Guns in Public, and Out of Sight

[beevul]

161. And you're doing it again.

Attributing meanings to statements that were more or less tongue in cheek - the gun=underwear thing. I read it. I saw it for what it was. You are attributing to it, some other meaning than it was intended to convey.

And its no accident.

So comeone chooses to be armed when they can. So the fuck what. That person made a CHOICE. You're ascribing a meaning to that choice, drawing a conclusion from that choice, for which no facts have been presented to support.

Period.

Did you really think that sort of thing is accepted in this forum without comment, question, and condemnation? Really?

"When you think you might need a gun in any and all situations in order to be safe."

One can choose to be prepared for many things which may or may not happen, with varying degrees of potentiality. So what? the difference, between those other things and the choice of carrying a gun as a means of preparedness gun EXISTS IN YOUR MIND. Again, you're ascribing a meaning to that choice, drawing a conclusion from that choice, which no facts have been presented to support.

Period.


"When you equate wearing a gun with have a fire extinguisher."

And again, your claiming someone did and said something they didn't. Nobody was equating "wearing a gun with have a fire extinguisher" - they were comparing THE REASONS for doing either of those two things. I doubt very much that you're so dim as not to know or recognise the difference.


"When you see a gun as the best tool you could ever have for survival"

Who exactly claimed exactly that? Beuller? BEULLER? Claiming it was the best tool for survival IN A CERTAIN SITUATION perhaps. Well, thats not at all what you claim was said, now is it. So again, you're claiming someone expressed a sentiment which they in fact did not.

"If you think any of that is rational, please don't bother to reply"

Why would I think any of it is anything, since none of is is what anyone said. Its what you CLAIMED they said, tortured out of their words, or equivocated into the murk.

"I have nothing I need to prove in this particular discussion."

We'll, then don't pretend you're interested in rational discourse or discussion, and just admit you're here to make unsupported claims about other posters words , motivations, and sentiments, and that you're simply here to cast aspersions.

That IS what you've been doing.

In rational discourse and reasoned discussion, if one makes claims, the onus is on them to back it up or retract those claims. You've done neither. And you'll never be upholding YOUR end of things until you do.

"We can disagree. I'm fine with that. We don't all see the world the same."

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are not , however entitled to your own facts.

Nor are you entitled to:

* present your opinion as if it were fact

* cast unfounded aspersions on others and characterize them as fact

* make false claims that others said or meant or argued things that they very obviously didn't and present that as fact

* assign motivations to actions or behaviors of others which no facts have been provided to support and present THAT as fact

No sir. Not here. Not now. Not ever.

Expect to be called on it.

Every.Single.Time.

"I don't know Beevul. What do you think?"

I think you know exactly what you're doing. I think its been pointed out enough that there can be no mistaking it, even in the off chance that you were so dim as not to know it initially what you were doing.

I think you're going to keep doing it anyway, because I've seen this a hundred times before - the evasiveness, the dodging, the unfounded claims, the equivocation, the deliberate misinterpretation of things posted tongue in cheek, the unwillingness to even try to back up claims...all of it.

I've seen it here before. And I'm not the only one.

Enough times to recognise is for what it most likely is.