On 2/19/2013 4:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

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



Hey, Ed.
Welcome back to the monkey cage.

I've recently seen the quip about how the founding fathers didn't mean
ASSAULT weapons, but their quaint muzzle loading muskets.

Only problem with that is that those WERE the assault weapons of their time.

But how about let's give the 2nd amendment a break and take a really
close look at the 10th?


And, a thought about what happens when the feds can't pay their (THEIR)
bills?


Who ya gonna call THEN?



BTW, glad to see you back as Ed.
I hated that asshole TMT persona.


Richard