Seems as if they're trying to use really big words to sound smart, but they never justify their point...
Guns should be limited to law enforcement personnel - www.record-bee.com
Printable View
Seems as if they're trying to use really big words to sound smart, but they never justify their point...
Guns should be limited to law enforcement personnel - www.record-bee.com
I have yet to hear of a murderous criminal who'll stop the mayhem to allow a victim under "the knife" to make a phone call to 911/dispatch.
I have yet to hear of such people as this letter writer explain how they expect to survive a violent attack if they find themselves lacking any effective defensive tools against an armed assailant.
I have yet to hear any logical explanation as to why a given person's reticence over having any effective means of self-defense equates to a right to dictate terms to all other citizens as to whether they themselves should be similarly emasculated in the face of crime.
I am not a great writer but I hope I can express my thoughts better than that.
Didn't sound so smart to me...
His diatribe was obtuse, and his choice of words only served to obfuscate his argument.
Big words + bad argument = FAIL
Yep, obfuscated.
I have absolutely no idea what he said.
I wrote him a response, but he may not agree with it.
Dean Sparks (professional tool): "no two human beings can completely understand each other."
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of psychology as it relates to the interaction between two humans sir.
When a certain perceived distressed individual uses the threat of physical force to cause bodily harm to my family or myself to
obtain something which was not earned by him/her through the normal course (that which is accepted by a large percentage
of the American society) of work/reward, the said individual has clearly conveyed his intentions to me; I understand him/her.
When I respond to the previously hypothetical situation with an equal amount of threat of deadly force in defense of myself/mine
with an attitude of denial to his/her "request" for unlawful and unethical gain by said force, it will be clear that I do not intend to
placate his/her request with abeyance on his/her behalf. He/she will understand me.
Or something like that... :rolleyes:
:hand15:
How does stuff like this get published on an official "news" website? Terrible writting, incoherent thought process, and completely false premise. Wow, just wow.
Edit: Not only a false premise, but a false premise, that even if it were true, would still not lead to the conclusion that the "writer" is trying to make.
I feel dumber for having read that. If I understand him properly, he doesn't think citizens should have guns because people can't understand one another... yeah, that makes sense. :confused:
Well, this about sums it up. Im so happy to have Hollywierd do some thinking for me.
What I got from his statement is that he doesn't think people can agree on things, and that must therefore descend into physical confrontation to settle the dissagreement. That being the case, allowing us to have guns just escalates our inherent lack of self-control from to fist fights and beat downs, to shootings and murder.
We are all apes and can not control our primal urges, therefore, guns are bad.
And police are magically bestowed with self-control and righteousness when they pin on the badge and do not fall prey to the same temptaions and failures as normal man.
This guy is a genious!
Just used that same thing in another thread today about Bloomberg!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ionracas
Too funny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
I could respond to Dean's post with one word...
"What?"
Kerberos your video response hands down trumps mine. Now I cant stop laughing.