rhaig

Refrain from name calling? you must mean just like the Limbaugh's, Hannity's, the becks and the rest of the right wing mouth pieces. ah yes.... lowering yourselves to their level. fine. your choice -- Rob

yeah... stop calling me a neo-con. I'm not. I've told you before. you won't get called on it being a personal attack because it's not like saying you're a liberal sheep fucker. It's more political in nature and thus one of the allowed personal attacks that are frequently ignored by your like-minded moderators. that is all. -- Rob

Another lie - I've never said that there are no costs. Right, you just IGNORE them. Please provide links to the posts where you ever mentioned the costs to society of gun ownership, other than to dismiss them. This is rich. You, just a few posts above, noted that you specifically chose your words to mean exactly what you meant, even though in context others inferred additional meaning. Yet here, you can't take his statement as a simple statement, but insist that he show where he's mentioned something he's not talking about. You also having the same reading problem? I said he IGNORES the costs. He then said "I've never said that there are no costs." Completely consistent with what I wrote - he's never said ANYTHING about the costs, which IS ignoring them. your words are well chosen. I didn't say yours were wrong. You did say he ignores the costs. He said he never said there were no costs. Those 2 statements are perfectly consistent with each other. Then you demand that he produce links to posts where he mentioned the costs. (when you've already stated he ignored them, and he's already stated he didn't say anything about the costs) so you're asking him to produce something that both you and he have already said (and you've quoted at least twice) that he didn't write anything about. so no. there is no reading problem on my end. I don't think you have a reading problem. I don't even think you have a comprehension problem. I think you're just being stubborn. (fictional character dave: I have oranges kallend: what about the bananas?? dave: I didn't mention bananas! kallend: show me that you don't have any bananas!! dave: dude! I didn't say shit about bananas! kallend: that fucker has bananas! I told you!! dave: dave's not here man... } -- Rob

dude.... I read him saying he was wrong about that. calm down. take a step back from your caps lock. -- Rob

hunters that are taught properly don't shoot the young animals. The diseased animals are usually culled by the wildlife management folks paid by the state. I'm curious what experience or reading you have to support your position. Wildlife conservation is something I have spent some time on and would be interested in reading what you have that made you make the above statement. -- Rob

Another lie - I've never said that there are no costs. Right, you just IGNORE them. Please provide links to the posts where you ever mentioned the costs to society of gun ownership, other than to dismiss them. This is rich. You, just a few posts above, noted that you specifically chose your words to mean exactly what you meant, even though in context others inferred additional meaning. Yet here, you can't take his statement as a simple statement, but insist that he show where he's mentioned something he's not talking about. -- Rob

Convicted Felon, is TOOO broad of a brush too! My cousin, rightfully convicted for drunk driving back in 79, served his time, and now can not hunt, (his hobby and main form of putting food on teh table before that faithful night) Why take away his guns, take away his car...yes...(BTW, he has not touched another drop since that day!) And nobody else was involved, other than a tree.. first time DWI was a felony anywhere in 1979? I was 10, I didn't track those laws then. As with any convicted felon, he can ask the courts for his rights to buy and use guns to be returned. -- Rob

a few, from time to time. vs the many thousand to million defensive gun uses each year (depending who's study you believe) the argument of gun banners. are you discussing banning guns or the downsides of concealed carry. This has nothing to do with CC. Now you're a gun banner? (you've always disavowed it before) and you're more likely to be in a car accident within 5 miles of your home. Because you spend all your time there. Correlation does not equal causality. haven't read that one, but might suggest that people living in more dangerous neighborhoods are more likely to own a gun. so now you're broadening the scope of the statistics being quoted because the city-localized stats were sliding the wrong way for you? -- Rob

you could search for rhaig is goat fuck stupid and come up with many hits also. The presence of something on the internet doesn't make it true. The more prevalent presence of something on the internet doesn't make it more true or less false. It only indicates how many people are posting about it. -- Rob

quoting numbers from search results is hardly damning. Some of what's listed inside some of the results would make for interesting discussion. It's a shame you didn't dig a little deeper. However I could post google results for "amazon is goat fuck stupid" but that doesn't mean it's true. -- Rob

As they should be. so you would support repealing the 10th amendment? How about dissolving the state lines all together? become one large territory?? become a true democracy maybe? toss away this republic we have... let's go with majority rule eh? Limit the 10th greatly, esp on social issues. True democracy on some issues, esp social funding; you'd see a lot more people turning out to vote for social benefits. Keep state lines, limit the night/day desires of some. as for limiting the 10th, I think we already have laws and amendments in place to cover most of that. of course you'd have the lowest 51% income earners turning out to vote for the guy to give them free shit. I hate to use the bread and circuses quote, but social is the last place we should have a true democracy. -- Rob

As they should be. so you would support repealing the 10th amendment? How about dissolving the state lines all together? become one large territory?? become a true democracy maybe? toss away this republic we have... let's go with majority rule eh? -- Rob

what about former Mexican military with special forces training in organized units on the other side of the border moving in vehicle convoys protecting cargo with automatic weapons fire as it moves across the border? (yes, I think it would be silly, but I'm pointing out the very slight, although important, semantic difference between my described situation and "Mexican troops") -- Rob

you're an intelligent man. You'd think you'd be welcoming John to the group of people that think the patriot act is a steaming pile of shit for it's erosion of our civil rights. Instead you crap on his newly found opinion making him pay oh so much attention to you. (oh wait... no... that was sarcasm) You're not much into changing anyones opinions on discussion topics are you. -- Rob

Then offer something productive about the topic at hand. It is the PERFECT example of the law of unintended consequences. Any ill thought out meddling in a complex system will create unanticipated and often undesirable consequences as seen with the turd known as the Patriot Act. It appears that those who supported said turd are having second thoughts about that support. Pardon me while I gloat with a HUGE I TOLD YOU SO you know... I many times thought a couple of not-nice words about you in the above replies and kept them to myself. I decided I might have been wrong in thinking those things. It appears I wasn't. I'll still keep my opinion to myself, but if you're trying to convince anyone you're capable of rational thought, you're going about it the wrong way. Awww did I step on someones last nerve not at all... you remind me of this militant vegan chick I know. she's all condescending about veganism being right, and how her vegan body-builder buddy (not her husband) is such a man. All it does is stifle discussion and make any logical point she might have rendered impotent because nobody listens to what she says anymore. She reminds me of you... I don't know if you've made any logical point because I'm really not listening anymore. -- Rob

Then offer something productive about the topic at hand. It is the PERFECT example of the law of unintended consequences. Any ill thought out meddling in a complex system will create unanticipated and often undesirable consequences as seen with the turd known as the Patriot Act. It appears that those who supported said turd are having second thoughts about that support. Pardon me while I gloat with a HUGE I TOLD YOU SO you know... I many times thought a couple of not-nice words about you in the above replies and kept them to myself. I decided I might have been wrong in thinking those things. It appears I wasn't. I'll still keep my opinion to myself, but if you're trying to convince anyone you're capable of rational thought, you're going about it the wrong way. -- Rob

sorry you're still all butt-hurt about getting called names so long ago. either that you're still trying to prove your worth to this group. whichever. -- Rob

I'm sure you're making sense in your own mind. I'm done here. -- Rob

an implication of lack of support even when taken out of context. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3695554;search_string=patriot;#3695554 ("held up" in context is clearly meaning postponed) *** Sorry but a conservative Texican.... who posts vociferously on the second amendment.... apparently a supporter of capital punishment... other posts certainly on issues that are near and dear to conservatives little hearts..... color me not convinced for non-support of Bush, Ashroft and their policies including the Patriot Act so now you're calling me a liar? and making more assumptions... we talked about that (or I did.. you may not have understood) I supported bush for about the first 60% of his presidency. Mostly it took me that long because I was too fucking busy to keep up with the news. I make more of an effort since. I never supported the patriot act. If you'd actually read both of the posts I made containing the word, you might have known that. But I don't want to bother you. -- Rob

that objection would carry more weight if it didn't have equal support from Diane Feinstein and pass overwhelmingly. And Reno didn't exactly show herself to be well above that dumbass from MO at times. I have actually contacted my senators and representatives about ridding our contry of that travesty..... HAVE YOU???? hey... look who thinks she's holier than thou. (based off of an assumption no less) I have actually contacted my senators and representatives about ridding our contry of that travesty..... HAVE YOU???? Oh..................... that would be a no.. based on past posting history again... making assumptions. and you're wrong. I most certainly contacted my senators and my representative about the patriot act as soon as it was made public. It was clear how it eroded the rights of citizens. since you know me (and apparently my posting history) so well, I'm sure you can find a post where I've supported the patriot act. -- Rob

that objection would carry more weight if it didn't have equal support from Diane Feinstein and pass overwhelmingly. And Reno didn't exactly show herself to be well above that dumbass from MO at times. I have actually contacted my senators and representatives about ridding our contry of that travesty..... HAVE YOU???? hey... look who thinks she's holier than thou. (based off of an assumption no less) -- Rob

putting them in buses and driving them back where they came from. I think none of this would be an issue if North Korea did that. you were trying to draw a parallel? -- Rob

Then why did you post only one year of data yourself? Then why did you try to imply that CCW cities are more dangerous by bringing up Dallas? Answer: To illustrate the stupidity of JohnRich trying to make a claim based on 1 year of data. I actually made no such claim. What I wrote was "Dallas's homicide rate doesn't look so great." Your imagination filled in the rest. perhaps it was aided by your past arguments that concealed carry doesn't reduce violent crime. You point us to history so often, yet you seem to forget your own. -- Rob

yeah... I had a full reply all typed up. but you're wasting my time. here... I'll save you the trouble of typing it: Lucky: look... another neo-con that couldn't support his argument and had to walk away. (yes, you've become that predictable... sad really) -- Rob

well I wasn't arguing... I was commenting on that verse because the memory came back and I thought I'd share. and yeah, thread drift is a bitch ain't it. Get used to it. -- Rob