snipped-for-privacy@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
one
I did read what you wrote, here it is again:
"**The police are highly trained. They are trained to assess a given situation and react accordingly. They are also given some legal training and fully understand that, if they do kill someone, that they will be (rightfully) subject to rigorous and penetrating investigative prosesses. Civlians are not (usually) so trained. For those and other reasons, civilians should not possess deadly (or other weapons) when going about their daily routine."
You're saying Police should carry deadly weapons (as opposed to civilians) because they are "highly trained" both in the use of arms and in the legal aspects of using those arms, as well as being trained in how to respond to potentially violent situations, am I right?
But you're now saying that civilians who have undergone similar training (or perhaps even more extensive training) shouldn't carry arms?
You really are a quite confused little child aren't you.
You've given me that advice before, what is it with you and 9 year olds?
Oops, forget I asked that question, I don't want the answer.
As there doesn't appear to be any 9 year olds available, why don't you try?
r.
nut
You normally brand anyone who disagrees with you as a nut-job. That's OK, I view being branded a nut-job by a self-centred arrogant zealot like you to be a badge of honour.
I guess being branded a nut-job is an improvement on being compared to Timothy McViegh or the Unabomber, as you've done to other gun owners who've disagreed with you.
Tell us agin about your friend who can STOP his heart.