President wants some sensible measures passed in 2013 to curb violence against children

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Someone somewhere had to fill the vast silence you left when asked to explain why more guns = better security for liberal politicians (and their children) but fewer guns = better security for everyone else (and their children)

You could have saved pages and pages by just scratching you a$ and saying "I don't know" or "that's illogical" rather than making an a$ of yourself all day

LOL I wish we had a like button here. You know the other posters might be right. He may be a troll. Anybody smart enough to work a computer can not be that slow.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

LOL I wish we had a like button here. You know the other posters might be right. He may be a troll. Anybody smart enough to work a computer can not be that slow.

I admit his dam can't cause a flood comment was rather funny.

[himher 634]

LOL my education has paid out. No refund needed.

"I can't do anything with my publick eddication so I should get a refund for it on taxes I never paid"

I love liberal logic

As I said, DO demand a refund. Present this thread and they'll give it to you. With interest.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I admit his dam can't cause a flood comment was rather funny.

The real funny thing is that you thought a comment I never actually made was funny.

LOL my education has paid out.

I must say that you're hiding that extremely well.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The real funny thing is that you thought a comment I never actually made was funny.

Reread post 16. I see you clarified it later but at face value you actually did state that dams do not cause floods.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Someone somewhere had to fill the vast silence you left when asked to explain why more guns = better security for liberal politicians (and their children) but fewer guns = better security for everyone else (and their children)

You could have saved pages and pages by just scratching you a$$ and saying "I don't know" or "that's illogical" rather than making an a$$ of yourself all day.

Now, in your mind and in the mind of your little side-kick here I may have made an a$$ of myself. No problem. Any sensible line of argument brought forth will look that way to you folks. That's alright, don't bother me. You remember what I said earlier about that oak and the pig. That still applies. Now, you can't manage to grasp a simple analogy, can't manage to keep your own line of argument straight and then you expect me to get into why isolated armed protection producing added security for a few subjects does not translate into a broadly armed society being safer than a non-armed society with you and yours? Nice try but I don't engage what I know from the outset to be futile exercises. Show me that you can grasp simple concepts and I might give it a shot. Fail at the simple stuff and I won't waste my time with you on the more complex issues. Would be way over your head.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Reread post 16. I see you clarified it later but at face value you actually did state that dams do not cause floods.

Correct. Only dam failures do cause floods of the undesirable nature. We were talking about something undesirable here - rampant gun violence to be specific. Context is a beautiful thing, isn't it? I can't help the attention span of some folks not covering but a single post or only portions thereof. I maintain as I always have that insane firearm proliferation is the leading cause of the insane gun violence we have going on this country. Any calls to proliferate firearms further in order to stem the problem is as insane as calling for more water to fight a flood. That is my argument. That has been my argument and it will be my argument. And it remains true.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Now, in your mind and in the mind of your little side-kick here I may have made an a$ of myself. No problem. Any sensible line of argument brought forth will look that way to you folks. That's alright, don't bother me. You remember what I said earlier about that oak and the pig. That still applies. Now, you can't manage to grasp a simple analogy, can't manage to keep your own line of argument straight and then you expect me to get into why isolated armed protection producing added security for a few subjects does not translate into a broadly armed society being safer than a non-armed society with you and yours? Nice try but I don't engage what I know from the outset to be futile exercises. Show me that you can grasp simple concepts and I might give it a shot. Fail at the simple stuff and I won't waste my time with you on the more complex issues. Would be way over your head.

Yawn

So lakes are not man made, but a man can make a lake. Would that not make it a .hmmm Man made lake, which would contradict the first statement.

Your answer is ... for sure one of the three.

1. I never said that

2. None of us understand analogies.

3, We are all #@#% RWNJ idiots gun nuts

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I maintain as I always have that insane firearm proliferation is the leading cause of the insane gun violence we have going on this country. Any calls to proliferate firearms further in order to stem the problem is as insane as calling for more water to fight a flood. That is my argument. That has been my argument and it will be my argument. And it remains true.

The issue I have is that this country is an ocean in your argument and people are simply asking for fresh water rather than sea water. (Thats 3 analogies now in this thread)

Edited January 2, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Ooo one more. Gun control is like a levee trying to control floods, it just makes them worse down stream (up to 4)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So lakes are not man made, but a man can make a lake. Would that not make it a .hmmm Man made lake, which would contradict the first statement.

Your answer is ... for sure one of the three.

1. I never said that

2. None of us understand analogies.

3, We are all #@#% RWNJ idiots gun nuts

Wrong on your guess as to what my answer is going to be. I will simply ask you to study the below earlier post and see if that helps you understand what differentiation I made in between man made and non-man made things. It's really not difficult to understand why lakes are not usually thought of as man made while automobiles are thought of as man made. Similarly, snow is not thought of as man made. Neither are floods. Or rain or wind. Now, we can make these things but that doesn't mean that we usually do and it certainly doesn't mean that unless we make them, they don't exist.

Oh Lord. Let's try it the other way around. Cars are man made. Trains are man made. Airplanes are man made. None of these exist unless man makes them.

Now, man learned to make a lot of stuff that mother nature also makes. Snow, diamonds, lakes, for example. That doesn't mean that these are all man made things. These are naturally occurring things than man can also make. Like floods. By and large, floods are NOT man made. They are natural events that man can make - both inadvertently and purposely. But with very few exceptions, floods are not man made. And without exception, it doesn't take man for a flood to occur. Nature is perfectly capable of making them happen without man.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

As this thread is so totally off topic and is more of a debate about the analogy than about the original post, and as it seems peppered with snide comments and snarky insults that are obviously meant to instigate a negative response, I am closing this thread. Like the floodgate on that 'proverbial' dam; it's still works. This thread is now closed.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Kathryn41