Ron

I am in PG1 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I was thinking more about almost every experience I have had in the Military..... And thinking about every experience I have had dealing with the VA medical centers (I have to go 2-3 times a year). Having been to a Govt hospital, I can say that it is not the type of care I really want. And while I could have "free" healthcare from the VA, I pay for my own policy. So, I have no faith that the Govt can run a healthcare system. All I see if that does happen is a level of care that is not even close to the cost. So while you may have all these Canadians saying how the heathcare in Canada is nice.... I have experienced US GOVT run healthcare and was not impressed. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Of some type, yes. Yep, I can think of VERY few things that the Govt does well... And those things normally are more expensive than they should be. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And that is why I don't do those types of matches.... They encourage bad actions. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You said, "People react with the tools they have available, not because of the tools they have available. " So then your position is that a true warrior with just a toothpick will fight an opponent that is better armed simply because they are true warriors. And as I said before, and you agreed, a person who thinks they have the upper hand is much more likely to act. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The difference is you think only one side uses the daily talking points. Really?!??!!?!? How would you read, "Because, for the most part, "libs" don't like loud, deliberate, misinformation, no matter who says it. Most "libs" that I know prefer peer reviewed literature, original sources and rational discussion to fallacious arguments." You tried to paint only one side as rational. You tried to claim only one side uses good sources. That is total BS. And your opinion is that only one side is rational and uses good sources. Sure, how about the party that is in the weaker position panders more to the hard core base. And that base supports the fewer spokespeople with increased strength to compensate for the lack of numbers. There are more, and none of them have to villianize the other party to support the position. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

No, but it implies that you THINK you are. No, my comprehension is spot on... You were bragging and now trying to pack peddle since it makes you sound full of yourself. Ah, but they don't normally try to belittle others, then try to brag on themselves.... You did. Unless you have been in that situation you don't know how you will react. People who think they have the upper hand tend not to be as afraid. They feel they have the ability to do something and are empowered. This is a very simple concept anyone that has had any training or experience already knows. So you still think a guy will rush a machine gun nest with a toothpick huh? "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

So you made a comment about something you knew nothing about then? There clearly is a market for it since it exists. Both sides have people that embrace it. Your attempt to claim that one side is *smarter* than the other is just partisan BS. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

1. Because some in the UK think the US is "gun crazy" and the UK has a better system. 2. Some in the US think a ban like England has would be a good idea in the US. So when a place that has a ban STILL has gun violence and gun crime... It shows that a ban is not going to stop anything. The problem is people who want to do harm... Not a tool. Prevent people from wanting to do harm, punish the people who want to do harm. Don't punish people who want to have a tool. And don't blame the tool for the users actions. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

This makes me think you have never listened to liberal radio. Both liberals and conservatives do the same things. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

You claimed it right here: "A cutting blade instills fear in you, perhaps. As I was trained, against an attacker with a knife, expect to be cut but avoid being stabbed." Great, but I know plenty of people that were trained in MA to include knives and when they were cut for the first time they froze. I also can list lots of people that were trained to deal with malfunctions, yet still made a crater or are only around due to an AAD. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

So are you Rambo? Or Master Lee "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

They were there all along... You just ignored them and went on about nuclear weapons. I have provided quotes to back my position, you have failed to produce ONE shred of data to back yours. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Yet you claim you do know... And the only evidence you have provided is your opinion. The best IS dictated by the situation, but you want to eliminate certain choices for no reason. A belt may be the best you HAVE, but it is not the best choice. BIG difference. And you fail to take into account not only the lethality, but the training requirements. While SOME may be able to disarm a guy with a knife with their bare hands (and they are VERY likely to get cut).... MOST could win that fight if given a firearm. Not a strawman... You want to claim that the PERSON is all that counts, but not many true warriors would win with just a toothpick. And yet, if one of them was armed they would be MUCH more likely to fight back. Unarmed people don't normally start fighting against an armed opponent. And you should know that a cutting blade instills fear more than most other types of weapons. Really? Seems to me that any rational person would think their life was in danger. So, you have at least three people stabbed, one with his throat cut NO communication from the hijackers.... I'd say most people would realize they were in danger. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

That was a question to you to see if you hold the same line across issues... It is pretty clear you don't AND you are fine with denying a person the right to carry a simple handgun... Based on fear, not logic. I normally would expect better from you, but you have shown you only use logic when you feel like it. Then you should actually answer it for once. Nope, you don't really read my posts do you? I am for the right to carry personal arms... Just as the founding fathers intended, based on their writings. You want to compare nuclear weapons to personal weapons is just a distraction to prevent you from having to showcase your bias. And you STILL have not been able to produce one quote where the founding fathers were against ownership. Neither has Quade, Kallend, or any other person. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

How you claim to have already answered Maybe you should read it again... since you clearly didn't understand it: "Oh, please... you didn't answer and now you are trying to act like anyone that didn't get you was not smart enough to get it. Maybe your explanation was just flat out poor, or you just didn't answer." Nope, but nice try. And still the BEST weapon is a firearm. And still the BEST weapon is a firearm. Total BS. In a civilian situation you are not going to charge a machine gun with a toothpick. You might return fire if you had a pistol. If you have a chance, you are MUCH more likely to fight back. The comedy is how you keep thinking that comment means that bans are OK. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

WRONG!!!! I made no comparison. I asked if you think that the right to free speech can be infringed at what level are you willing to infringe upon it. See, you are willing to deny a person the right to carry a weapon based on the damage he *could* do, not what he actually does, or has done in the past. Since a person could cause a problem when he exercises free speech... and since you are OK with limiting an individuals right, asking you how far you are willing to go in this case (To see if you are willing to go as far here as you are on the 2nd) is a valid line of questioning. It is not MY fault you are unwilling to answer and highlight how you hold a bias against only one of the Amendments. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The irony of that coming from you: 12/10 "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

In one you get in trouble for the act everywhere, the other just the ownership in some places. That would be like arresting someone because they *could* yell fire in a crowded theater... Not because they did. Not even close to the same. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

And you have admitted to comparing having nuclear launch codes to an individual owning a gun. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Got it, you are unwilling to answer since you know it will destroy your position. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Oh, please... you didn't answer and now you are trying to act like anyone that didn't get you was not smart enough to get it. Maybe your explanation was just flat out poor, or you just didn't answer. And yet study after study shows that when people finally realize that their life is in danger, they act. When they have the means to fight back, they act faster. Fallacy of false dilemma. You claim that there are only two options, when more exist. And the fallacy of complex question. You think that answering either way will destroy my position... But you have tried to make it so I can only answer in one of your two ways. Nice try however. The truth is I think a Gun is a tool. And that most people don't want to hurt anyone and giving them a gun will not change that... BUT, when faced with a threat they will defend themselves. When you attempt to tie that definition to a negative act it sure is. The REAL definition of vigilante says nothing about ordinary citizens out to "neutralize threats". "Doer of justice" does not equal "neutralize threats". Simply because you incorrectly assumed that a gun would not have made any difference and that anyone that needed a gun to fight off hijackers could do the same with improvised weapons. If that were true, then FAM's would not be given guns. FFDO's would not be given guns. And the FFDO are pure self defense situations. I do, it seems you don't. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Sure do you know there is a difference between a Govt action and a private action? It does not seem you do. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

I'd say no. Regrettably, we don't live in a World where people act reasonably. Without a nuke, Israel would have faced many more attacks than they have. Without both the US and Russia having Nukes, the one with a nuclear weapons would have been much more aggressive. Same thing with guns for self protection. If we could stop violent crime, there would never be a need to be able to protect yourself. N. Korea seems to think that it is worth it. So, no. In a grand World view nuclear weapons create some very bad situations. But, since we can't get the "bad guys" to agree not to use them and play nice.... Well, they still are a tool that works. I always find it funny though that people complain about the two atomic weapons the US used... Yet the US killed many, many more with traditional ordinance. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

If you think that... you might want to change your password. Someone else MUST be using you screen name then. And you somehow make the leap that nuclear launch codes are the same as some legal citizen having a pistol on him for self defense? That is not an execution, and you know it. So once arrested, would you be fine with them putting a bullet in your head? I mean they KNOW you are guilty and all. Answered above. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334