On 5 Feb 2008 18:47:15 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:19:12 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Some will love this line! -------- I am of the opinion that as
long
as
there is not persuasive studies one way or the other: I CAN NOT
SUPPORT ANTI-GUN LAWS.

Bumped your head? Didn't you exclaim and advocate government taking
of guns?

What I do believe we need is a good solid study. It appears it
would
require not just a new look at existing data, but new data
collection, collecting the data that will provide answers.

My gun has answers; simply, easy and effective.


Oren
--

Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



What I have believed was that if the data supported it, that I
would
support making private ownership of guns illegal. I do believe that
we would be better off with private ownership of guns illegal, but I
am not willing to support a change in the law forcing people to give
up their guns, based on what I believe to be true. If I knew it to
be true, then that would be different.

All the the time I have spent on this subject as changed my
thinking in
one way. I expected to find that there was good evidence to support
making guns illegal, but I have not found that. What I have found it
the evidence seems to be weak at best and about equally weighted both
ways.

Joseph:

I really think that what you said you read that you didn't really read
what the other person had said. Had you read what the other person
had said, then you would and could not say that you thought what they
had said was what they actually meant to say, but that you inferred
into what you read what they said was not really what they said at
all. And then there's the chance that what they said was actually
what they said and you missed it entirely or that you did not allow a
difference of opinion of what they said from any opinion other than
your own. And as for what you say, I am never sure of what you said,
and even when I read what you said, I can see it's what you said, but
I am never sure that you intended to say what you said because you
change what you say about what you said so many times. So, please
just say what you say, and what you said about what you said, and let
other people say what they say without the need to correct what they
said, or your perception or imperception of what they actually said.
And take into account that what they said is not actually what they
meant to say and that what you heard them say is only what you meant
to hear and not what they intended to say, but only what you wanted to
hear.

It just doesn't get any clearer than that, you blockhead.

Steve




ROTFLMAO. What a paragraph!

Really! It could be a disclaimer..put in fine print.

Oren
--