England UK

"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:aRjkh.99620$hn.62950@edtnps82...
> "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:7Y2dnV26Z98DrwzYnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> [ SNIP ]
>> I'm not. I'm just noticing some possible hypocracy in your assertions and
>> I'm attempting to find out if you believe we should always compromise or
>> if there are times when compromise simply isn't acceptable. So far you
>> have asserted belief in both sides of this and continue the impose cheese
>> wording to your clarification (ie the "practice interpration) of your no
>> compromise stance.
> [ SNIP ]
>
> Let me answer everything you said succinctly, so that you find it more
> difficult to be a sea-lawyer.
>
> 1. I stated that there are positions that I will not compromise on.
> Period. That's all I said. I didn't say specifically what those positions
> were.

Ok

> 2. Following from point one, there are then positions that I will
> compromise on, either with regards to RKBA or anything else. I haven't
> spelled out the huge majority of what those positions are.

Ok

> 3. With regards to RKBA specifically, *you* would see my position as being
> a compromise, and in the interests of keeping the bickering to a minimum,
> I'll accept that description. In fact, I think I have a definite position
> insofar as I think we have the right to handguns, rifles and shotguns, and
> I won't budge on that. So none of this ".22LR rifles are enough"
> stupidity...seeing as how that's clearly not my position.

Fine and if other people hold a different position then I would similarly
expect you to respect their position even if it is a position of no
compromise.

> 4. Where my "compromise" comes in wrt RKBA, and I don't really see it as
> compromise at all, since I don't actually believe we have any right to
> heavier weapons than shotguns, handguns and rifles, is precisely for me to
> say that I don't think we have the right to heavier weapons than handguns,
> shotguns and rifles. That's it.

I'm sure you don't see your compromise and people are always willing to come
up with excuses to justify their compromises. However, you say you don't
believe we have a right to heavy weapons. Can you support your belief or is
this one of those personal opinions which doesn't depend on actual facts?


>
> You'd be hard pressed to show me where I said that we should always
> compromise (don't be a sea-lawyer and attempt to quote words out of
> context). I'd certainly agree that I've said that compromise is
> occasionally unacceptable.

Yep, and my feeling is that were our freedoms and liberties are involved,
compromise is not acceptable. You seem willing to contest that position and
felt that compromise should occur. I just wonder how many of our rights and
freedoms you are willing to compromise away. I already recognize that you
are willing to compromise my RKBA quite extensively.


> I hope you don't try quibbling like this with a boss or a judge - you'd be
> demolished in a few seconds.

Not when I'm using your own words. If you're not going to stand behind your
own words, then what does that tell us about you?

> As it is, I don't know how your SO, family and friends put up with you.

Easy, they don't make contradictory statements concerning the compromising
of my rights.

> Or do you just turn on "sea lawyer" mode when you post on the Internet?
> All I know is, you'd've lasted maybe a week in the Marines before your
> first blanket party.

Yes, intelligence and consistency isn't really necessary for the Marines,
just blind obedience.