This thread is now 23 pages long, so... and I mean this respectfully... I was going to say this has been like the NY Yankees (Mr. Tsing) playing a T-ball team (Mr. piezoe). But I must admit I'm biased. So instead, make that the Yankees playing a good Little League team. Especially during the last few pages.
Ha ha ha ha. That's wonderful! Thank you so much!!! I started skating when I was seven and played on various teams from ages 11-~25, but kept playing "disorganized" hockey until about age 35. All my coaches were Canadian. I grew up speaking only Canadian, as in "I hit'em reet in the mooth." Later I learned English too. I still have my totally sliced up kangaroo leather skates in a duffle bag somewhere. Once you're infected with hockey, apparently there is no cure.
This is a fundamental assumption you have made that lies at the root of our disagreement. I profoundly disagree with this assumption. I even believe that I can prove that it is probably wrong. Though I am not going to attempt that here. Not now anyway. I invite you, then, to think about it and ask yourself the question: Is my assumption that it won't be possible to get the guns away from people killing others with a gun correct? Or am I just assuming it won't be? Of course I want to do something that would be much easier. I only want to get certain types of guns away from the people doing the killing with guns. So I don't expect to stop the people with guns from killing other people with guns. I only expect to make it more inconvenient for these people, and in so doing I expect the probability of them killing someone to decrease. You should only believe me if you believe there is likely to be a link between how easy it is to kill people with a gun and the number of people killed. And that's all I want to do, because I have worked this problem out in my head and I realize how incredibly easy it would be to reduce the probability. So I want to do just the easy part, and reduce the probability by some significant amount, without even thinking about trying to reduce the probability to zero.
Although hesitant to make a post in this thread, the markets don't care either way, nor will any of you line my pockets if I loose on a trade, so. . . The Right to Bear Arms is not originally a US concept via the Bill of Rights. This is a right of Purim, please review your history, and you will find the circumstances of this precedent in the Biblical Book of Esther. Are you a Haman or Mordeci? Will you take my right of Purim? This was settled long ago in Persia.
Just thought I'd pop in and say hi. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...ored-emails-with-cnn-to-media-outlets.318564/ You have yourself a great day.
Ah, so what you're saying is that I am wrong, and you can prove it, but you don't feel like it. Well, based on the OP of the thread, you forfeit your position. And now you're trying some silly psychobabble to draw attention from the point that you cannot (sorry, choose not to) prove that you can, somehow, actually get people with illegal guns to give up their guns. Yet, the only thing you have come up with is that your fuzzily described policies thus far mentioned in this thread probably would see an effect in twenty years or something. Incredibly easy to do, as worked out in your head, but oh so difficult to debate here on the forum. Sorry, not buying it one bit.
Welcome back, Freddie. Only been a few days since you said you were taking off, but I'm glad to see you're back in the conversation. All I see in that post in some youtube video from Slartibart. Could you kindly post whatever link you were referring to?
No, it is a post by exGOPer: http://uk.businessinsider.com/parkl...ily-shops-doctored-cnn-emails-to-media-2018-2
Lines Out the Door and Strong Sales at Tampa Gun Show https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/business/gun-show-tampa-parkland.html?partner=rss&emc=rss Ohio Sheriff Offers Free Gun Training To 50 Teachers; Forced To Cap At 300 After Huge Response https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero)
Explains why I did not see it if it was ExGOPer. Nevertheless, it appears that the kid's father did, indeed, doctor the email he claimed was from CNN and CNN did not tell him what he had to say according to that article. That's the problem with being a known con-artist. Even when you tell the truth, people don't believe you. Thanks for the info and setting the record straight.