Ed Ames
Member
David E... I read 'em, I understand 'em, I just don't AGREE with them. And if I don't agree, I'm not going to say I do. If they are minor (or repetitious) I'll ignore them, otherwise I'm going to say why I think they are wrong.
We've been over this. You keep repeating errors. DamnitBoy made a couple of multi-paragraph posts that boil down to, "Maybe if you use shorter sentences....", and maybe he's right, but I don't think that's the problem. So I'll just smile to myself.
I had to think about the Apologist charge. Not your imagined conversation...I make no bones about what guns are designed to do and I have a personal hang-up about having all of my weapons work, and work well. But who knows...
To assess your claims I did a quick search back through my posts here on THR and I happened to find this, from 2007:
No "guns are for self defense" from me back then either.
But yeah, I see where you are coming from. I'm clearly the sort of person who claims that guns aren't really dangerous because guns are only for fun.
We've been over this. You keep repeating errors. DamnitBoy made a couple of multi-paragraph posts that boil down to, "Maybe if you use shorter sentences....", and maybe he's right, but I don't think that's the problem. So I'll just smile to myself.
I had to think about the Apologist charge. Not your imagined conversation...I make no bones about what guns are designed to do and I have a personal hang-up about having all of my weapons work, and work well. But who knows...
To assess your claims I did a quick search back through my posts here on THR and I happened to find this, from 2007:
Here's a thought for you.... The 2A says "Well regulated militia" and everyone today thinks that means that the people can have arms for militia use. Think of it another way... a way that is far more in keeping with the rest of the constitution: How do you regulate (control) a body of armed men under government orders? Think in terms of checks and balances. What is the balance to armed men? How would Jefferson approach the problem? Maybe the answer was, "balance armed soldiers with an armed populous who can kill them if they step out of line." That's how I read the 2A... the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed because an armed PEOPLE are the counterbalance to the state militias."
The 2a suddenly becomes "because the state armed forces need to be CONTROLLED for the security of a FREE state the right of the PEOPLE not in the armed forces to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No "guns are for self defense" from me back then either.
But yeah, I see where you are coming from. I'm clearly the sort of person who claims that guns aren't really dangerous because guns are only for fun.