'8 yr old killed self with uzi' necropost thread closed

[swine]

imported post

A careful reading on your part of my responses and postings and debate submission will reveal to you that I said I 'CLAIM TO REPRESENT' persons like myself, who no doubt have been scared or insulted off this site by your kinds of references to'projections' and admissions of poor memory (I am 68 years old after all), etc., who don't like guns particularly and certainly don't want to encounter 'the man in the street' packing same everywhere they go.

Perhaps due to my poor memory I don't recall making any false claims of fact, etc. as you accuse me of. You're just throwing sh*t at the fan to see if any of it will stick. I don't want to talk to you anymore. I want to talk to eye95 and mcdonalk, who at least are willing to engage in reasonable debate. Goodbye.

 

[swine]

imported post

Third Armored Division, personnel administration. So no, I didn't see combat, but I was trained for it and could have seen combat if the powers that be had needed me for it. I served and I know from that how the military works even if I didn't experience actually being shot at by the 'enemy'.

 

[swine]

imported post

I don't care if you think I'm 'hinky'. I don't like slowfiveoh implying that I sat out my wars in front of the TV watching reruns while he was out there fighting and dying for my freedom, and that I therefore have nothing to say about how to defend myself or what kind of societal conventions should prevail regarding civil self defense. I earned my opinions too,just like you and slowfiveoh, so I will thank you to stop treating my like a pampered child that you big brave guys have to always go around picking up after.

 

[swine]

imported post

Sorry, you'll have to help me there. I don't get the connection. What I'm advocating, BTW, is restrictions on 'open carry', not 'gun control' per se.

Can anybody on this site explain why the Framers of the constitution put those first 14 words inthe 2nd Amendment? Why didn't they just go with the last 14 words and leave it at that? I certainly would have been simpler and amounts to what y'all think it means anyway. Why did they waste precious word space in the Constitution providing fully half the Amendment asmeanless psychobabble, or whatever you think those words represent? Any ideas about that?

 

[swine]

imported post

I agree completely that my device could be deadly to a child if they find it in a dresser drawer like I found my father's gun, but if they carried it to school like I did, they would be less likely to kill somebody else with it.

I like the air gun (or dart gun) because it might have the potential to displace many of the anachronistic firearms you guys are so enamoured of, not because I like it for it's own sake. It's sort of like replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power. I don't really like either one but I prefer the lesser of the two evils.

 

[swine]

imported post

If you take out your 'criminal on criminal' stuff like taking the 'independent voters' out of the democrat and republican parties, respectively, then my ranking of 'acquaintance violence' along side 'criminal on innocent person' violence is no longer 'glaringly false'. Why do you guys always have to resort to hyperbole like 'glaringly false' in order to make your points? It's just like shouting over your opponent. It lacks cool, dude.

 

[buster81]

imported post

swine wrote:

If you take out your 'criminal on criminal' stuff like taking the 'independent voters' out of the democrat and republican parties, respectively, then my ranking of 'acquaintance violence' along side 'criminal on innocent person' violence is no longer 'glaringly false'. Why do you guys always have to resort to hyperbole like 'glaringly false' in order to make your points? It's just like shouting over your opponent. It lacks cool, dude.

It is glaringly false because it is. Provide a citation to prove your point, or stop making it because it is wrong.

 

[swine]

imported post

I don't know where you can get an 'open carry license'. I meant that as an ironic projection into a future society where you COULD get such a license in order to try (unsuccessfully it would seem) to make the point that CHILDREN couldn't and shouldn't be allowed to get one, and therefore would remain unprotected while all the adults around them, male and female, packing lethal weapons on their persons. I didn't really think I had to paint the entire picture but I guess I should have, sorry about that.

 

[buster81]

imported post

swine wrote:

A careful reading on your part of my responses and postings and debate submission will reveal to you that I said I 'CLAIM TO REPRESENT' persons like myself, who no doubt have been scared or insulted off this site by your kinds of references to'projections' and admissions of poor memory (I am 68 years old after all), etc., who don't like guns particularly and certainly don't want to encounter 'the man in the street' packing same everywhere they go.

Perhaps due to my poor memory I don't recall making any false claims of fact, etc. as you accuse me of. You're just throwing sh*t at the fan to see if any of it will stick. I don't want to talk to you anymore. I want to talk to eye95 and mcdonalk, who at least are willing to engage in reasonable debate. Goodbye.

swine wrote:

I and those I claim to represent

Nope. Sorry. You said "I and those I claim to represent."

I'm not throwing anything at the fan. You claim to have a poor memory, yet you can remember to come back here and make an argument with "facts" you made up. Read the post and answer the questions, or don't but don't make excuses.

If you don't want to "talk" to me, then don't. Nobody is forcing you with a poison dart gun to your head are they?

 

[swine]

imported post

It is comparable. Gun death is the #2 cause of death for persons aged 10 to17, and they weren't all killed by criminals. Most of them were killed by acquaintences of one kind or another. Now you site some effing statistics for once ahole.

 

[buster81]

imported post

swine wrote:

I don't know where you can get an 'open carry license'. I meant that as an ironic projection into a future society where you COULD get such a license in order to try (unsuccessfully it would seem) to make the point that CHILDREN couldn't and shouldn't be allowed to get one, and therefore would remain unprotected while all the adults around them, male and female, packing lethal weapons on their persons. I didn't really think I had to paint the entire picture but I guess I should have, sorry about that.

The activity isn't restricted, shouldn't be and won't be as long as the people at OCDO keep up the good work. If what you brought here is the the best argument to restrict it, then I think we are ok.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

swine wrote:

Sorry, you'll have to help me there. I don't get the connection. What I'm advocating, BTW, is restrictions on 'open carry', not 'gun control' per se.

Can anybody on this site explain why the Framers of the constitution put those first 14 words inthe 2nd Amendment? Why didn't they just go with the last 14 words and leave it at that? I certainly would have been simpler and amounts to what y'all think it means anyway. Why did they waste precious word space in the Constitution providing fully half the Amendment asmeanless psychobabble, or whatever you think those words represent? Any ideas about that?

Militia is all able bodied men, regulated meant trained. The comma insures that this is an individual right and that all people need to be armed. Don't take my word for it read every quote about arms and the second amendment from the founding fathers.

They worded it this way to keep it simple and straight forward, and so that the 2A main purpose of keeping tyranny at bay, (our government) also provided the general populationa means of self defense.

 

[buster81]

imported post

swine wrote:

Can anybody on this site explain why the Framers of the constitution put those first 14 words inthe 2nd Amendment? Why didn't they just go with the last 14 words and leave it at that? I certainly would have been simpler and amounts to what y'all think it means anyway. Why did they waste precious word space in the Constitution providing fully half the Amendment asmeanless psychobabble, or whatever you think those words represent? Any ideas about that?

Reading assignment. There will be a quiz when you get done.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

 

[buster81]

imported post

swine wrote:

It is comparable. Gun death is the #2 cause of death for persons aged 10 to17, and they weren't all killed by criminals. Most of them were killed by acquaintences of one kind or another. Now you site some effing statistics for once ahole.

In other words, do my research for me. Nice.

How does this work for you:

"The St. Louis youth gang homicide rate is 1,000 times higher than the U.S. homicide rate."

S.H. Decker and B. Van Winkle, Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Your turn Mr. Temper Tantrum.

 

[swine]

imported post

Have you lost your mind?! What is the difference between "CLAIM TO REPRESENT" vs "I and those I claim to represent?" What ARE you talking about? Earth to Buster81, HELLOOOOO!

What 'facts' did I misrepresent? What 'questions' did I not answer? What 'excuses' am I making? Is there anybody home in your head but you????

 

[swine]

imported post

Ok, I guess I have to spell it out again --> Why didn't they just say, "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." ???

Howdo you guys account for them putting in the first 14 words linking that right to a well regulated militia being necessary to a free State? What were those first 14 words put in there for when the last 14 words standing alone would have achieved the same thing?

Please anwer the question instead of obvuscating as Buster18 keeps accusing me of doing.

 

[swine]

imported post

Yes, thank you for that. Proves my point -> 'youth gangs' being comprised of 'acquaintences.'

I do tend to lose my temper atsomebody accuses me of 'glaring error' when the accuser himself (or herself, sorry) is clearly the one with his/her head up his/her bum.

 

[buster81]

imported post

My grandma does this same act. Claims to forget where her glasses are, or where her hearing aid is, despite the fact she is wearing them. Claims to not remember about her pills, but can remember every fact of my childhood including what I was wearing on July 7, 1972.

 

[buster81]

imported post

swine wrote:

I do tend to lose my temper atsomebody accuses me of 'glaring error' when the accuser himself (or herself, sorry) is clearly the one with his/her head up his/her bum.

And there sir, is the reason that you project your own inadequacies onto others. Not everyone is a rage-a-holic waiting to explode.

 

[swine]

imported post

Ooooo, now we're getting 'ageist' are we? 'Grandma' I assume being equated to my announcing my age as 68?

Can you please tell me what you're talking about? What has anything here to do with your 'Grandma' losing her glasses?