If you have had such familiarity with firearms why did you make such an ignorant comment about Squeaky Fromme's Colt .45 auto in the Iraqi shoe-thrower thread?
Because everyone makes mistakes?
I am well aware of your New Zeallnd citizenship. But since you say you are fine with the firearm laws there, and you say that you couldn't care less about the firearm laws here, then what in Hell have you been opining about for the last 6 pages?
Well let's have a look shall we, because it's pretty clear you haven't been paying attention.
Post 1
I answered the OP by stating I was not an American, and that I was happy with gun laws in my country. I offered a musing that carrying pistols in public didn't seem to have much bearing on a populace's ability to keep weapons for overthrowing a tyranny.
Post 2
Fuelair commented that people who don't think guns are necessary must not know anyone who has been the victim of crime, as apparently being the victim of crime makes you realise you need a gun. I pointed out, with my second post, that guns don't stop those crimes.
Post 3
Texas asked for an example of large numbers of armed civilians starting gunfights, so I offered the example of Iraq, as a joke.
Post 4
I replied to a post of yours with a counter-argument and a joke about the USA becoming a monarchy.
Post 5
I pointed out that most burglaries occur when the occupant is absent, questioning the relevance of using firearms to prevent such crime.
Post 6
This is where our current exchange began. You replied to a post of mine with some nonsensical and irrelevant arguments, and whilst displaying a total lack of understanding of A) my position and B) gun laws in my country. I corrected those errors.
Post 7
You replied to my above post with yet more irrelevant arguments that bore no relationship to my position, and once again I pointed this out.
Post 8
I expressed some opinions on why I feel the "self-defense" argument for having readily accessible hand guns is a non-starter.
Post 9
You responded to the above post with a shallow appeal to emotion, which I pointed out with a counter.
Post 10
In response to myself and another poster you made some more wholly incorrect and fanciful strawman arguments about my position and my experience with the subject matter. I correct these errors.
So. To answer your question, what in Hell have I been opining about for the last 6 pages?
Mostly your phenomenal lack of reading comprehension.
I predict Post 12 of mine will deal with me pointing out that your response to this post is crammed full of faulty arguments, strawmen, and a total failure to comprehend anything being posted.
Now, if you'd care to back up some of your baseless assertions, please provide any evidence, even just a scrap, to support the following comments made by you about me:
"New Zealand is not as zealous about denying its citizens rights to firearms as you seem to be."
"Are you as gung ho on gun control in your own country as you are about it in the U.S.?"
"Perhaps they espoused the same hysterical rhetoric you use and that led to their demise? "
"You and gumboot are the ones who advocate New York City, or even worse, type regulations for the entire country."
You have this fanciful image in your head that I'm anti-guns, or support harsh gun control laws. You're wrong. You're utterly wrong, and nothing I have said in this thread supports your views. You've labeled me as an "opponent" for whatever reason, and you've personalised the discussion as an attack on me, for a position I don't hold.
"I wish there were a way to arrange for a meeting with you and this rape victim that could have prevented the attack had she been allowed access to firearms. You could console her with platitudes about her sacrifice for the greater good."
Pathetic.
