EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
After a bit of to and fro with the mouthfoamer anonymous Mark, we
arrive at my solution to the gun loon problem: Appoint an official Cun
Nut Licensing Commissioner. You can buy a gun freely, but unless you
can show the GNLC a truly demented stare, it will be a felony to call
yourself a "gun nut".
****
Oh dear. Poor Mark clearly never heard of Edmund Burke's admonition to
debaters: Policies, not personalities.
On Mar 21, 4:45=A0pm, "Mark" <mark...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >"Andre Jute" <fiul...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>news:83bbe9bc-cce1-4a2f-8b02-9621a8cd05be@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >On Mar 20, 7:40 am, "Mark" <mark...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.
>
> >> Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are,
really
> >> got
> >> me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation
o=
f
> >> school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can
come=
> >> out
> >> with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.
>
> >> It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other
> >> kids.
> >> CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK MORONS!!!
>
> >> There...now I feel better.
> > You're a piece of work, Mark, and a very unsavoury one at that.
>
> OK Tosser, gloves off.
That's all right, Mark. I think I still owe you a few licks from way
back. I imagine you understand that gratuitously confronting me will
do your case more harm than if you apologized for abusing me and
backed away. Hotheads like you do the best causes great harm, sink
perfectly worthwhile causes by their intemperance, and kill off the
unworthy by their ill-mannered offensiveness to those they need to
persuade.
> > Here is my entire exchange with Trevor Wilson:
> > *****
> > On Mar 19, 1:54 am, "Trevor Wilson" =A0wrote:
> >> =A0The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the
term:
> >> "...well regulated militia.."
> >> American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment.
The=
y
> >> also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other
gun
> >> loons
> >> each and every year.
>
> >> Trevor Wilson
> > At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-
> > regulating militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who
> > the 10,000 dead are.
> > Andre Jute
> > Darwin's little helper
> > ****
> > Where does it say anything about "school children" either specifically
> > or by implication?
>
> By implication. The "10,000 dead Americans", murdered by gun loons every
> year MUST include the children slaughtered in numerous American high
schoo=
l
> massacres.
No "MUST" (your shouting caps, not mine) about it. I didn't know about
the schoolchildren and, if I did, I would have made the same joke
because Trevor and I were both talking about those adults who claim
they are the men the Founding Fathers had in mind as potential
gunowners. None of this includes schoolchildren, except in your
overheated imagination, Mark.
> Trevor didn't try to exclude the children from the body-count
Oh yes, he did. He said the :the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by
other gun loons", which again means to ma those who buy and collect
guns, I wasn't aware schoolchildren are permitted to buy guns in the
States and, even if they were, I was still talking about the "loons"
licensed by the Second Amendment, which clearly does not include
children.
>but it is
> clear that you would (now) like too conveniently exclude them from your
> statement that it "depends on who the 10,000 dead are".
Children were never even considered. You're crazy to try pinning this
crap on me, Mark. It won't wash.
> > If you had actually read what I wrote, instead of kneejerking, you
> > would have discovered I was clearly speaking of adults:
>
> Yep, there you go.
Exactly.
> As a matter of fact, you may or may not have been speaking of adults
when
> you spoke of a "well self-regulated [militia]", it isn't clear and it
isn'=
t
> im****tant.
But I wasn't speaking of a "well self-regulated [militia]" as you try
to claim, I was asking if 10,000 dead made such a militia,
Constitutionally permitted on condition that it be "well-regulated",
indeed "well-regulated", and therefore within the terms of the
Constituion. It is clearly a concept too subtle for you, Mark.
> WHY?
You're shouting again, sonny.
> Because you're trying to confuse two distinct groups in Trevor's
statement=
..
>
> The "10,000 dead Americans" (murdered by "other gun loons") and the
> "American gun loons" (who regularly ignore the part of the 2nd Amendment
> that speaks of a "well regulated militia")
Excellent. You admit I was talking about a "well-regulated militia".
That well-regulated militia, it should be clear even to a clown like
you, doesn't include children, doesn't include killing children.
> > "Militia" implies adults and excludes school children.
That's what I said.
> Oh dude! You think you are sooooo cleaver; but you're trying to exlcude
th=
e
> children from the WRONG group.
Duh. I wasn't speaking about children at all. I didn't even know about
the children until you started screeching about them. They are
irrelevant to my subtle little joke even now that I know about them.
> The school children are members of the group labelled "10,000 dead
> Americans" murdered each year.
No, they're not, as you admit in your next maniacal little wriggle:
> The perpititrators of these crimes are members of the group labelled
"othe=
r
> gun loons"
> As a matter of fact. "other gun loons" may or may not be members of a
> "...well regulated militia.." and may or may not be children themselves.
Holy ****, and you expect us to take you seriously, anonymous Mark?
Grow up, man. This sort of kindergarten debating trick doesn't impress
even Arny Krueger.
> > "other gun loons" are gun nuts permitted to buy arms under the Second
> > Amendment; they do not include school children.
>
> LOOK, Tosser!
You're shouting again, Mark, and we're just laughing in embarrassment
at your mindless stupidity. You've already failed to make this point
three times.
> In Trevor's statement, he said that the group called "other gun loons"
are=
> doing the murdering of a group called "10,000 dead Americans".
A fourth try to make the same spurious point.
> Now, we KNOW for a FACT that this group includes American school
children
> and lots of them.
A fifth try to make the same spurious point. Which group is this now,
Mark? The 10,000 gun nuts murdered by other gun loons or who shot
themselves (we shouldn't forget their good work either!)?
> Your statement that a "*well* SELF-regulated [militia] depends on WHO
the
> 10,000 dead are" is therefore apparently IGNORANT (and not a bit
> insensitive) of the fact that the group he labelled "10,000 dead
Americans=
"
> includes rather a lot of murdered school children.
Let's take this agglommeration of false connections and dumb
conclusions apart:
> Your statement that a "*well* SELF-regulated [militia] depends on WHO
the
> 10,000 dead are"
That's not what I said. What I said is entirely different, starting
with the word "whether to turn it into a question, not the statement
of fact you try to lie I made: "whether it is *well* self-regulated
depends on who the 10,000 dead are." You're a liar, Mark.
>is therefore apparently IGNORANT
I don't see how a question can be "IGNORANT" -- or why it needs to be
shouted out by you. You're still making zero impression on me, Mark;
you're making a fool of yourself in front of people you need to
persuade.
>(and not a bit
> insensitive)
Should I care that a fool like you considers me insensitive?
>of the fact that the group he labelled "10,000 dead Americans"
> includes rather a lot of murdered school children.
First of all, we have already established several times over that I
was talking about *adult* gun nuts: "loons". We've established that I
didn't even know about the murdered schoolchildren. We've established
that the murdering schoolchildren are neither gun buyers nor
collectors. I don't see what the schoolchildren have to do with my
little joke on gun nuts, except in your fevered and increasingly
disconnected mind. Get a grip on yourself, sonny.
> There isn't any question about it
About what now, Mark? Your shouting? That some schoolchildren are
dead? That they were killed by guns originally bought by adults? What
does any of this have to do with a militia, by definition adult?
> and it does not "depend" (as you claimed)
> on who the 10,000 dead are.
That's a lie. It is not what said and you know it. What I said, for
the umpteenth time, is "whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on
who the 10,000 dead are". Not the "whether" -- a question you are not
trying to turn into a statement of fact by misquotation. In short,
you're lying again, Mark.
>Nominate ANY group of 10,000 (to murder) and the
> term "*well* self-regulated" DOES NOT APPLY.
Why not? If people who insist on their right to bear arms then use
them to kill each other, the weakest will not survive, and the strong
can then be put in the militia to defend the nation, precisely as the
Founding Fathers intended. That, taken with strong officers to enforce
discipline, would in fact make for a "well" self-regulating militia,
just as I said. Whether that describes a modern possibility is another
matter. In any event, it is a theoretical political question I turned
into an absurdist joke too subtle for a mouthfoamer like you. It has,
ipso facto, nothing to do with children murdered by other children.
> Ipso facto.
Oh dear. You shouldn't use words you don't know the meaning of, Mark.
> > "regulated militia" tells you again I was speaking about adults; the
> > officers of any militia are not school children.
>
> That is such a cleverly crafted bit of deceit, even despite the fact
that
> you want to talk about the WRONG group.
Yawn. Is this the ninth or the tenth time you've tried to this false
point. Grow up, Mark.
> In my statement, the school children are members of =A0a group called
"10,=
000
> dead Americans". I didn't claim that they were in any group called
> "regulated militia".
Perhaps you're confusing what I said to Trevor and what you wrote in
reply. I didn't know about the children when I wrote to Trevor. The
children are irrelevant to what I said to Trevor. I don't care where
you think the children belong. They're a late addition by you to an
argument in which they have no place.
> I don't care if the are or aren't (in that group). It makes no
difference =
to
> the basis of my objection about your statement claiming that a "*well*
> self-regulated [militia] depends on who the 10,000 dead are."
You can object to that statement all you like, Mark. It isn't my
statement. I said something entirely different, a question rather than
a statement: "whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the
10,000 dead are". And, frankly, even if you were quoting me correctly
(and you're not, you're lying about both my actions and my intentions)
I wouldn't care **** what you think. You're hostile, you're excitable,
you're stupid -- these are not the qualities that make me value
people's judgements.
> As a matter of fact, American school children may or may not be a member
o=
f
> a "regulated militia", may or may not be a member of a group called
"other=
> gun loons", may or may not be a member of a group called "10,000 dead
> Americans". It could happen.
Okay, Mark, anything you say. Just put your arms in this comfortable
jacket in stylish white with the highly fa****onable lacing up the
back.
> But instead, you want to confuse the issue and argue something about
schoo=
l
> children not being the "officers of any militia".
No, don't struggle. It will only be a little prick as the needle goes
in. You will soon feel much more sedate.
> That statement may be wrong also, but it's correctness or otherwise
isn't
> relevant to my objection.
But if the schoolchildren aren't included in your objection, what is
your objection?
> > School children who shoot their schoolmates didn't come by those
> > arms legally. Nothing in what I said relates to school children except
i=
n
> > your over-heated mind, Mark.
>
> Wrong. You said "whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the
> 10,000 dead are."
>
> School children are members of the group "the 10,000 dead". So in fact,
yo=
u
> DID say something that RELATED to a group that INCLUDED school children.
Quite unwittingly. There's no need to shout about it. I admit there
may be a few school children in "the 10,000 dead". But they weren't
killed by gun loons, they were killed by other children if I
understand correctly.
> So what are you going to say now? Maybe: "I didn't know about the school
> children being included in the 10,000 murders each year!"
>
> BULL**** YOU DIDN'T. YOU COULD NOT KNOW.
Well, I know better than you do what I know. As I pointed out before,
your assumption that I slob in front of the television like you do
deeply offensive. Your parochial assumption that American domestic
news is of consuming interest to people elsewhere is rather touchingly
innocent. Look, sonny, I write for the media, I don't consume them; I
leave that to people like you; I don't find out what the news is until
some editor decides he wants my opinion on it, at which point he sends
a few high points off the ticker or a researcher calls me to tell me
some interesting tidbits.
> All this talk of children not being part of a "regulated militia" is not
> only false (historically and probably generally) but is also intended to
> OBSCURE the fact of which group the school children are included in.
Twelve, thirteen. Counting.
> > It is typical of the thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards
> > on RAT that you apologize to fascist s*** like Keith Richardson while
> > attempting to blame me for your stupid incomprehension.
>
> The reason for the apology was simply my assumption that his post was in
> sup****t of yours.
>
> Upon re-reading it, I realized that the more likely explanation was that
> Keith was a gun enthusiast (and most probably also an apologist for the
gu=
n
> lobby) BUT his objection was a FAIR qualification of the rather
colourful
> language I used regarding the the type of weapon typically used in the
> massacre of American school children.
Yeah, right, Keith is okay and Andre Jute is a bogeyman. You dumb,
dumb, dumb moron, my joke, subtle and over your head as it may have
been, was in sup****t of the general case you were making. If I had
known about the children, I would have been as outraged as you, though
I would would have been a lot more effective in my advocacy than you
can ever be with a jerkup attitude like yours.
> It is true that a Glock 17 and other semi-automatic weapons are not
classe=
d
> as sub-machine guns. So, for the sake of accuracy, I had to bow to his
> objection and I did so for no other reason. Respect for accuracy, not
> "thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards" motivated me.
"Thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards" motivated you to
assualt me instead without making any effort to discover what I meant,
just because Andre Jute is the bogeyman to the s*** you run with.
> No matter how many times a re-read Keith's post, I can't find fault with
i=
t.
> Unless he makes further statements about his position on the state if
gun
> control in the US, I have nothing to add and stand corrected.
You owe me an even more fulsome apology, Mark. I'm not holding my
breath waiting for it.
> > I repeat, I said it is no loss to the gene pool if gun nuts murder
> > each other or shoot themselves. I said nothing about their children
> > taking guns to school and murdering their classmates. It is simply
> > unbelievable for some some anonymous clown called Mark to blame me
for
> > dead schoolchildren because I condemn their parents for
> > stupidity without ever mentioning the children.
> Finally, you show me your true colour. =A0It is the colour of a
thoughtles=
s
> idiot. That exactly what I thought you meant.
Then why are abusing me about dead schoolchildren when I didn't know
about them or say anything about them? You're very confused, Mark. Sit
down, have a cup of tea, and think carefully whether you want to ****
with me further, and do even more damage to your already threadbare
case.
> The SAME law that alows 'gun nuts' to murder each other also alows them
to=
> murder school children, mothers, homeless, drug users, whatever.
Holy ****, and are you going to hold me responsible for all of that
because I made a joke out of your intellectual reach? Seems rather a
harsh punishment to me.
> One problem is that they are all ILLEGAL deaths and it does not matter
in
> the least "WHO the 10,000 are" (as you have consistently maintained)
becau=
se
> the entire edifice of your argument relies on the unequal application of
t=
he
> law.
Sixteen, seventeen, counting, counting, doesn't this ever end.... I'm
starting undersand why people buy a gun and go to a convention of
people called Mark and commit a massacre.
> Your second problem is that if we are to alow 'gun nuts' to murder each
> other then SOMEONE must decide who is a gun nut and who isn't.
Where did I say we should allow gun nuts to murder each other? I made
a hypothetical political joke to show how absurd the continuance of
the Second Amendment is and you misunderstood it. Now we're into child
murderers and an official Cun Nut Licensing Commissioner. You can buy
a gun freely, but unless you can show GNLC a truly demented stare, it
will be a felony to call yourself a "gun nut".
> That would usually be the person doing the shooting (in the absence of
som=
e
> regulatory authority to identify 'gun nuts') So your position could be
> restated as "gun nuts can identify other gun nuts and then discriminate
on=
> who they should kill on that basis".
Now you mention it, my Gun Nut Licensing Commissioner should be a
political appointee so that the graft can be properly directed. I have
no faith in the electorate putting a suitably fearless person into the
job.
Your madness is quite infectious, Mark.
> Then the problem becomes how do they identify other gun nuts? Some 'gun
> nuts' would probably reason that anyone carrying a gun is at least a
> candidate for a member of that group (the 'gun nuts'). So then what you
ha=
ve
> is a considerable incentive for 'gun nuts' to shoot other 'gun nuts'
befor=
e
> they themselves are shot. Very quickly, it's shoot first or risk death.
Save on training budget for infantrymen, for sure.
> There is little hope that this scenario will not spiral into total
anarchy=
> and lawlessness, with very many unarmed, innocent people being shot
dead.
But what's a little collateral damage as long as they aren't
schoolchildren, is that what you're saying. See, Mark, two can play.
The difference is, if you piss me off any more, I will make that
careless statement of yours stick to you for the rest of your life.
> So, to surmise, once you allow the unequal application of law, you can
not=
> reasonably expect the lawlessness to contain itself to any particular
clas=
s
> of person (or gene pool).
Let's be clear. You're the one setting up the scenario which "allows
the unequal application of the law", Mark. My little joke was a
hypothetical political thesis, and ivory tower jest. That there is a
real-life counterpart is bizarre and may be tragic (of which, since
you're such an unsympathetic advocate, I remain to be convinced), but
it is nowhere near your hysterical over-reaction that the solution is
to "allows the unequal application of the law" by which you mean
gunowners shooting down each other on side, and damn the innocents who
become collateral damage. That's all your own work, Mark. I disown it
and you totally.
>
> So, is that clear enough:
I think so. You're a fascist who loves humanity more than people. The
Jacobins and the Bolsheviks and Pol Pot's lot were like that too.
> You can only make the claim that it "depends on who the 10,000 dead are"
> based on the unrealistic presumption that the murders are isolated
amongst=
> 'gun nuts' and you can only make that claim if you ignore the deaths of
> school children, mothers, brothers and countless other unarmed innocents
> that currently contribute to that statistic.
But since I never made that "claim", the rest of it is a waste of
bandwidth, eh, little Mark. You might get a book on logic.
> > Finally, your assumption that I knew about the schoolyard massacres is
> > entirely incorrect. I don't read the papers or watch television, and I
> > doubt those events even made the news here. Your presumption that
> > other people live as you do, do what you do, think like you do, is not
> > only stupidly parochial but deeply offensive, especially when you
> > accuse them of being callous on hand of these impertinent
> > presumptions you hold.
> > Andre Jute.
>
> You might as well have signed that "Andre Jute. Liar & Idiot".
Well, now we know where you come from. Let me once more recommend
Edmund Burke to you: "Policies, not personalities." Or our fellow RAT,
Ruff: "truth, no matter from whom it emanates."
> > No longer surprised by the foolishness of the clowns on RAT
Andre Jute
LOL
|
