Originally posted by normbenignIt was framed as a question that - by throwing back at you what you seemed to be saying - offered you the chance to clarify what you meant. And here you are, STILL trying to avoid the questions. 😵
No it was a suggestion of what I meant. I meant what I said, and I will not take your bait. When you distort what I say, you get no reply except.....LIAR.
Originally posted by no1marauderparked at a dunkin store no doubt..
It seems a bit odd that norm who is so anti-government is now complaining that cops don't shoot enough people. Firing their gun should be a last resort; I for one think that a cop who's never fired his gun has probably been doing something right.
Originally posted by FMFIt was framed as a distortion of what I said. Try again without trying to get me to go along with some interpretation. Or just ask me to clarify what I said. I'll answer legitimate questions not baited word games.
It was framed as a question that - by throwing back at you what you seemed to be saying - offered you the chance to clarify what you meant. And here you are, STILL trying to avoid the questions. 😵
Originally posted by no1marauderDumb asses come in civies and uniforms. A lot of people are accidental shot by police officers, and some are shot accidentally by private gun owners, seldom by licensed CCW holders.
Dumb armed citizens tend to increase risk. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13527104-stinky-shot-texas-woman-aims-for-skunk-accidentally-shoots-husband?lite
What do you suggest? Come on and show your true colors. You are no libertarian, but a leftist control freak through and through. Is there anything that you trust individuals to do on their own, without a bureaucrat, cop, political leader, or dictator?
Originally posted by normbenignIt sounds as if what you mean is that it is safer for civilians to shoot people they deem to be criminals than it is for the police to handle it. If this is not what you mean, please explain yourself more clearly. You mention civilians who are "special forces operatives [who have] become ordinary citizens" and then you appear to be comparing this particular group to some police who haven't shot anyone or have skipped training. From this you seem to be saying Well trained police are NOT safer than armed citizens. If this is not what you mean - and if you don't want to be thought of as using a disingenuously rigged comparison - then you need to clarify why you make that particular comparison.
It was framed as a distortion of what I said. Try again without trying to get me to go along with some interpretation. Or just ask me to clarify what I said. I'll answer legitimate questions not baited word games.
Originally posted by FMFWhat it "sounds like to you" is little related to what I said. You are mixing posts, and twisting and spinning beyond recognition. That continuing leave us nothing to talk about.
It sounds as if what you mean is that it is safer for civilians to shoot people they deem to be criminals than it is for the police to handle it. If this is not what you mean, please explain yourself more clearly. You mention civilians who are "special forces operatives [who have] become ordinary citizens" and then you appear to be comparing this particular grou ...[text shortened]... uously rigged comparison - then you need to clarify why you make that particular comparison.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI am not twisting anything; I am trying to extrapolate what you mean. I am "mixing posts" because I believe what you are saying across different posts does not add up and/or amounts to a rather clumsy disingenuousness, which you appear to be trying to disguise by spreading it across these different posts.
You are mixing posts, and twisting and spinning beyond recognition.
What do former "special forces operatives" have to do with ordinary armed citizens?
What do former "special forces operatives" have to do with well trained police?
In what precise way is their "understanding of their limitations under the Constitution" relevant when comparing "special forces operatives [who have] become ordinary citizens" and police using firearms in the line of duty?
Do you think "licensed CCW holders" should assume - to any degree - some of the roles or responsibilities of police on account of how much "safer" you claim they are?
Originally posted by normbenignYeah vote. Except "libertarians" like yourself went them to have to have their government issued IDs to do so.
Dumb asses come in civies and uniforms. A lot of people are accidental shot by police officers, and some are shot accidentally by private gun owners, seldom by licensed CCW holders.
What do you suggest? Come on and show your true colors. You are no libertarian, but a leftist control freak through and through. Is there anything that you trust individuals to do on their own, without a bureaucrat, cop, political leader, or dictator?
You're too stupid to really argue with BUT that I support the right to defend oneself does not mean I create fairy tales about how great it would be if more citizens armed themselves.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Fairy tales" notwithstanding, it has to be said, there's also an unmistakable whiff of furtive narcissism from normbenign on this thread.
You're too stupid to really argue with BUT that I support the right to defend oneself does not mean I create fairy tales about how great it would be if more citizens armed themselves.