On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:44:42 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...

Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it
from
being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?


VBG

So, what kind of insurance would reflect a parallel to the quip? How
about, "This insurance policy isn't needed until someone tries to
take
it away. Otherwise, you won't need it."

Great. An insurance policy that insures you against having your
insurance policy taken away. Otherwise, it isn't needed. One wonders
what value the insurance policy is, if you won't "need" it before
then
-- not if you die first, or have a heart attack first, or have your
car stolen first.

What a great and useful insurance policy! Try thinking before
engaging
your keyboard.

--
Ed Huntress

How do you know in advance that you will never need to defend
yourself? Or if awareness of your carry permit deterred a break-in?
You have only absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.


Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson. g

--
Ed Huntress