It's not the fact that you think you're right (that's fine), it's the fact that you treat everyone with that different opinion like they're quacks who have no right to even have their own opinion. You look down on differing opinions and that is what everyone dislikes about you.

I never said I was right. I think in one of my posts I stated that also. It's just an opinion.

And I never said I forgive you, only that you made some good points on that one post and you did so in a non-condecending way.

[This message has been edited by Fanboy99 (edited 05-12-99).]

I guess the part of this 'debate' that bothers me the most is the self realization part of it. That's when someone like me, a veteran with actual combat service, feels like he might be asked to defend a few of you, SHOULD this country ever be invaded by opposing forces, foreign or domestic.

I don't condone violence. Nor do I condone violent crimes involving guns. I believe in a waiting period. I believe in outside agency sponsored gun safety classes for everyone with a desire to legally own and use firearms. I believe in the Constitution ... AS IS ... without infringment. And, I believe a few of you are smarter than you make yourself out to be. Especially when the topic is gun control in America. I don't believe that our police agencies are doing enough to get ILLEGAL guns off the streets. I don't believe that the government of our United States of America is DOING ENOUGH to keep ILLEGAL arms from ILLEGALLY entering our country. And for those of you that want to legalize DRUGS (up to and including Heroin) ... Why not legalize GUNS? Let's make it a CRIME ... NOT to own one. Isn't it the Swiss that require their citizens to be responsible for a home kept automatic weapon?

Of course, ... you might not care to research THESE areas of the debate.

Oh, ... and while we're at it - STICK THIS, my latest "bumper sticker", where your proctologist can read it!

*********************************************

------------------
Rick Olney
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.
--Thomas Sowell, Creators Syndicate

Research what exactly, Rick? You lost me.

I think Rick and I are having an argument --and a nasty one, judging by the tone of his sign-off-- but I'm not sure about what. If Rick approves of a waiting period for guns, he's already approving of one gun-control law, so I'm not sure how other gun-control laws would then constitute some sort of constitutional violation. (We've already established that Amendments are not sacred, thanks to the unmourned XVIIIth. We've also established that there are all sorts of limits on free speech, which only the most rabid First Amendment buffs give a hoot about -- although I think Nat Hentoff believes libel laws are an unconstitutional abridgment of the First.)

Curiously, at least on the side of the NRA boosters, the dialogue is remarkably devoid of any debate over specific aspects of the existing or proposed gun-control laws, which is what this is all about (right?). All we get is pry-the-gun-from-my-cold-dead-hands litanies and when-only-criminals-have-guns screeds, ad nauseam.

All of which are patently irrelevant, because honestly, Rick, if you're a non-felonious adult who doesn't have a wild hankering to own an automatic assault rifle or two, I DON'T want to take your guns away from you, or try to pass laws that would do that. (The right to carry concealed weapons, especially in public where I might bump into you, might be iffy.) I might militate for a gun-registration law that would be precisely as onerous as the law governing automobile operators (i.e. a pain in the ass every couple of years, local registration of your gun, and a few bucks), but that's about it.

Oh, and going back a few posts, I'm (sort of) curious as to what motivation NATO would have had for bombing that Chinese embassy. In one of their rare shows of solidarity, the Chinese Commies and the American Patriots all seem to agree that they blew it up on purpose, but to what sinister Machiavellian effect I've not yet been able to ascertain. It sure doesn't seem to have done anyone any good, except for Milosevic, so unless this is the sign of a Milosevic/NATO conspiracy, an honest accident still seems the most reasonable explanation. But I await elucidation.

~and i quote:

"It's a fallacy that everyone is entitled to an opinion. Everyone is entitled to an INFORMED opinion." ~ Woody Allen (or was it Bruno Hauptmann...?)

~carry on...

RICK (Olney) said: "I don't believe that our police agencies are doing enough to get ILLEGAL guns off the streets. I don't believe that the government of our United States of America is DOING ENOUGH to keep ILLEGAL arms from ILLEGALLY entering our country."

What are you suggesting? That, because the government can't keep the "ILLEGAL" gun count down, that you'd better have one/some in order to protect yourself? Are you suggesting that -- since it's so difficult to keep illegal guns off the street -- it would be easier to leave the laws the way they are and make sure you're packing?

My biggest question for gun advocates is how can you justify the number of injuries and fatalities (of innocents) incurred every year? Again, as has been said by others, I don't have any desire to take all the guns away. But, surely, ANYBODY -- especially gun OWNERS, I would think -- would be concerned about the accidents and misuse that happens. Can anybody supply reasonably unbiased statistics that indicate that the gun's usefulness/necessity outweighs all the accidents and misuse?

"And for those of you that want to legalize DRUGS (up to and including Heroin) ... Why not legalize GUNS? Let's make it a CRIME ... NOT to own one."

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. If it is, I think it misses its point since it's certainly a much more absurd idea than, say, limiting the sales of semi-automatic weapons.

I find it pretty amusing that you follow "Isn't it the Swiss that require their citizens to be responsible for a home kept automatic weapon?" with a jab about those who may not "care to research" the things being discussed.

As Kim pointed out, the baffling thing about this discussion is that -- even though I don't think any of the gun-control supporters have expressed interest in abolishing the things -- it seems that none of the gun advocates see fit to actually discuss the merits of legislation that makes it more difficult for guns to get into the wrong hands. I could be wrong, maybe some of them have shown support. The point is that THAT is what this discussion should be about. So, come one, guys, where do you stand? Should the existing laws be done away with? Are there any proposed that you support? I don't believe this is an issue of rights being taken away, I believe its an issue of common sense.

--Ricko





[This message has been edited by Rick Bradford (edited 05-13-99).]

Hello.

Anyone who thinks that Kim calls people names just because they disagree with him is an imbecile. Anyone who thinks I'm calling them an imbecile because I disagree with their opinions is also an imbecile.

If you bothered to do the slightest bit of research on this board or the TCJ board, you would find that numerous instances in which Kim (or I, or Domingos, or Bart Beaty, or Don Markstein, or Jenny Gonzalez, or Joe Zabel, or Jeff Zugale, or Steve Bissette, or Milo George, or Dave Holloway, or Ariel Bordeaux, or Kurt Busiek, or Sam Henderson, or...) have fervently disagreed with another participant on the board without being called or calling them, in one fashion or another, an imbecile.

This is because they adhere to basic minimal standards of discussion: (1) They back up their statements with at least a smattering of facts when available (which, ironically, has been made about 1000 times easier by the advent of this here web thingie you're perusing); (2) They respond to the legitimate points brought up by others (Switzerland? Canada? _Do_ you think people should be able to own semi-auto and automatic weapons? [which Bill L. at least gave a reasonable response to, though I wholly disagree with him]), (3) They adhere to minimal standards of readability (side point, not to cast aspersions on the broader politics of some of those on this board, but have you ever noticed that the most fervent English-as-official-language-xenophobes invariably tend to be barely literate themselves?), (4) They try to avoid logical flaws in their arguments big enough to drive trucks through (and for anyone who thinks I'm jsut a Kim lapdog, I invite you to join the porn discussion in The Gutters, where I'm about to knock down Kim's argument like a gored steer);(5) They admit when something they've said has been proven false or wrong, if perhaps only grudgingly and partially.

Moral of the story: Just because someone who disagrees with you calls you an imbecile, it doesn't mean that they think people who disagree with them are idiots. It means they think that you, specifically you, are an imbecile.

Many intelligent people disagree with many of my opinions. Logically, if this was not true, and assuming that there is no one person on Earth who agrees with absolutely 100% of my opinions (which seems likely, as I've not met one person who even has the same Top 10 favorite anything as I do), then that would force me to believe that I am the only intelligent person on earth. Trust me, after reading some of these threads, this has been a very tempting conclusion. But luckily, there have been enough people on this board (the MAJORITY of them, in fact,) who have posted thoughts and opinions that, whether or not I agree with them, have shown themselves to be capable of at least some moderate degree of cogitation and non-asininity that I accord them enough respect to at least not call them imbeciles.

Sam Catalino, Fanboy99, Jim Brocius, and "RICK": By the definition presented above, and by your posts to this thread, let me proudly inform you: You are imbeciles. No ifs, ands, or buts. Though Jim is at least readable.

Either that, or you're just spectacularly lazy and solipsistic, which to my mind is even worse. Christ, I'm really sick of the "But I've got BETTER things to do" line. If you don't have enough time or to respond to someone's else assertion while adhering to some minimal standards, don't post at all. I don't post on a majority of the threads I read, simply because I either feel I have little to contribute to the discussion, or because I don't have the time or energy to dig up enough info to support whatever point I wanted to make, or because I don't have enough time or energy to think through my opinion on the subject to the point that I'd have an opinion I'd want to state. Or, if you have some pathological need to spew bullshit, go the Gutters, expressly constructed as a public service to house inane reiterations of stand-up comedy routines, cock-inflating invective, dimwitted paralogisms, and patriotic tautologies galore. You have a home, and it welcomes you. Go there.

Incidentally, isn't it rather bizarre that this thread is in Announcements, while the so far entirely reasonable and civilized porn debate is in The Gutters?

Marc Deering, it's kind of worrying that you not only didn't know what Amendment XVIII (which is, in and of itself, perfectly understandable), but also totally ignored the huge context clue ("So you're saying by your standards, we should still be living under Prohibition") that Kim provided in the very next sentence, just in case anyone was wondering exactly which one of those there Amendments it was that got repealed by another one. It's arguable that by this, you've pretty much rendered yourself a less than unimpeachable source of opinion on the marvel that is the history of the American Government. But you're not an imbecile.

You think KIM'S condescending? You haven't SEEN condescending...

Hey! Fanboy99 is not an imbecile! He's a genius! You should see how he's handling me on the other board-thingie. He's very, very, smart.He's imaginative. He's an altruism that walks like a man.

Okay, I'll give Fanboy99 this: he's an imbecile savant. If his savanthood had any practical or constructive application, I might even be impressed.

And I have to say this was one of my favorite comebacks in years:

buck futter: "don't know Fanbaby...your post above reads more like autobiography than insult."

Fanboy99: "It is. Yours. Sad, isn't it when it's spelled out for you."

If anybody wants me to write their autobiography for them, I work cheap.

[This message has been edited by Jesse Fuchs (edited 05-13-99).]

Thank you, Jesse, for pointing out the utter foolishness of Fanboob's response in that exchange from the Gutters. I was tempted myself to refute it specifically, but then I would be compelled to refute all of his endless contradictions, ignorant posturings, and weaselly wanking, and there's just not enough time in the day to take on that daunting task. God, it'd be fun, though.

Please allow me a moment to express my humble support for the gun control advocates on these threads. You've made many of the same points I would have, and much more eloquently than I could aspire to (damn, a prepositional ending; sorry. How about "...with eloquence to which I could only aspire." Yeah, that's the ticket). In any case, thank you, and keep fighting the good fight.

Doesn't it just burn your biscuits when somebody brings one of these huge threads to the top and you feel compelled to look and then, after downloading the whole thing, finding that it's something totally irrelevant and time-wasting? I know I do...

Oh...uh...sorry.



------------------
"I put Rodin in one pocket, Michelangelo in another, and I walk toward the sun." - Stanislav Szukalski

To the Trench Coat Mafia of the message board who persist who calling my friends imbeciles, I am back!
Ed, stop trying to correct other folks' grammer and being a e.e. cummings wannabe.
If someone really gets off on condescending and wants to prove they can be better, be my guest. Throw down the gauntlet, I'll pick it up.
As for Thompson, you wanna tinker with the 2nd amendment, you open the door to someone using a similar argument to tinker with the first. When it comes to the Constitution, I am a literalist.
Once again for you folks who feel I am some NRA card carrying Uzi shooting gun fanatic, I DO NOT OWN A GUN!! I HAVE NEVER OWNED A GUN!! I just don't believe that we need more restrictions/laws when WE AREN'T EVEN DOING A GOOD JOB ENFORCING THE ONES ON THE BOOKS NOW!!! This is an overeaction to a problem that is much more complex and can not be solved by more USELESS laws.
"If we take away some of our liberty to ensure our security, we will have neither"
---Benjamin Franklin
"We are the first industrial state in the world to ban guns. Now the police can be more efficient." -----Adolf Hitler
Thompson, I didn't care about the way you have spoken to my friends in the past, but if you want to debate this civil, I can do that. If you want to go to the gutters, fine. If you want to meet in San Diego, fine again. If you want to go Jerry Springer type...FINE.
And to any of you Thompson fanboys who wanna take potshots at the old man, Lange can tell you I have been quite nice til now. To you all, I will be happy to deal with any of you in the gutters at my leisure. Lange can tell you what I mean.
Nothing wrong with your opinions, Thompson, I just don't agree with them!
Take care all,

Sam