From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:57:37 GMT

In article <susan.703389756@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

>	I'll ask you a question Roberta.  In that posting you quote, can
>you point to anything where it states "I say....."?

Can you point to anything that implies even the slightest disagreement with
the premise that no one should be allowed a gun?

>	I said, and I'll re-emphasise it for you,   
>>>          I think rather that YOU [meaning Geoff] have made an excellent case 
>                                ^^^

>  for why NOBODY
>>>should be allowed a gun Geoff.  We are all subject to our emotions and unable
>>>to think clearly under stress.  Hence guns should be barred from everybody
>>>in that case.

>	I didn't say that was my case, nor did I say that was my agenda.

You took what Geoff said (that stress affects judgement), totally ignored
his premise that those who have though it through in advance and prepared
for the worst case, are less affected, commended his point about stress,
and drew your own conclusions.  Nowhere did you use a little word like "if"
that might hint you were lesss than 100% in agreement with your conclusion.
Which of these shows agreement, and which suggests otherwise:

"Excellent point.  (I agree that) we are all subject to our emotions and
unable to think clearly under stress.  (I choose to discount your conclusion
and instead conclude that) hence guns should be barred from everybody."

			Or

"Excellent point.  (But I wonder if, since) we are all subject to our emotions
and unable to think clearly under stress, (one might conclude differently
than you did, and believe that) hence guns should be barred from everybody."

Before you bitch about me reading things into your posting, realize that
it would be reading a lot more to conclude that you were in disagreement.

>	You ASSUMED that was what I said was my agenda WRT to gun control.

At this point, it no longer matters.  You have stated that you want "better
regulation" and to "remove guns from homes".  Your agenda has been stated,
and in practical application "removing guns from homes" equates pretty well
to "taking away my self-defense weapon", now doesn't it?


---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______