Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Snit Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.checkmate Subject: Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Between Being Safe and Imminent Slaughter By Other Americans Carrying Guns Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 20:07:07 -0700 Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <1274428934567726606.289811ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> <78299410567738843.211319ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> <1908782233567780944.517828ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> <_EPVD.139332$IR7.61813@fx40.iad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net ICA2Tyr8btTkeZDQb1r08QenJPpHiHBDlc7iVemZMPHE29Paxc Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rqb0k1uw415kDFlCzgkTFuunM4Q= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com talk.politics.guns:1152012 alt.atheism:2572466 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:2110838 alt.checkmate:243686 On 12/30/18 7:51 PM, Just Wondering wrote: ... >>>> You provided a partial list of those that *aren't* covered. >>> >>> No I didn't.  I identified a category of WEAPONS (weapons of >>> mass destruction or WMDs), NOT a partial list of "arms", that >>> I think the right to keep and bear arms applies to. >>> I don't think WMDs even meet the definition of "arms" >>> in this context. >>> >>> You keep being equivocal because you made a claim and now you >>> can't back it up with actual facts. >> >> Can you define a WMD better than others define an "assault weapon"? > > I'll start with this.  A device that is designed or intended > to cause death or serious bodily injury to a group of people > through the general release, dissemination, or impact of > explosive, toxic or poisonous chemicals, biological agents, > toxins, or radioactivity. So if it is using physical items you exclude it as a WMD... even if it killed many? >> And where in the Constitution do you think it separates your WMD from >> other "arms"? > > I take issue with your use of the word "other". We are talking about a subset of arms. The word "other" to differentiate them is perfectly fine. > I already > explained why I think people don't have a right to WMDs.  If > you weren't paying attention, that's your problem not mine. You want to limit arms. Good. The debate is where to have the limits... not IF there should be limits. You speak of arms that cause harm or death to a group of people. Well, that includes MANY arms. You then tried to exclude some by speaking about the MEANS of death or harm, which I think you will find hard to defend. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.