Gotta wonder......

HEARTLESS wrote: I doubt anyone would consider a reserve officer shooting someone in the described situation a good guy. But you can run with it if you like.

Deflection much?

You certainly do have a "romanticized" view of the Republican Party, both past and present, P. I don't happen to agree with that view.

History is a great teacher. Letting it belong in the past isn't something I believe we can afford to do.

For your reading pleasure: historymatters.gmu.edu/impeach2.html

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: I doubt anyone would consider a reserve officer shooting someone in the described situation a good guy. But you can run with it if you like.

Deflection much?

How is that deflection? You brought up a situation, as some sort of example, and can't figure out what it has to do with anything.

Love to keep seeing what goes on in the mind of Sybil, but....

ZHawke wrote:
Again, does not answer the question of how you would be able to determine if the person carrying is a "good guy with a gun" or a "bad guy with a gun"?

There are far more deaths caused by bad and irresponsible drivers than there are by legal gun carriers. The tool is just different, but since we can't tell who the good and bad drivers are either, what can we learn? I say we only learn that bad, irresponsible, or unskilled people have many different tools in which they can harm their fellow citizens.

HEARTLESS wrote:

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: I doubt anyone would consider a reserve officer shooting someone in the described situation a good guy. But you can run with it if you like.

Deflection much?

How is that deflection? You brought up a situation, as some sort of example, and can't figure out what it has to do with anything.

Deflection in that YOU were the one who called into question the validity of using a reserve police officer in my example as a "good guy with a gun". Then you come back and say this reserve officer doesn't deserve the title "good guy with a gun", even though he's a reserve officer who, by just about anyone's standards, should set an example to follow even while off-duty.

Rick wrote: There are far more deaths caused by bad and irresponsible drivers than there are by legal gun carriers. The tool is just different, but since we can't tell who the good and bad drivers are either, what can we learn? I say we only learn that bad, irresponsible, or unskilled people have many different tools in which they can harm their fellow citizens.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Gun ownership, as has been pointed out in The Courthouse repeatedly, is a right. Comparing apples and oranges will only get you into a position to be questioned as to your "right" to keep and bear arms if you want to equate it with driving.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: There are far more deaths caused by bad and irresponsible drivers than there are by legal gun carriers. The tool is just different, but since we can't tell who the good and bad drivers are either, what can we learn? I say we only learn that bad, irresponsible, or unskilled people have many different tools in which they can harm their fellow citizens.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Gun ownership, as has been pointed out in The Courthouse repeatedly, is a right. Comparing apples and oranges will only get you into a position to be questioned as to your "right" to keep and bear arms if you want to equate it with driving.

Whether or not you are using a tool because it's a privilege or a right, why does that have anything to do with it's irresponsible use? I doubt it matters much to a parent of a dead kid if they were killed by a bad driver or a bad gun owner. Owning a gun doesn't increase the chance of you killing someone any more than owning a car does... FACT (unless you have a link to dispute that)

Rick wrote: Whether or not you are using a tool because it's a privilege or a right, why does that have anything to do with it's irresponsible use? I doubt it matters much to a parent of a dead kid if they were killed by a bad driver or a bad gun owner. Owning a gun doesn't increase the chance of you killing someone any more than owning a car does... FACT (unless you have a link to dispute that)

Then let's require insurance liability policies on every single gun as they currently are on vehicles.

ZHawke wrote: You certainly do have a "romanticized" view of the Republican Party, both past and present, P. I don't happen to agree with that view.

History is a great teacher. Letting it belong in the past isn't something I believe we can afford to do.

For your reading pleasure: historymatters.gmu.edu/impeach2.html

Not sure what the purpose of the kink is Z, other than to support my statement that is. It confirms the Republicans sought to open the society equally to blacks by having the federal government protect their rights to own property, to vote, to keep and bear arms and all the other privileges and immunities that citizens of the States enjoyed.

And my view of the Republican Party is not romanticized, it is historically accurate, up to and including the most recent history of the Union. There is a reason that one side of the aisle views what happened, and is happening, in Ferguson through a historical racial prism and the other side of the aisle views it through a prism of the individual incident. One side is color blind and looking at the content of the character of the people involved, the other is looking for victims and villains based on skin color alone.