What Stimulated the Gun and Ammo Market?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think it was the "I don't have sympathy" part.

One can be analytical and yet feel sorry for someone elses loss.

For example, doctors.

one can also be analytical in sympathy, rather than merely sympathetic.

And telling someone who lost a loved one to gun violence that you have no sympathy for them is which?

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

while it may have what you may want to term a "strong base" that does not, nor should not, translate into remove or rewrite the 2nd amendment. people die in car wrecks too, yet i don't see a huge outcry over stricter licensing procedures and more tests and so on.

no, methinks the problem isn't about comprehension on my end, it's more like emotion on yours.

Sure and you're talking about wild tangents now?

How many cars are used to kill people purposely? Great question!

You know what they say about emotion- even though you're highly mistaken about me- it does work quite a lot when you lose loved ones when their loss is at best, unnecessary. Nobody is talking about culling Macho-Man's right to bear arms, as you are trying to make it. We're talking about removing the possibility that the killers out there don't have real access to high-power weaponry. Big difference there that you could go in circles all week long with semantics just to evade simple logic.

cars make good weapons too, i'm sure you're aware of that. but no, cars aren't on your agenda, are they, so it's easy to discount any reference to them!

no one has mentioned macho man prior to your post. maybe it's about you trying to portray it that way, instead of the rest of us. and it's quaint that you think removing a killers access to high powered rifles or pistols will solve the problem - again, look at mexico. gun bans, highly restrictive ownership, and what could possibly be the problem now down there?

simple logic indeed, yet it evades you like morality does a crack ho.

Like I implied-

When gang-bangers start using their wheels to ram into people drive-by style, then we'll talk about your example making some sense.

Also like I told you- México has it gun problem directly related to their cartels being able to buy weapons up here.

Funny you mention morality, using emotive excuses to FAIL at rationalizing a right to bear arms against a non-existent government and social plot to take all of your guns away while ignoring the criminals having access to the same weaponry you might have at home. Morality indeed.

you carry on about gang bangers doing drive bys like it happens every hour. is chicago obamaland that bad, really?

need i add that a car can take out more people quicker on the street than some yoyo with a pistol?

mexico may get it's guns from the usa, but if you'd read matt's link, you'd see who the real culprit is.

just keep on with your fail this and fail that. it's apparently what you've majored in when it comes to the topic of guns. while you may not mind abdicating your constitutional rights, some of us do mind because we see the slippery slope it will lead to. too bad you're blind, oblivious, or both to that.

Your demise (FAIL) comes from oversimplifying the issue to one 'culprit.'

You're also skipping out on my posts where I quite clearly say that not all guns need to be banned. So try again.

i'm not the one all up in arms (pun not intended) about guns. you are, remember? it's good to see how concerned you are about constitutional rights.

[justashooter 430]

I think it was the "I don't have sympathy" part.

One can be analytical and yet feel sorry for someone elses loss.

For example, doctors.

one can also be analytical in sympathy, rather than merely sympathetic.

And telling someone who lost a loved one to gun violence that you have no sympathy for them is which?

if you would read my post, rather than private dancer's retelling of it, you would understand:

sorry to hear you aren't even able to talk about it. my parents have been dead since i was 20, so i may be more analytical than sympathetic. the question remains.

btw, it wasn't "gun violence". there is no such thing as "gun violence". guns don't get violent. people do. sometimes they even get violent against themselves, as i would suppose in hal's father's case, based upon his silence, which reveals an internalisation of the trauma.

[HAL 9000 96]

while it may have what you may want to term a "strong base" that does not, nor should not, translate into remove or rewrite the 2nd amendment. people die in car wrecks too, yet i don't see a huge outcry over stricter licensing procedures and more tests and so on.

no, methinks the problem isn't about comprehension on my end, it's more like emotion on yours.

Sure and you're talking about wild tangents now?

How many cars are used to kill people purposely? Great question!

You know what they say about emotion- even though you're highly mistaken about me- it does work quite a lot when you lose loved ones when their loss is at best, unnecessary. Nobody is talking about culling Macho-Man's right to bear arms, as you are trying to make it. We're talking about removing the possibility that the killers out there don't have real access to high-power weaponry. Big difference there that you could go in circles all week long with semantics just to evade simple logic.

cars make good weapons too, i'm sure you're aware of that. but no, cars aren't on your agenda, are they, so it's easy to discount any reference to them!

no one has mentioned macho man prior to your post. maybe it's about you trying to portray it that way, instead of the rest of us. and it's quaint that you think removing a killers access to high powered rifles or pistols will solve the problem - again, look at mexico. gun bans, highly restrictive ownership, and what could possibly be the problem now down there?

simple logic indeed, yet it evades you like morality does a crack ho.

Like I implied-

When gang-bangers start using their wheels to ram into people drive-by style, then we'll talk about your example making some sense.

Also like I told you- México has it gun problem directly related to their cartels being able to buy weapons up here.

Funny you mention morality, using emotive excuses to FAIL at rationalizing a right to bear arms against a non-existent government and social plot to take all of your guns away while ignoring the criminals having access to the same weaponry you might have at home. Morality indeed.

you carry on about gang bangers doing drive bys like it happens every hour. is chicago obamaland that bad, really?

need i add that a car can take out more people quicker on the street than some yoyo with a pistol?

mexico may get it's guns from the usa, but if you'd read matt's link, you'd see who the real culprit is.

just keep on with your fail this and fail that. it's apparently what you've majored in when it comes to the topic of guns. while you may not mind abdicating your constitutional rights, some of us do mind because we see the slippery slope it will lead to. too bad you're blind, oblivious, or both to that.

Your demise (FAIL) comes from oversimplifying the issue to one 'culprit.'

You're also skipping out on my posts where I quite clearly say that not all guns need to be banned. So try again.

i'm not the one all up in arms (pun not intended) about guns. you are, remember? it's good to see how concerned you are about constitutional rights.

Yeah read up on that bold part again.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think it was the "I don't have sympathy" part.

One can be analytical and yet feel sorry for someone elses loss.

For example, doctors.

one can also be analytical in sympathy, rather than merely sympathetic.

And telling someone who lost a loved one to gun violence that you have no sympathy for them is which?

if you would read my post, rather than private dancer's retelling of it, you would understand:

I did read your post. And I read his, too.

So do you really feel you are being "analytical in sympathy" by saying "I don't have sympathy"? Those are both your expressions, from your posts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

nm

Edited March 27, 2009 by Private Pike

[HAL 9000 96]

I think it was the "I don't have sympathy" part.

One can be analytical and yet feel sorry for someone elses loss.

For example, doctors.

one can also be analytical in sympathy, rather than merely sympathetic.

And telling someone who lost a loved one to gun violence that you have no sympathy for them is which?

if you would read my post, rather than private dancer's retelling of it, you would understand:

sorry to hear you aren't even able to talk about it. my parents have been dead since i was 20, so i may be more analytical than sympathetic. the question remains.

btw, it wasn't "gun violence". there is no such thing as "gun violence". guns don't get violent. people do. sometimes they even get violent against themselves, as i would suppose in hal's father's case, based upon his silence, which reveals an internalisation of the trauma.

At this point I will ask you to discontinue using my loss for your incongruous game. Thanks.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

That's it. How many are in with me? Weekend running over deer and other game?

I had a bird fly into my windshield, does that count?

[Caladan 19]

Gun control *is* about the last thing on Obama's mind. It wasn't a major part of his campaign! The only people who seem to believe it is a major sekrit hidden agenda are those who were predicting widespread riots after the election.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it was the "I don't have sympathy" part.

One can be analytical and yet feel sorry for someone elses loss.

For example, doctors.

one can also be analytical in sympathy, rather than merely sympathetic.

And telling someone who lost a loved one to gun violence that you have no sympathy for them is which?

if you would read my post, rather than private dancer's retelling of it, you would understand:

sorry to hear you aren't even able to talk about it. my parents have been dead since i was 20, so i may be more analytical than sympathetic. the question remains.

btw, it wasn't "gun violence". there is no such thing as "gun violence". guns don't get violent. people do. sometimes they even get violent against themselves, as i would suppose in hal's father's case, based upon his silence, which reveals an internalisation of the trauma.

I love how you assume knowledge of an event based on absolutely nothing at all. It could simply be that the guy doesn't want to talk to you about it. Which in itself reveals and proves nothing.

Gun control *is* about the last thing on Obama's mind. It wasn't a major part of his campaign! The only people who seem to believe it is a major sekrit hidden agenda are those who were predicting widespread riots after the election.

I was thinking about that too. There's no agenda on the table at the moment except for fixing the bad economy.

[justashooter 430]

At this point I will ask you to discontinue using my loss for your incongruous game. Thanks.

best wishes in your chosen path.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

At this point I will ask you to discontinue using my loss for your incongruous game. Thanks.

best wishes in your chosen path.

now that was nice of you.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

while it may have what you may want to term a "strong base" that does not, nor should not, translate into remove or rewrite the 2nd amendment. people die in car wrecks too, yet i don't see a huge outcry over stricter licensing procedures and more tests and so on.

no, methinks the problem isn't about comprehension on my end, it's more like emotion on yours.

Sure and you're talking about wild tangents now?

How many cars are used to kill people purposely? Great question!

You know what they say about emotion- even though you're highly mistaken about me- it does work quite a lot when you lose loved ones when their loss is at best, unnecessary. Nobody is talking about culling Macho-Man's right to bear arms, as you are trying to make it. We're talking about removing the possibility that the killers out there don't have real access to high-power weaponry. Big difference there that you could go in circles all week long with semantics just to evade simple logic.

cars make good weapons too, i'm sure you're aware of that. but no, cars aren't on your agenda, are they, so it's easy to discount any reference to them!

no one has mentioned macho man prior to your post. maybe it's about you trying to portray it that way, instead of the rest of us. and it's quaint that you think removing a killers access to high powered rifles or pistols will solve the problem - again, look at mexico. gun bans, highly restrictive ownership, and what could possibly be the problem now down there?

simple logic indeed, yet it evades you like morality does a crack ho.

Like I implied-

When gang-bangers start using their wheels to ram into people drive-by style, then we'll talk about your example making some sense.

Also like I told you- México has it gun problem directly related to their cartels being able to buy weapons up here.

Funny you mention morality, using emotive excuses to FAIL at rationalizing a right to bear arms against a non-existent government and social plot to take all of your guns away while ignoring the criminals having access to the same weaponry you might have at home. Morality indeed.

you carry on about gang bangers doing drive bys like it happens every hour. is chicago obamaland that bad, really?

need i add that a car can take out more people quicker on the street than some yoyo with a pistol?

mexico may get it's guns from the usa, but if you'd read matt's link, you'd see who the real culprit is.

just keep on with your fail this and fail that. it's apparently what you've majored in when it comes to the topic of guns. while you may not mind abdicating your constitutional rights, some of us do mind because we see the slippery slope it will lead to. too bad you're blind, oblivious, or both to that.

Your demise (FAIL) comes from oversimplifying the issue to one 'culprit.'

You're also skipping out on my posts where I quite clearly say that not all guns need to be banned. So try again.

i'm not the one all up in arms (pun not intended) about guns. you are, remember? it's good to see how concerned you are about constitutional rights.

Yeah read up on that bold part again.

apparently you're not understanding the point: you just want to give up a little bit of your rights....

[HAL 9000 96]

That's it. How many are in with me? Weekend running over deer and other game?

I had a bird fly into my windshield, does that count?

Does a deer running into your line of fire count?

Only if you completely pulverized little ole birdie. Then we can play the congruency game.

[natty bumppo 297]

That's it. How many are in with me? Weekend running over deer and other game?

actually my last deer kill was with my honda

got luck in regards to the car (no damage) ... the deer broke it's neck on the guard rail.

story:

doing about 45 mph down a secondary road in VA through an area of farms. It was dark. Didn't see the deer until it cleared the uncut hay on the side of the road (the deer was running). Jammed the brakes (anti-locks are great) ... expected to hit the animal. It's last leap almost cleared the front bumper ... it didn't. Caught the back hoof and flipped the deer. It went end-over into the guard rail. Got lucky there was only a little fur and a scuff mark on the car. The deer ... well I didn't need to use my ex's carry piece to put the animal down. It was already terminal. Felt bad about it ... but at least I didn't have bambi through the windshield.