[geeks] CCW for Ohio!

[Mike Hebel]

On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 08:18 PM, Francisco Javier 
Mesa-Martinez wrote:
> Nadine, I did not refer to the gun users in this list as gun nuts, the
> only time I used the term was when discussing the counter arguments of 
> the
> anti gun extremist, with equally extremist "gun nut" arguments was not
> very productive IMHO. I did not label anyone in this list as a gun nut,
> and if I ever use that term...

BZZT!  Your effective attempt at a Straw Man attack in your original 
list of points when taken in the context of the discussion is an 
obvious attempt at labeling people who wish to own firearms as "gun 
nuts".  Thus in context of the discussion so are we - per your post.

> I would not mean it as a personal insult.
> In the same sense that a car nut, is some one who loves cars, I tend to
> use the term gun nut to refer to someone who loves guns. If that 
> somehow
> was interpreted as a personal insult, then I must apologize. What I 
> would
> find insulting is that some one here would assume that I would make
> serious insults about anyone on this list, specially since most of my
> posts are made with a certain sense of levity.

That may be true.  Next time use more "winkies".  Some of us have had 
quite a few
things pushed on us on occasion and are raw and bleeding in certain 
spots.
However this "apology" is far too late.  It should have come the first 
few moments
during the argument as a defusing method.

> And in case you missed I am
> in favor of personal gun ownership, not unlimited access to guns, but
> responsible gun use... as long as there is a mechanism in place to
> regulate who gets to have a gun.

What you mean here is so long as you are one of the ones in control.
I have never met anyone who could tell me with a straight face that he 
was in
favor of gun ownership with the ability to remove guns from the 
populace who
would give up his own weapon.  Period.  If you are such then you are 
the first.
What happens when they come to take your gun sir?

> What I take issue with is the fact that you seem to get all worked out
> because I *may* have used an offesive term somehow, whereas Mr. Huhn 
> can
> go on his rants calling me a "fucktard", "prick" et al, and I become 
> the
> one who goes around insulting people....

True Kurt's language may have been a little rough but your slightly 
snide veiled
insults are the catalyst for Kurt's reaction.  You got no more than you 
expected.

I name you Troll.

>> I don't care if you've seen your buddies spill their guts in
>> combat, are a world class gun smith/armorer, or whatever.
>
> Of course you don't, and I would not expect you to either, afterall you
> already called me an "old soldier" in a previous thread.

Character Attack.  Justified if what you say is true.  However it shows 
your lack of
ability to sustain the argument on merits.

>> Calling me or anyone else on the list a "gun nut" shows you
>> have no respect for our opinions, either.
>
> At this rate I am also going to be accused of eating babies, again, why
> would I go insulting people left and right? In case you missed it, I
> refrained myself A LOT from the language that Mr. Huhn used in his
> response. IMHO asking someone to "shut the fuck up" is a real lack of
> respect for anyones opinion, I never told or said any of the pro-gun
> people to shut the fuck up, or "you are wrong", all I said and 
> expressed
> we my own personal opinions. If having a different opinion is some 
> sort of
> a bigger insult in your opinion then well... what can I do?

Again you attack the character of the person you incited to respond in 
the first place.
Troll.

*reveals can of Troll-Be-Gone*

>   You try to hide
>> behind the generalization--not specifying who you are talking
>> about, but it's clear you mean *us*--Kurt, myself, Phil, or any-
>> one else on the list who has expressed a positive opinion about
>> firearms.
>
> Again, I am sorry if reading and comprehension skills run a tad low, 
> but
> in case you missed I agree with private ownership of firearms, I just
> have to also be in favor of some sort of regulation of such ownership
> based on proven abilities to own a gun. If I wanted to insult you, or 
> anyone
> else in your list of buddies, I am man enough to do it directly, and
> specifically. Trying to read in between my lines, or assigning me 
> facts/
> actions which I have not done is a tad annoying to tell you the truth. 
> You
> can twist my words all you want... but believe me, when I and if I 
> wanted
> to insult any of you, do not worry you would be the first ones to know.

My comprehension skills are just fine Mr. Francisco.  I read 
exceptionally well and remember quite a bit of what I read if not all 
of it.  I am dyslexic also Mr. Francisco
so I have to employ extra efforts to decipher words, phrases, and whole 
sentences.
This only increases my comprehension of such words.

Your meaning was quite clear however indirect your words.

*ignites lighter in front of can of Troll-Be-Gone and sets troll 
flaming*

Begone TROLL!  We have fed you enough!

Mike Hebel