I'm glad you recognized that "Dangerous People + Dangerous Weapons = Bad Idea" sign.
I'm sure you are going to start posting now about the dangers of knives. Follow along with the example of the formerGreat Britain. After all, no one can deny that knives aren't dangerous weapons, right?
The church attack in Illinois shows that knives are dangerous.
See, the problem comes when you start trying to define what "dangerous" means. Should we ban air powered nail guns...certainly those are dangerous weapons.
Knives of course, swords -guess people don't need to learn fencing, an item on my bucket list. Not going to deny that swords are dangerous are you?
Then the even stickier wicket of defining dangerous people comes up. Guess we would have to make sure even you are completely disarmed, right?
Surprised I included you? You are a former Marine; hand to hand combat training, right? Isn't that dangerous? Didn't you train with knives also during boot camp?
You've also admitted that you would, could, might, in some circumstances see your way to defending your family. Doesn't that make you dangerous?
After all, we can't have people fighting back against criminals...the criminals might get hurt. See the newspaper articles and court cases in the country known as formerlyGreat Britain.
So Mike; want to take a shot at defining dangerous weapons and dangerous people?
Bob asked, "So Mike; want to take a shot at defining dangerous weapons and dangerous people?"
No, I don't. The reason I don't is because everyone knows what we're talking about, even you. But what you're doing is feigning some difficulty in understanding in order to set up a sophisticated trap for me, which by answering the question, I would fall into.
For crying out loud, if you have a point, Bob, just make it.
No, I don't. The reason I don't is because everyone knows what we're talking about, even you.
i don't. i'm stupid, and English is my third language, so it's very easy for me to misunderstand and miscommunicate in it.
but if you do, then you're capable of explaining it. and i don't see how it would hurt you to explain, just so that there's no misunderstandings, what with us non-native speakers in the debate, you know.
The point is you no jack shit about what you are posting daily on.
How is that for making a point???
You want to talk about keeping "dangerous weapons" from "dangerous people" but you can't, won't or are lying about what those definitions are?
Would you ban fertilizer? How about fuel oil?
Those are dangerous weapons. Wonder if you even have a clue as to what I'm referring to.
See Mike, this is where I call you a liar and have evidence.
You say: But what you're doing is feigning some difficulty in understanding in order to set up a sophisticated trap for me, which by answering the question, I would fall into.
But in my previous comment (did you bother to read all of it?) I talked about what is dangerous weapons and what defines dangerous people in my mind. I LISTED SOME OF THE ITEMS. Things you totally blew off thinking I was setting a trap.
Nope, just trying to get you to commit to something. You won't commit to what laws should be put in place. You won't commit to what should be done about keeping people's rights.
You keep dancing around subject after subject and won't commit.
You and I can have very different ideas of what is dangerous. Lord knows I think so of Thomas' hand cannons are dangerous....but that only means to me that they are dangerous to shoot without a 6 month strength training program. Not that I want to ban them. What is dangerous for one person is completely safe and sane for another.
Want to go rock climbing? Para-sailing? Sky Diving? Scuba Diving? Are those dangerous? To the untrained yes, to someone experienced, not at all.
You were a Marine, trained in hand to hand combat. Trained in handling firearms, does that make you dangerous? Should we ban people like you from having firearms because of how dangerous you are. This I wrote before.
So, since you are developing a national consensus on gun control, let's define what you mean by: Dangerous weapons Dangerous people
Make no mistake about it, conversations like this are developing a national consensus. This is where democracy works and starts.
You are trying to take away our rights....I'm trying to make sure if that happens it is because more then warm feelings and fuzzy logic.
They aren't lying here...they didn't say anything. That is a minute and a half of my life I won't get back.
ReplyDeleteActually I thought they said a lot. "Gun violence is a national epidemic." "Dangerous weapons plus dangerous people = a bad idea." "Take action."
ReplyDeleteAren't they things we all agree upon? The trouble begins when we start talking about what action needs to be taken, am I right?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you recognized that "Dangerous People + Dangerous Weapons = Bad Idea" sign.
I'm sure you are going to start posting now about the dangers of knives. Follow along with the example of the formerGreat Britain. After all, no one can deny that knives aren't dangerous weapons, right?
The church attack in Illinois shows that knives are dangerous.
See, the problem comes when you start trying to define what "dangerous" means. Should we ban air powered nail guns...certainly those are dangerous weapons.
Knives of course, swords -guess people don't need to learn fencing, an item on my bucket list. Not going to deny that swords are dangerous are you?
Then the even stickier wicket of defining dangerous people comes up. Guess we would have to make sure even you are completely disarmed, right?
Surprised I included you? You are a former Marine; hand to hand combat training, right? Isn't that dangerous?
Didn't you train with knives also during boot camp?
You've also admitted that you would, could, might, in some circumstances see your way to defending your family. Doesn't that make you dangerous?
After all, we can't have people fighting back against criminals...the criminals might get hurt. See the newspaper articles and court cases in the country known as formerlyGreat Britain.
So Mike; want to take a shot at defining dangerous weapons and dangerous people?
Bob asked, "So Mike; want to take a shot at defining dangerous weapons and dangerous people?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't. The reason I don't is because everyone knows what we're talking about, even you. But what you're doing is feigning some difficulty in understanding in order to set up a sophisticated trap for me, which by answering the question, I would fall into.
For crying out loud, if you have a point, Bob, just make it.
No, I don't. The reason I don't is because everyone knows what we're talking about, even you.
ReplyDeletei don't. i'm stupid, and English is my third language, so it's very easy for me to misunderstand and miscommunicate in it.
but if you do, then you're capable of explaining it. and i don't see how it would hurt you to explain, just so that there's no misunderstandings, what with us non-native speakers in the debate, you know.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe point is you no jack shit about what you are posting daily on.
How is that for making a point???
You want to talk about keeping "dangerous weapons" from "dangerous people" but you can't, won't or are lying about what those definitions are?
Would you ban fertilizer? How about fuel oil?
Those are dangerous weapons. Wonder if you even have a clue as to what I'm referring to.
See Mike, this is where I call you a liar and have evidence.
You say:
But what you're doing is feigning some difficulty in understanding in order to set up a sophisticated trap for me, which by answering the question, I would fall into.
But in my previous comment (did you bother to read all of it?) I talked about what is dangerous weapons and what defines dangerous people in my mind. I LISTED SOME OF THE ITEMS. Things you totally blew off thinking I was setting a trap.
Nope, just trying to get you to commit to something. You won't commit to what laws should be put in place. You won't commit to what should be done about keeping people's rights.
You keep dancing around subject after subject and won't commit.
You and I can have very different ideas of what is dangerous. Lord knows I think so of Thomas' hand cannons are dangerous....but that only means to me that they are dangerous to shoot without a 6 month strength training program. Not that I want to ban them. What is dangerous for one person is completely safe and sane for another.
Want to go rock climbing? Para-sailing? Sky Diving? Scuba Diving? Are those dangerous? To the untrained yes, to someone experienced, not at all.
You were a Marine, trained in hand to hand combat. Trained in handling firearms, does that make you dangerous? Should we ban people like you from having firearms because of how dangerous you are. This I wrote before.
So, since you are developing a national consensus on gun control, let's define what you mean by:
Dangerous weapons
Dangerous people
Make no mistake about it, conversations like this are developing a national consensus. This is where democracy works and starts.
You are trying to take away our rights....I'm trying to make sure if that happens it is because more then warm feelings and fuzzy logic.
Define dangerous weapons and dangerous people
Two new posts and Mike doesn't both to come back and define dangerous weapons and people.
ReplyDeleteRunning from the issue again Mike?
Bob, I repeat, "For crying out loud, if you have a point, Bob, just make it."
ReplyDeleteOh I think he made his points quite clearly Mike, you just refuse to counter them.
ReplyDelete