[Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!

[Paul Rumelhart]

I wasn't trying to be cryptic.  Your agenda is to ban guns, presumably 
out of a short-sighted attempt to save children's lives.  I didn't say 
it was an evil agenda.  In so doing, you would take away some of my 
ability to protect myself and my loved ones from a dark and dangerous 
world.  It's short-sighted because it focuses on the wrong thing.  It's 
not the gun that's the problem, it's the people willing to use one to 
kill children.

And don't try to sell me the line that you aren't trying to ban all 
guns, just the evil military looking ones, because I'm not having it.  
You'd ban them all if you thought you had the political clout to do so.

Was that enough dancing, for you?

Paul

On 01/21/2013 04:24 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:
> Mr. Rumelhart -
>
> Although you will certainly avoid answering my query or, at minimum, 
> dance around any conceivable response . . .
>
> In addition to our tirelessly expressed desire of preventing the 
> killing of innocents, what other "agenda" do you assign to us "tired 
> old progressives" as we attempt to ban the possession and/or sale of 
> semi-automatic assault rifles and/or high-capacity ammunition 
> magazines; the tools applied in the aforementioned killing of innocents?
>
> What benefit would we "tired old progressives" realize in the pursuit 
> of this imagined agenda?
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
> On Jan 21, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nobody is forcing progressives to keep military weapons in their 
>> homes.  Their agenda is to keep others from keeping military weapons 
>> in *their* homes.  That's the problem.
>>
>> Ignoring, of course, that most military weapons are actually illegal 
>> without hard to get permits.  What the tired old progressives are 
>> trying to ban are weapons that resemble actual military weapons in 
>> outward appearance regardless of how they actually function.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 01/21/2013 02:47 PM, Rosemary Huskey wrote:
>>>
>>> Darn that tired old progressive agenda that just doesn’t think 
>>> military weapons are needed in American homes. What in the world are 
>>> they thinking about?
>>>
>>> Rose Huskey
>>>
>>> *From:*vision2020-bounces at moscow.com 
>>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Gary Crabtree
>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 2:44 PM
>>> *To:* Tom Hansen
>>> *Cc:* vision 2020
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Happy gun violence day!
>>>
>>> And in the link I posted a couple of weeks ago to an MSNBC news (as 
>>> opposed to opinion) piece they said he did not. As to the incident 
>>> in New Mexico according to CNN at 6:00 AM this morning there was an 
>>> AR present but they could not confirm that it was the weapon used.
>>>
>>> All of this is, of course, completely beside the point. Far more 
>>> people are killed by blunt objects, sharp and pointy objects and 
>>> flesh and bone objects then are killed by so called assault weapons. 
>>> News stories such as the ones you cite are merely a convenient 
>>> backdrop for the promotion of a long standing progressive agenda.
>>>
>>> g
>>>
>>>     .
>>>
>>>     . <http://tinyurl.com/assfaqu>
>>>
>>>
>>>     .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>>   List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>                 http://www.fsr.net
>>>            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130121/48a2fd65/attachment-0001.html>