An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject !!

You literally repeated the same idiocy, figuratively "doubled-down" on stupidity.

Some things you should consider before you "triple-down":

Without a proper reply, I am forced to assume that you are not contesting what I wrote, only myself in general. Can that be construed to be a personal attack? Not necessarily. However, if you continue to respond in such a manner that increases the likelihood that it is indeed an attack on a person, instead of the person's opinion. A sign of a weak position, in any event.

Weeeeeeaaaaaaak

But, considering that a significant percentage of your posts are copied and pasted from other authors, with little to no commentary by yourself, it's not really a surprise. Limited as you are.

 

Your master is always using that term...

View attachment 623

 

Interesting.

So by "Your master", you mean to say Joe Nation, correct? It would be easier for everyone if you'd just say that of course, and avoid any confusion about it that any other reader may have, but that doesn't titillate you enough to satisfy you, so you choose the idiocy route instead. Just wanted to make that clear to those who don't know your motivations.

Now, this is the same Joe who would like to see vast reductions in hand gun ownership, correct? Assuming that's true, I'll move on to my responses to Joe when he does post about the evils of hand gun ownership. Would you care to guess as to what my responses typically are? It's pretty clear to anyone familiar with them. No guess? OK then, I'll tell you.

My responses generally support the opposite of his.

That kind of throws a monkey's scrotum (those suckers are tough! The screaming is horrendous, but it never fails to entertain the kiddies at the zoo) into the idea that Joe is manipulating my response on this particular issue, don't you agree?

So, back to the topic, and the argument:

Your position is essentially that a citizen armed is a citizen protected, fair enough to say?

I'll assume you have no issue with my interpretation on that point and so I'll move on to my general response to that, which was essentially that hand guns allow people with poor judgement to kill other people (and other animals, though I hadn't addressed it, it's also true, IMO) far more easier than most other methods, such as a bat or a knife.

Your response? Idiocy.

I ask you to reply civilly.

Your response? Repeating the idiocy.

I draw the conclusion that you have no counter argument to my point.

Your response? More idiocy.

It should be noted that, in my original reply, all I did was reply with generally accepted facts, without resorting to idiocy. I didn't attack you, I countered the argument with generally accepted facts.

That gets us to your motivations, which I will not state here. I prefer the reader to judge the validity of our arguments themselves and draw their own conclusions. I will, of course state my opinion of your argument on this issue:

Weeeeeeeaaaaaaaak

 

What in the world would make you think I mean Little Joe when I refer to "your master". It's not like you parrot everything he says.

 

It's more in the execution of your stance. You bellow it (figuratively, I have a poetic license to use such words), then refuse to consider any of the counter arguments made. That's not productive to the discussion, it kills it.

 

My stance is that I'm an advocate of the Second Amendment and proudly say so. The Constitution guarantees our right to bear arms and I'm happy that it does. Our founders obviously saw the need for our government to guarantee that right and I couldn't agree with them more.

If you consider that "bellowing", well, that's your opinion. It's not that I "refuse to consider any counter arguments" either. The argument would be to either retain or abolish the Second Amendment. I advocate the former, but entertain opposing points of view. So, like I said, if you advocate retaining the Second Amendment then we have no argument.

 

Of all the Constitutional guarantees we have, I rarely think about the right to own a gun. It just doesn't occupy my mind all that often until I come to this forum of course. If it disappeared tomorrow, I doubt that I'd even notice. If my right to peaceably assemble or my right to free speech or my right to any other civil liberty suddenly went away, I'd definitely sit up and take notice.

Adhering to guns just seems to be a sign of an unstable personality in my opinion. I know that others might feel differently and of course that is their right but why would someone have such an exaggerated adherence to such and outdated civil liberty? You have to wonder why they feel so threatened that they become consumed defending something so archaic as a right that was guaranteed while this country was still being settled and when we had no formal law to protect us and a hostile native people to contend with. It kind of reminds me the Amish adhering to horse and buggies while the world around them has already moved on. The fact that they use the same roads as cars doing 60 miles an hour and create potential hazards is really no different than having guns all over society not being used by settlers or because of a lack of law enforcement but have actually created a hazard to people.

 

Oh, well, if it isn't important to you......

 

So why is it so important to you? What did someone do to you in the past? Again unstable personality.

 

Dunno, why would any Constitutional right be important?

...and did you just imply support of the 2nd Amendment is an indication of an unstable personality?

 

I don't often go around thinking about unreasonable search and seizure. Unless I have cause to do so. I don't go around thinking about my right not to have soldiers occupying my house. Unless I have cause to do so.

But, I'm happy my rights exist. I'm also happy that I have the right to pursue happiness. I don't think about it all the time, but I'm glad I have the right.

 

Aren't you the one that carries a gun to your daughters golf games? That seems kind of unstable by any measure.

 

Does mischaracterizing something I've said make you feel better? It certainly doesn't help your argument.

 

You can't apply that to your own comments, can you? That's kind of like denial, don't you think? Or maybe, hypocritical?

 

No, no & no

 

There's the problem.

IMHO, there really should be tests to decide on whether or not someone is an adult. Granted, I may fail myself on occasion, but more often than not I'd pass. You however, would fail to pass much closer to half the time. This being one of 'em.

Now, go outside and play with your kid.

 

Interesting proposal. I wonder if you truly understand the implications of it.

 

I know, those little @#$%^&* carry a lot of germs. (sound of shotgun shell being chambered) I have a solution to that.

 

That is what I thought. You haven't a clue.

 

Give your shed skin a kiss for me.