no sporting purpose as if military style weapons =
aren't just as effective at target practice, varmint hunting, hunting, =
plinking, and other sporting purposes as other guns. Sorry, but I must =
be one of your gun nuts, because I just can't seem to see how what the =
military does with it has any bearing on whether it has a place in =
civilian life, particularly when it can and does fulfill functions which =
are entirely suitable for civilian life. So explain it to me, maybe I'm =
missing something.

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C56418.2EE85D20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV>"Whizbang" &lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:whizbang@correctopinions.com">whizbang@correctopinions.com=
</A>&gt;=20
  wrote in message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:429944C8.F32955FF@correctopinions.com">news:429944C8.F32955F=
F@correctopinions.com</A>...</DIV>Amateur=20
  Cichlids wrote:=20
  <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3D"CITE">
    <STYLE></STYLE>
    &nbsp;=20
    <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
    style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">"Whizbang"=20
      &lt;<A=20
      =
href=3D"mailto:whizbang@correctopinions.com">whizbang@correctopinions.com=
</A>&gt;=20
      wrote in message <A=20
      =
href=3D"news:429529F0.53B16823@correctopinions.com">news:429529F0.53B1682=
3@correctopinions.com</A>...Gun=20
      grabbers? C'mon.=20
      <P>Gun nuts all want all types of guns available all the time, =
with any=20
      kind of ammo, even when it's of a brand that should rightfully (as =
even=20
      Bush admitted before his balls shrivelled on him) be available to =
the=20
      military only.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
    <DIV dir=3Dltr>The term gun nuts already sets up a bias that really =
taints=20
    your entire argument. From where I sit, it seems you are saying =
anyone that=20
    would own a gun is a nut. Those like Michael Moore who speak against =
owning=20
    guns but make sure their bodyguards have them, where do they=20
  fall?</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>No, I don't believe that all guns have to disappear. =
When I say=20
  gun nuts, I mean those who favor no reasonable limits whatsoever. =
Military=20
  style weapons have no place in civilian life, no self-defense =
purposes, and no=20
  sporting purpose.</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT color=3D#ff0000 size=3D2>Please define what YOU =
consider=20
  reasonable limits.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT color=3D#ff0000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT color=3D#ff0000 size=3D2>And what exactly do YOU =
mean by=20
  military style weapons? Most guns are either used by one military or =
another,=20
  were used by one military or another, or derived from guns used by one =

  military or another. So what do you consider to be military style =
weapons, and=20
  explain to me why they have no purpose in civilian life. You claim =
they have=20
  no self defense purpose, but it seems to me a military style weapon =
will=20
  defend someone's life just as well if not better than any other sort =
of=20
  weapon. You claim they have no sporting purpose as if military style =
weapons=20
  aren't just as effective at target practice, varmint hunting, hunting, =

  plinking, and other sporting purposes as other guns. Sorry, but I must =
be one=20
  of your gun nuts, because I just can't seem to see how what the =
military does=20
  with it has any bearing on whether it has a place in civilian life,=20
  particularly when it can and does fulfill functions which are entirely =

  suitable for civilian life. So explain it to me, maybe I'm missing=20
  something.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C56418.2EE85D20--