OmSigDAVID wrote:cjhsa wrote:Yes it is. Helplessness is a character fault amongst
liberal gun grabbers who will never get your point, OSD. Screw 'em.
They aren't worth the typing.
I think that it dramaticly illustrates the great schism
between the conservative Originalist mentality
which gave rise to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights,
as distinct from the perverted, politically correct, sick mentality
that wud
KNOWINGLY allow stomping a baby to death
in the name of keeping individual citizens helpless under gun control,
and ruled by a government with a
monopoly on POWER.
To this end, thay 'd subvert the Constitution,
pretending that known Americn history of the Founders did not happen.
Its like dirty oil on clean water.
Quote:How do you know whether anyone present would have wanted
to have a gun?
From the fact that thay got shoved away
and thus their defensive efforts WERE FRUSTRATED
with the result that thay watched, as an audience,
at a Mexican Hat Dance, tho thay disapproved of what thay saw.
That 's how.
Quote:How do you know if anyone would have used a gun if they had one?
Well, u surprized me, Intrepid.
I did not think that u were
able to raise an
intelligent, valid point, but u actually
DID.
As an honest man, I must give credit where it is due.
It
IS theoretically possible that thay might have
all been
Ayn Rand Objectivists, whose allegiance is to selfishness
and who 'd choose against exposing their earthly wealth
to the expenses of paying trial lawyers $400 an hour
to defend them from civil and/or criminal litigation
for shooting the stomper.
HOWEVER, from my general knowledge
of the degree of proliferation of her philosophy,
I do not believe that thay prevail in such abundance in California
as to control the outcome of this situation.
Upon the basis of many decades of observing human emotions
as expressed in behavior, I believe that the assembled witnesses,
wud have effectively controlled and ended the extant homicidal activity,
if thay had the equipment to do so.
Thay did NOT do so because thay cud not do so.
Let everyone judge the probabilities for himself.
Quote:How is this tragic and unfortunate situation an indication that gun laws are unfounded
or if lack of gun laws would change anything in this instance?
I have explained this quite a few times hereinbefore.
I 'll go over it again, for slow learners, to wit:
if the populace is armed, then it has the equipment
to end violent predatory activity and
the option to do so;
if the populace does
not have the means to do so, then it will not.
In my opinion, more ofen than not, citizens will not allow a baby
(or even a dog) to be stomped to death in front of them, if thay can stop it.
Is THAT clear enuf ?
Quote:How do you know that, if a gun had been present and used,
the baby would not have gotten shot? Or innocent bystanders?
Back to being stupid again, are we, Intrepid ?
The stomper is right in front of the witnesses.
His attention was upon the baby whom he was stomping to death.
Thay cud have put the muzzle against his flank
for an upper thorax shot, taking out the stomper's lungs n heart
( I think that wud have gotten his attention )
or behind his medula oblongata, for an instant demise.
The way to know that the baby would not get shot
is to
NOT aim at the baby.
Even YOU shud be able to understand that, Intrepid. Its not hard.
When the police eventually arrived thay just blasted the stomper.
Thay did not shoot the baby. Some things shud be
OBVIOUS.
Quote:
Furthermore, how would you know whether those bystanders were conservative
or liberal or both or neither. Assumpations....assumptions.
I made NO comment, I said nothing, about whether the bystanders
were liberal or conservative. Maybe u r hallucinating ?
I did not address that, and I made no assumptions whatsoever about it.
David
