On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:11:05 -0500, Upscale
wrote:

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:46:23 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
As is the case with all of the emotional non-thinking anti-gun folks out
there. If they stopped the bleed from their heart for just a moment, and
thought just a little bit about the nice fuzzy stuff they were spouting,
they'd realize the folly of it all. The bad guys scare them, so because
they don't know how to deal with that, they seek to legislate the good guys.
Just plain dumb.

Ask yourself where the guns come from that the criminals have? The
obvious answer is that they come from people like you who insist on
their right to ownership.

It's been admitted time and time again that the criminals don't
usually buy legal guns. So where do they get them then?
The only answer is that guns are either stolen from legal gun owners
or they're brought into the country. What if legal ownership was
terminated and border control was increased? Where would the criminal
element get their guns from when their source dries up?

People keep insisting with their cockeyed logic, that if legal
ownership of guns was outlawed, then only the criminals would have
guns. The sad fact is that without legal owners of guns to initiate
the process of guns being brought into the community, the criminal
element wouldn't be able to get guns. That's just common sense.

I fully realize that it's highly unlikely that gun ownership will ever
be outlawed in the US. The fact is that many of you are too high and
mighty on personal rights and too lacking on common sense. Universal
gun ownership is just part of that lack of common sense. And, that's
your cross to bear.


to that logic I reply..... we couldnt stop 20 million illegal aliens
how the hell we gonna stop illegal guns from getting in?

skeez [who aint gonna let you have his guns]

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:39:18 -0500, skeez
wrote:
to that logic I reply..... we couldnt stop 20 million illegal aliens
how the hell we gonna stop illegal guns from getting in?

And to your answer I reply...... It's got to start somewhere. Just
because the task is extremely daunting or extremly difficult doesn't
for one second suggest that it shouldn't be attempted.

With the logic attached to your reply, why have laws for anything? And
to that I say because it's the right thing to do.

So what's next. All the guns are gone, and now the stabbing begins a
curve upwards.

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:39:18 -0500, skeez
wrote:
to that logic I reply..... we couldnt stop 20 million illegal aliens
how the hell we gonna stop illegal guns from getting in?

And to your answer I reply...... It's got to start somewhere. Just
because the task is extremely daunting or extremly difficult doesn't
for one second suggest that it shouldn't be attempted.

Banning possession of firearms won't stop criminals from getting them, any
more than banning possesion of drugs stops addicts from getting *them*.

That's attacking the problem in the wrong place, anyway: the existence of
guns, in and of itself, isn't a problem. Neither is their possession. The
problem is *misuse* of them. Put people who misuse them in jail and keep them
there, and the problem largely disappears.

On 2/2/2010 11:45 AM, Robatoy wrote:
So what's next. All the guns are gone, and now the stabbing begins a
curve upwards.

Are we to the point of banning pointy sticks yet?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:22:16 -0500, Upscale
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:39:18 -0500, skeez
wrote:
to that logic I reply..... we couldnt stop 20 million illegal aliens
how the hell we gonna stop illegal guns from getting in?

And to your answer I reply...... It's got to start somewhere. Just
because the task is extremely daunting or extremly difficult doesn't
for one second suggest that it shouldn't be attempted.

With the logic attached to your reply, why have laws for anything? And
to that I say because it's the right thing to do.

why does it have to stop? I live in a CC state and crime is low
compared to some of the nanny states that do not allow CC. guns dont
kill people.... people do. I for one don't want to watch as a rapist
does his deed on my wife or daughter powerless to do anything to stop
it. I may not be able to stop him, but I at least will have the tools
to try! will you? force will be met with force in my home and anyone
trying to take my fighting chance away is my enemy. I hope I never
have to use my guns to kill or mame another human being but if it is
him or me I would rather be the one left standing. anti-gun people
just don't get it untill it happens to them.

skeez

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:26:31 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
That's attacking the problem in the wrong place, anyway: the existence of
guns, in and of itself, isn't a problem. Neither is their possession. The
problem is *misuse* of them. Put people who misuse them in jail and keep them
there, and the problem largely disappears.

The US already has an exceptionally large (and extremely expensive to
run) prison population. Putting people away for extended periods would
cost your country more than it could afford.

But it would solve the gun problem. Taxes would go up so much nobody
would have money for firearms. Good solution Doug!

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:32:25 -0600, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Are we to the point of banning pointy sticks yet?

Depends. Are you prepared to have your pointy sticks licensed?

On Feb 2, 1:32*pm, Morris Dovey wrote:
On 2/2/2010 11:45 AM, Robatoy wrote:

So what's next. All the guns are gone, and now the stabbing begins a
curve upwards.

Are we to the point of banning pointy sticks yet?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USAhttp://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Opposing thumbs will be outlawed as they cause strangulation!

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
So what's next. All the guns are gone, and now the stabbing begins a
curve upwards.


Mario Cuomo, then governor of New York, made a speech after a highly
publicized stabbing saying that the recent stabbing showed the need for more
gun control.
Liberal thinking at its finest.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
On 2/2/2010 11:45 AM, Robatoy wrote:
So what's next. All the guns are gone, and now the stabbing begins a
curve upwards.

Are we to the point of banning pointy sticks yet?

Don't give them any ideas.

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:26:31 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
That's attacking the problem in the wrong place, anyway: the existence of
guns, in and of itself, isn't a problem. Neither is their possession. The
problem is *misuse* of them. Put people who misuse them in jail and keep them
there, and the problem largely disappears.

The US already has an exceptionally large (and extremely expensive to
run) prison population. Putting people away for extended periods would
cost your country more than it could afford.

A very large part of the reason we have such an exceptionally large prison
population is the absolutely insane policy of jailing drug users who are
demonstrably harming nobody other than themselves.

Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by removing
from our midst those who cause harm to others. If Joe Blow wants to get stoned
in the privacy of his living room, it's no business of mine or the rest of
society's. He's harming no one save possibly himself, and there is no
justification whatever for making this a crime.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

A very large part of the reason we have such an exceptionally large
prison population is the absolutely insane policy of jailing drug
users who are demonstrably harming nobody other than themselves.

Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others. If Joe Blow
wants to get stoned in the privacy of his living room, it's no
business of mine or the rest of society's. He's harming no one save
possibly himself, and there is no justification whatever for making
this a crime.

I agree. We should help him kick the habit.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article , Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

A very large part of the reason we have such an exceptionally large
prison population is the absolutely insane policy of jailing drug
users who are demonstrably harming nobody other than themselves.

Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others. If Joe Blow
wants to get stoned in the privacy of his living room, it's no
business of mine or the rest of society's. He's harming no one save
possibly himself, and there is no justification whatever for making
this a crime.

I agree. We should help him kick the habit.

Why?
a) What if he doesn't want to?
b) Even if he does, why is that anyone's responsibility but his?

Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

A very large part of the reason we have such an exceptionally large
prison population is the absolutely insane policy of jailing drug
users who are demonstrably harming nobody other than themselves.

Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others. If Joe Blow
wants to get stoned in the privacy of his living room, it's no
business of mine or the rest of society's. He's harming no one save
possibly himself, and there is no justification whatever for making
this a crime.

I agree. We should help him kick the habit.

No, we should leave him alone unless he _asks_ for help.

"Han" wrote in message
...
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

A very large part of the reason we have such an exceptionally large
prison population is the absolutely insane policy of jailing drug
users who are demonstrably harming nobody other than themselves.

Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others. If Joe Blow
wants to get stoned in the privacy of his living room, it's no
business of mine or the rest of society's. He's harming no one save
possibly himself, and there is no justification whatever for making
this a crime.

I agree. We should help him kick the habit.

You assume that he wants to. Some do, most don't. If he doesn't want to, the
only way to ensure that he does is to keep him locked up.

Upscale wrote:

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:39:18 -0500, skeez
wrote:
to that logic I reply..... we couldnt stop 20 million illegal aliens
how the hell we gonna stop illegal guns from getting in?

And to your answer I reply...... It's got to start somewhere. Just
because the task is extremely daunting or extremly difficult doesn't
for one second suggest that it shouldn't be attempted.


No, but the fact that your "solution" now exposes millions of law abiding
citizens as unarmed victims to those who didn't give up their arms more than
suggests that this is not a good idea that any thinking person would
entertain attempting.

With the logic attached to your reply, why have laws for anything? And
to that I say because it's the right thing to do.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

skeez wrote:

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:22:16 -0500, Upscale
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:39:18 -0500, skeez
wrote:
to that logic I reply..... we couldnt stop 20 million illegal aliens
how the hell we gonna stop illegal guns from getting in?

And to your answer I reply...... It's got to start somewhere. Just
because the task is extremely daunting or extremly difficult doesn't
for one second suggest that it shouldn't be attempted.

With the logic attached to your reply, why have laws for anything? And
to that I say because it's the right thing to do.

why does it have to stop? I live in a CC state and crime is low
compared to some of the nanny states that do not allow CC. guns dont
kill people.... people do. I for one don't want to watch as a rapist
does his deed on my wife or daughter powerless to do anything to stop
it. I may not be able to stop him, but I at least will have the tools
to try! will you? force will be met with force in my home and anyone
trying to take my fighting chance away is my enemy. I hope I never
have to use my guns to kill or mame another human being but if it is
him or me I would rather be the one left standing. anti-gun people
just don't get it untill it happens to them.

Just to move this from academic to application:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6684 There are other references to
this event, this was the first one that came up



skeez

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:32:35 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
I agree. We should help him kick the habit.

Why?
a) What if he doesn't want to?
b) Even if he does, why is that anyone's responsibility but his?

By your glib answer, can I assume that you're fine with addicts doing
whatever is necessary to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't
affect you?

And so, you must also be fine with addicts stealing and destroying
families to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't affect you.

Quite the selfish outlook you have there Doug.

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:32:35 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
I agree. We should help him kick the habit.

Why?
a) What if he doesn't want to?
b) Even if he does, why is that anyone's responsibility but his?

By your glib answer, can I assume that you're fine with addicts doing
whatever is necessary to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't
affect you?

No, you may not assume that. You may assume that I'm fine with addicts doing
whatever is necessary to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't cause
harm to _anyone else_.

And so, you must also be fine with addicts stealing and destroying
families to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't affect you.

Incorrect again; see above.

Quite the selfish outlook you have there Doug.

Quite the set of assumptions you've made there. And with so little basis, too.

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:50:24 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
And so, you must also be fine with addicts stealing and destroying
families to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't affect you.

Quite the selfish outlook you have there Doug.

Quite the set of assumptions you've made there. And with so little basis, too.

It's assumptions based entirely on your stating you don't care what
addicts do. Your exact words. As usual, you fail to justify those
words.

Just how exactly do you think addicts feed their habits? Where do they
get the money to buy their drugs? How exactly do the actions of
addicts leave their familys unaffected?

You like making all sorts of grandiose statements, but then you
continually fall flat on your face in your attempt to justify those
statements.

In other words, as usual, you're full of ****. It's quite apparent you
base your ridiculous statements on your need to see your comments in
print. Quite the sad little world you live in.

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:50:24 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
And so, you must also be fine with addicts stealing and destroying
families to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't affect you.

Quite the selfish outlook you have there Doug.

Quite the set of assumptions you've made there. And with so little basis, too.

It's assumptions based entirely on your stating you don't care what
addicts do. Your exact words. As usual, you fail to justify those
words.

Liar. I did not say that. You claim those are my "exact words" -- fine. Quote
the post where I supposedly wrote that, or retract your lie.

Just how exactly do you think addicts feed their habits? Where do they
get the money to buy their drugs?

Had you stopped to consider that the price would likely be much lower if the
drugs could be obtained legally? How many people need to steal to support an
alcohol or tobacco habit?

How exactly do the actions of
addicts leave their familys unaffected?

If an addict's actions are affecting his family, isn't it *their* job to do
something about it?

You like making all sorts of grandiose statements, but then you
continually fall flat on your face in your attempt to justify those
statements.

Oh, and you didn't just fall flat on your face by claiming my "exact words"
were something I never said?

In other words, as usual, you're full of ****. It's quite apparent you
base your ridiculous statements on your need to see your comments in
print. Quite the sad little world you live in.

I'm quite content with the world I live in -- in stark contrast to yours,
where you need to deliberately distort the words and positions of those with
whom you disagree, in order to justify your own.

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:58:11 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
Liar. I did not say that. You claim those are my "exact words" -- fine. Quote
the post where I supposedly wrote that, or retract your lie.

No, you may not assume that. You may assume that I'm fine with addicts doing
whatever is necessary to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't cause
harm to _anyone else_.

That's your statement above. It states categorically you're fine with
addicts doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause harm to
anyone else. What you fail to admit is that for most addicts, the
support of their habit *does* cause harm to others, directly and
indirectly. And the longer that habit lasts, the greater chance of
repercussion to others.

I've caught you lying in the past several times and you're doing it
again in this thread, just not as directly this time as when I caught
you lying to me when we were were discussing guns in the past.

You're feeble attempts to be clever almost always show you to be
decidedly untruthful.

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:58:11 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
Liar. I did not say that. You claim those are my "exact words" -- fine. Quote
the post where I supposedly wrote that, or retract your lie.

No, you may not assume that. You may assume that I'm fine with addicts doing
whatever is necessary to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't cause
harm to _anyone else_.

That's your statement above. It states categorically you're fine with
addicts doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause harm to
anyone else. What you fail to admit is that for most addicts, the
support of their habit *does* cause harm to others, directly and
indirectly. And the longer that habit lasts, the greater chance of
repercussion to others.

Like I said: you're a liar. I did not write what you claimed I wrote.

You're putting words in my mouth, then criticizing me for what *you* wrote.

..

Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:32:35 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
I agree. We should help him kick the habit.

Why?
a) What if he doesn't want to?
b) Even if he does, why is that anyone's responsibility but his?

By your glib answer, can I assume that you're fine with addicts doing
whatever is necessary to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't
affect you?

And so, you must also be fine with addicts stealing and destroying
families to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't affect you.

so, there are no wealthy addicts? how about wall street coke users? bankers?
lawyers? hollywood or rock stars? i would presume that they could afford
their habits without affecting anyone else, and the time to intervene is
when they DO affect someone besides themselves.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...


That's your statement above. It states categorically you're fine with
addicts doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause harm to
anyone else. What you fail to admit is that for most addicts, the
support of their habit *does* cause harm to others, directly and
indirectly. And the longer that habit lasts, the greater chance of
repercussion to others.


Everything has an effect on others. Of course it cannot be argued that an
addiction has no affect on others, but that is not the point that was
originally taken, and you are somewhat stretching this to where it is now.
I think it would be beneficial for you to clarify your use of terms, since
they are vague at the best. What do you mean when you make the statement
that their habit does cause harm to others? The context of that statement
has a lot to do with the origin of this part of the conversation. If you
can't tie it directly to a previous assertion, then it's nothing more than a
red-herring. It might be inarguable in one context, but can equally be
irrelelevant.



--

-Mike-

On Feb 3, 2:32 pm, "Mike Marlow" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message

...



That's your statement above. It states categorically you're fine with
addicts doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause harm to
anyone else. What you fail to admit is that for most addicts, the
support of their habit *does* cause harm to others, directly and
indirectly. And the longer that habit lasts, the greater chance of
repercussion to others.

Everything has an effect on others. Of course it cannot be argued that an
addiction has no affect on others, but that is not the point that was
originally taken, and you are somewhat stretching this to where it is now.
I think it would be beneficial for you to clarify your use of terms, since
they are vague at the best. What do you mean when you make the statement
that their habit does cause harm to others? The context of that statement
has a lot to do with the origin of this part of the conversation. If you
can't tie it directly to a previous assertion, then it's nothing more than a
red-herring. It might be inarguable in one context, but can equally be
irrelelevant.

--

-Mike-


If I, as a passer-by read the following:

A very large part of the reason we have such an exceptionally large prison
population is the absolutely insane policy of jailing drug users who are
demonstrably harming nobody other than themselves.
Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by removing
from our midst those who cause harm to others.

and in particular:

If Joe Blow wants to get stoned
in the privacy of his living room, it's no business of mine or the rest of
society's. He's harming no one save possibly himself, and there is no
justification whatever for making this a crime.

*I* would think that the above paragraphs supplied their own context
and clearly state that the drug-user (even within the parameters set
by Miller) is no cost to society. IOW, keep him/her away from Miller
and all is well.
That is what I read, that is what Upscale read, and THAT is what
Miller, as per his usual self, is trying back-pedal away from. Just
another typical Miller flare-up. It seems he doesn't have much else to
do than nit-picking semantics....and...of course, back-peddling.

r

Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 3, 2:32 pm, "Mike Marlow" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message

...



That's your statement above. It states categorically you're fine
with addicts doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause
harm to anyone else. What you fail to admit is that for most
addicts, the support of their habit *does* cause harm to others,
directly and indirectly. And the longer that habit lasts, the
greater chance of repercussion to others.

Everything has an effect on others. Of course it cannot be argued
that an addiction has no affect on others, but that is not the point
that was originally taken, and you are somewhat stretching this to
where it is now. I think it would be beneficial for you to clarify
your use of terms, since they are vague at the best. What do you
mean when you make the statement that their habit does cause harm to
others? The context of that statement has a lot to do with the
origin of this part of the conversation. If you can't tie it
directly to a previous assertion, then it's nothing more than a
red-herring. It might be inarguable in one context, but can equally
be irrelelevant.

--

-Mike-


If I, as a passer-by read the following:

A very large part of the reason we have such an exceptionally large
prison population is the absolutely insane policy of jailing drug
users who are demonstrably harming nobody other than themselves.
Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others.

and in particular:

If Joe Blow wants to get stoned
in the privacy of his living room, it's no business of mine or the
rest of society's. He's harming no one save possibly himself, and
there is no justification whatever for making this a crime.

*I* would think that the above paragraphs supplied their own context
and clearly state that the drug-user (even within the parameters set
by Miller) is no cost to society. IOW, keep him/her away from Miller
and all is well.
That is what I read, that is what Upscale read, and THAT is what
Miller, as per his usual self, is trying back-pedal away from. Just
another typical Miller flare-up. It seems he doesn't have much else to
do than nit-picking semantics....and...of course, back-peddling.

r

the statements

Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others.

don't say miller specifically; they say 'others'. to misconstrue that into
it meaing personally affecting the poster is not semantics.

On Feb 3, 4:21*pm, "chaniarts"
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 3, 2:32 pm, "Mike Marlow" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message

. ..

That's your statement above. It states categorically you're fine
with addicts doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause
harm to anyone else. What you fail to admit is that for most
addicts, the support of their habit *does* cause harm to others,
directly and indirectly. And the longer that habit lasts, the
greater chance of repercussion to others.

Everything has an effect on others. *Of course it cannot be argued
that an addiction has no affect on others, but that is not the point
that was originally taken, and you are somewhat stretching this to
where it is now. I think it would be beneficial for you to clarify
your use of terms, since they are vague at the best. *What do you
mean when you make the statement that their habit does cause harm to
others? *The context of that statement has a lot to do with the
origin of this part of the conversation. *If you can't tie it
directly to a previous assertion, then it's nothing more than a
red-herring. *It might be inarguable in one context, but can equally
be irrelelevant.

--

-Mike-


If I, as a passer-by read the following:

A very large part of the reason we have such an exceptionally large
prison population is the absolutely insane policy of jailing drug
users who are demonstrably harming nobody other than themselves.
Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others.

and in particular:

If Joe Blow wants to get stoned
in the privacy of his living room, it's no business of mine or the
rest of society's. He's harming no one save possibly himself, and
there is no justification whatever for making this a crime.

*I* would think that the above paragraphs supplied their own context
and clearly state that the drug-user (even within the parameters set
by Miller) is no cost to society. IOW, keep him/her away from Miller
and all is well.
That is what I read, that is what Upscale read, and THAT is what
Miller, as per his usual self, is trying back-pedal away from. Just
another typical Miller flare-up. It seems he doesn't have much else to
do than nit-picking semantics....and...of course, back-peddling.

r

the statements

Prisons [should] exist for one reason only: to protect society by
removing from our midst those who cause harm to others.

don't say miller specifically; they say 'others'. to misconstrue that into
it meaing personally affecting the poster is not semantics.

It is clear what Miller means and he is well known to throw around
deliberate vagaries, just to back-pedal when called on them. It is his
profile. That is what he does.

It is his method to blur the line between what he says and what he
means.

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:35:40 -0500, the infamous skeez
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:22:16 -0500, Upscale
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:39:18 -0500, skeez
wrote:
to that logic I reply..... we couldnt stop 20 million illegal aliens
how the hell we gonna stop illegal guns from getting in?

And to your answer I reply...... It's got to start somewhere. Just
because the task is extremely daunting or extremly difficult doesn't
for one second suggest that it shouldn't be attempted.

With the logic attached to your reply, why have laws for anything? And
to that I say because it's the right thing to do.

why does it have to stop? I live in a CC state and crime is low
compared to some of the nanny states that do not allow CC. guns dont
kill people.... people do. I for one don't want to watch as a rapist
does his deed on my wife or daughter powerless to do anything to stop
it. I may not be able to stop him, but I at least will have the tools
to try! will you? force will be met with force in my home and anyone
trying to take my fighting chance away is my enemy. I hope I never
have to use my guns to kill or mame another human being but if it is
him or me I would rather be the one left standing. anti-gun people
just don't get it untill it happens to them.

http://fwd4.me/ELU bseg

http://fwd4.me/ELW 2 million reasons NOT to ban firearms.

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...


It is clear what Miller means and he is well known to throw around
deliberate vagaries, just to back-pedal when called on them. It is his
profile. That is what he does.

It is his method to blur the line between what he says and what he
means.

I've been following this thread with keen interest because I am a gun owner,
and posses a CCW in NY as well, but with no specific reference to any
individual poster, this thread has taken a turn toward the vague and
blurred. That's what I was commenting on in a reply to Upscale, but not
singling him out as a unique offender. Great threads lose their luster when
that happens, and this one has run long enough that maybe it's just it's
time to die, but up to the point of lines blurring, it's been a good thread
to follow.

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:58:53 -0700, the infamous "chaniarts"
scrawled the following:

Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:32:35 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
I agree. We should help him kick the habit.

Why?
a) What if he doesn't want to?
b) Even if he does, why is that anyone's responsibility but his?

By your glib answer, can I assume that you're fine with addicts doing
whatever is necessary to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't
affect you?

And so, you must also be fine with addicts stealing and destroying
families to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't affect you.

so, there are no wealthy addicts? how about wall street coke users? bankers?
lawyers? hollywood or rock stars? i would presume that they could afford
their habits without affecting anyone else, and the time to intervene is
when they DO affect someone besides themselves.

I knew lots of (too many) druggies back in my yout. They did no harm
to anyone but themselves: mostly hard-partying, blue-collar folks.
(Now that I'm sober, partiers are no longer in my life at all.) Uppy
is negating the "no harm to others" portion of Miller's statement;
whether it's due to ignorance (about that sector of the population) or
intent, I don't know. They're out there and there are a lot of them.
Perhaps Uppy is only considering the bottom of the barrel because
they're easier to shoot at, _if_ he were inclined to get a gun. ;

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Feb 6, 10:36*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:58:53 -0700, the infamous "chaniarts"
scrawled the following:





Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:32:35 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
I agree. *We should help him kick the habit.

Why?
a) What if he doesn't want to?
b) Even if he does, why is that anyone's responsibility but his?

By your glib answer, can I assume that you're fine with addicts doing
whatever is necessary to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't
affect you?

And so, you must also be fine with addicts stealing and destroying
families to feed their habits, just as long as it doesn't affect you.

so, there are no wealthy addicts? how about wall street coke users? bankers?
lawyers? hollywood or rock stars? i would presume that they could afford
their habits without affecting anyone else, and the time to intervene is
when they DO affect someone besides themselves.

I knew lots of (too many) druggies back in my yout. They did no harm
to anyone but themselves: mostly hard-partying, blue-collar folks.
(Now that I'm sober, partiers are no longer in my life at all.) Uppy
is negating the "no harm to others" portion of Miller's statement;
whether it's due to ignorance (about that sector of the population) or
intent, I don't know. *They're out there and there are a lot of them.
Perhaps Uppy is only considering the bottom of the barrel because
they're easier to shoot at, _if_ he were inclined to get a gun. *;

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- George Bernard Shaw

Well then, legalize all drugs and take the 'business disputes' off the
street.

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:14:15 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Feb 6, 10:36*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I knew lots of (too many) druggies back in my yout. They did no harm
to anyone but themselves: mostly hard-partying, blue-collar folks.
(Now that I'm sober, partiers are no longer in my life at all.) Uppy
is negating the "no harm to others" portion of Miller's statement;
whether it's due to ignorance (about that sector of the population) or
intent, I don't know. *They're out there and there are a lot of them.
Perhaps Uppy is only considering the bottom of the barrel because
they're easier to shoot at, _if_ he were inclined to get a gun. *;

Well then, legalize all drugs and take the 'business disputes' off the
street.

As a person with a libertarian bent, I'm all for that, despite what I
feel about drugs themselves.

Failed government programs: Prohibition, DEA/the War on Drugs, DHS/the
War on Terror, Welfare/the War on Poverty, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac,
Obamacare (and it hasn't even started yet but I fear it will bring an
actual American revolution into reality), social security, Medicare,
TARP/the bailouts, Cash for Clunkers, DOE, the Dept. of Education,
FEMA, BATFE, USPS, Amtrak, the Veterans Administration, and the Border
Patrol (good guys who aren't allowed to do their jobs.)

OK, guys, name your favorite failed gov't programs!

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:14:15 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Feb 6, 10:36 am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

I knew lots of (too many) druggies back in my yout. They did
no harm
to anyone but themselves: mostly hard-partying, blue-collar
folks.
(Now that I'm sober, partiers are no longer in my life at
all.) Uppy
is negating the "no harm to others" portion of Miller's
statement;
whether it's due to ignorance (about that sector of the
population) or
intent, I don't know. They're out there and there are a lot
of them.
Perhaps Uppy is only considering the bottom of the barrel
because
they're easier to shoot at, _if_ he were inclined to get a
gun. ;

Well then, legalize all drugs and take the 'business disputes'
off the
street.

As a person with a libertarian bent, I'm all for that, despite
what I
feel about drugs themselves.

Failed government programs: Prohibition, DEA/the War on Drugs,
DHS/the
War on Terror, Welfare/the War on Poverty, Fannie Mae, Freddy
Mac,
Obamacare (and it hasn't even started yet but I fear it will
bring an
actual American revolution into reality), social security,
Medicare,
TARP/the bailouts, Cash for Clunkers,

Cash for Clunkers was partially successful, in that it got about
98% of all the Obama bumper stickers off the road.



--
Nonny

ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated, sophisticated,
and articulate person who has absolutely no clue
concerning what they are talking about.
The person is typically a media commentator or politician.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:07:58 -0800, the infamous "Nonny"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Failed government programs: Prohibition, DEA/the War on Drugs,
DHS/the
War on Terror, Welfare/the War on Poverty, Fannie Mae, Freddy
Mac,
Obamacare (and it hasn't even started yet but I fear it will
bring an
actual American revolution into reality), social security,
Medicare,
TARP/the bailouts, Cash for Clunkers,

Cash for Clunkers was partially successful, in that it got about
98% of all the Obama bumper stickers off the road.

ROTFLMAO! (wiping away tears) Good one, Nonny.

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust