Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

I dunno, but I suspect
that u have the uttermost contempt & disdain for the intelligence
of children. I don t join u in that.





David

I have great respect for the intelligence of children, David.
But that does not mean that I want to see grammar school kids toting
guns to school...and I think most intelligent, reasonable people feel that way.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I dunno, but I suspect
that u have the uttermost contempt & disdain for the intelligence
of children. I don t join u in that.





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have great respect for the intelligence of children, David.
But that does not mean that I want to see grammar school kids toting
guns to school...and I think most intelligent, reasonable people feel that way.

Your choice to use the word: "toting" reflects scorn
on the concept of being prepared for self defense.
U want them to live in a state of HELPLESSNESS,
thus granting a monopoly of power to animals
or to criminals who opt to prey upon them.

EVERYONE has an equal and inalienable right
to defend his life. I take it that u DENY that, right ?
YOU prefer discrimination.

When I lived in Arizona, most of the kids in my naborhood
were better armed than I was; guns were everywhere.
We had no trouble in the 5 years that I lived there.


Your conclusions are based upon your un-founded emotions.





David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I dunno, but I suspect
that u have the uttermost contempt & disdain for the intelligence
of children. I don t join u in that.





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have great respect for the intelligence of children, David.
But that does not mean that I want to see grammar school kids toting
guns to school...and I think most intelligent, reasonable people feel that way.

Your choice to use the word: "toting" reflects scorn
on the concept of being prepared for self defense.
U want them to live in a state of HELPLESSNESS,
thus granting a monopoly of power to animals
or to criminals who opt to prey upon them.

EVERYONE has an equal and inalienable right
to defend his life. I take it that u DENY that, right ?
YOU prefer discrimination.

When I lived in Arizona, most of the kids in my naborhood
were better armed than I was; guns were everywhere.
We had no trouble in the 5 years that I lived there.


Your conclusions are based upon your un-founded emotions.





David

Your notion sof allowing (indeed, demaning) grammar school kids
to carry guns to school...are out near the planet Neptune, David.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I dunno, but I suspect
that u have the uttermost contempt & disdain for the intelligence
of children. I don t join u in that.





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have great respect for the intelligence of children, David.
But that does not mean that I want to see grammar school kids toting
guns to school...and I think most intelligent, reasonable people feel that way.

Your choice to use the word: "toting" reflects scorn
on the concept of being prepared for self defense.
U want them to live in a state of HELPLESSNESS,
thus granting a monopoly of power to animals
or to criminals who opt to prey upon them.

EVERYONE has an equal and inalienable right
to defend his life. I take it that u DENY that, right ?
YOU prefer discrimination.

When I lived in Arizona, most of the kids in my naborhood
were better armed than I was; guns were everywhere.
We had no trouble in the 5 years that I lived there.


Your conclusions are based upon your un-founded emotions.





David

Frank Apisa wrote:

Your notion sof allowing (indeed, demaning) grammar school kids
to carry guns to school...are out near the planet Neptune, David.

It blows my mind that despite your allegations of respect
for the minds of children, u prove that your aggressive contempt
for their minds is so intense that its OK with u if children get killed
by criminals or by animals, as long as thay are HELPLESSLY disarmed.

Presumably, if u had met me when I was a kid, u 'd have told me:
"Jee, David, because of your juvenile STUPIDITY u shud throw your guns
in the garbage, and if u get killed, well, that 's OK because of your age"

and given the same message to every kid in the naborhood.[/b] Yes?????

Is that accurate ?

David

That was the extant social paradigm before I arrived.
I did not start it, tho I approved and I approve.

It saddens me to believe that u can only be addressed
in this concept of defense thru your emotions, to wit:
IF it became necessary for u to actively defend your life.

I have been in that position (tho long after I was a kid).
I was ready.

That was the extant social paradigm before I arrived.
I did not start it, tho I approved and I approve.

It saddens me to believe that u can only be addressed
in this concept of defense thru your emotions, to wit:
IF it became necessary for u to actively defend your life.

You seem to be the one arguing from "emotions", David.
Your arguments make no sense, except from the standpoint
of an emotional outburst in favor of your favorite Constitutional amendment.

There is no logic to your position...and your calls for allowing grammar school kids
all to be armed with guns must sicken
even the most ardent NRA.

I have been in that position (tho long after I was a kid).
I was ready.

IF you needed to defend your life with a gun...you needed to.
I have never even come close to such a need.

Re: RexRed (Post 5692048)
I didn 't post this,
but I had been thinking: "what 'll u do if u get attacked,
hit him with your guitar ?"

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Re: RexRed (Post 5692048)
I didn 't post this,
but I had been thinking: "what 'll u do if u get attacked,
hit him with your guitar ?"

Yes.


The Creeping Terror (1964)

Here it is.



Good-night.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That was the extant social paradigm before I arrived.
I did not start it, tho I approved and I approve.

It saddens me to believe that u can only be addressed
in this concept of defense thru your emotions, to wit:
IF it became necessary for u to actively defend your life.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You seem to be the one arguing from "emotions", David.
Your arguments make no sense, except from the standpoint
of an emotional outburst in favor of your favorite Constitutional amendment.

There is no logic to your position...and your calls for allowing grammar school kids
all to be armed with guns must sicken
even the most ardent NRA.

Y shud anyone be SICK???
Please explain. I 've lived thru it for many years, as a student.
I did not get sick. No one got sick. Please explain, Frank.

I wish that the students had been well armed when Cho opened up on them;
same for the Columbine victims, who were un-armed for NO REASON except the gun control laws.

DAVID wrote:

I have been in that position (tho long after I was a kid).
I was ready.

Frank Apisa wrote:

IF you needed to defend your life with a gun...you needed to.
I have never even come close to such a need.

Frank Apisa chooses to avoid LEARNING from my experience.
That 's like saying that u never had a flat tire; therefore, u never will.

Why don't you take your notions on this public, David?

Why not start a movement to allow (or require) all grammar school kids
to be armed with revolvers...so as to make the grammar school experience safer...
and more polite?

I, for one, would be interested in how many people express support for the idea...
and how many people call it "sick."

Then you would have your answer.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why don't you take your notions on this public, David?

Why not start a movement to allow (or require) all grammar school kids
to be armed with revolvers...so as to make the grammar school experience safer...
and more polite?

I, for one, would be interested in how many people express support for the idea...
and how many people call it "sick."

Then you would have your answer.

I WISH that I cud provide a link to this, but that 's beyond my modest ability:
it was on the ABC WORLD NEWS, with Peter Jennings, probably in the 1990s.
Thay showed a story qua a school in one of the Northwestern States.
I don t remember which one. The story was described as: the school
where the students MUST take guns to school.
The local fauna had been inflicting some casualties among children
on their way to school, in consequence whereof, the school rules
required them to bring loaded rifles to school. Thay had an interview
of the fair-haired lads n lasses, aged 8 to 12, as I remember.
Thay indicated that each day thay arrived in school, put their hats
on the hatrack, put their coats on the coatrack, put their guns
on the gunrack, studied arithmetic & geografy, and at day 's end,
thay took their stuff and went home, harmlessly.
Frank Apisa obsessively believes that, because of their age,
kids are depraved and must shoot up the town. That did not prove
to be the case; not in the Northwest, nor in Arizona in my observation.
Many schools had gunnery teams, encouraged by the Civilian Marksmanship Program
of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice (NBPRP), which sold me
a .30 caliber M-1 Carbine, brand new in its original cosmolene, for $2O and a
1911 Colt .45 automatic pistol. Was that $12?? I 'm not sure. Its been a while.

Anyway, Frank Apisa argues that as long as his philosophy of repression IS POPULAR,
its perfectly all right for defenseless kids to get killed,
so long as thay all obay the gun control laws.

However, if a kid SURVIVES attack because he had the presence of mind
to violate the gun control law (in fulfillment of his Constitutional Rights),
then the vengeance of the State shud fall upon the survivor, right, Frank?????

Frank speaks for authoritarianism. I speak for liberty.





David

I've tried to handle this in a nice way, David...
respectfully and with a touch of irony and humor.

But...sometimes one has to put the enchilada on the table for inspection.

The notion that grammar school kids should be allowed to (or required to) carry guns to school to protect themselves...and that our nation would be the better for such a move...

...is not just dumb...it is insane.

I like you, David...I simply cannot understand why you are interested in advocating a position that is both stupid and crazy.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I've tried to handle this in a nice way, David...
respectfully and with a touch of irony and humor.

But...sometimes one has to put the enchilada on the table for inspection.

The notion that grammar school kids should be allowed to (or required to) carry guns to school to protect themselves...and that our nation would be the better for such a move...

...is not just dumb...it is insane.

I like you, David...I simply cannot understand why you are interested in advocating a position that is both stupid and crazy.

U cannot, u dare not address my individual arguments
because if u do, then u will lose. Anyone can describe ANYTHING,
no matter how great its Value, as being "insane" or "sick" or "stupid".
There 's no trick to that; ez.

Let 's try it one step at a time, for clear analysis:
Frank, do u admit that when pit bulls in the street
have attacked an adult, he had the natural, moral right to fight back??

When the same misfortune has befallen a young kid,
do u admit that HE has had an equal right to fight back, in defense of his life????

or do u allege that a kid has a duty
to offer himself up freely to be eaten by the dogs, while he lives ?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I've tried to handle this in a nice way, David...
respectfully and with a touch of irony and humor.

But...sometimes one has to put the enchilada on the table for inspection.

The notion that grammar school kids should be allowed to (or required to) carry guns to school to protect themselves...and that our nation would be the better for such a move...

...is not just dumb...it is insane.

I like you, David...I simply cannot understand why you are interested in advocating a position that is both stupid and crazy.

U cannot, u dare not address my individual arguments
because if u do, then u will lose. Anyone can describe ANYTHING,
no matter how great its Value, as being "insane" or "sick" or "stupid".
There 's no trick to that; ez.

Let 's try it one step at a time, for clear analysis:
Frank, do u admit that when pit bulls in the street
have attacked an adult, he had the natural, moral right to fight back??

When the same misfortune has befallen a young kid,
do u admit that HE has had an equal right to fight back, in defense of his life????

or do u allege that a kid has a duty
to offer himself up freely to be eaten by the dogs, while he lives ?

David...the notion you are advocating to allow grammar school kids to carry guns to school...is not stupid...IT IS VERY, VERY stupid. And it is close to insane. It is nutty.

I have no problem with you presenting it, because it shows just how far over the line some of the people on your side of this issue have gotten.

And I see that as a good thing.

Please continue.