You're not even paying attention.

My first complaint is about the general obliviousness of, at least all media - to the 'stat-facts' claimed by the NRA rep

EARTH TO ASHTON: THE NRA DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

I'VE POINTED THIS OUT MORE THAN ONCE.

THAT kind of 'number' is no more credible from the 'NRA' than is a number about server 'quality' by M$ - not without external corroboration, it isn't.

Fine. Corroborate it. ITS NOT FROM THE NRA.

because of all them guns er 'protectin* the peepul'.

Ashton: This is a lie.

Lie. Falsehood. Untooth. Summoning Godwin, I smite thee with the Big Lie. That's the only thing that makes sense for you to keep BABBLING on the same, refuted, point that doesn't have anything to do with this.

You've come up with this image of the US as a gun-battling place. Nevermind that's the opposite. That these shootings are going up (they're not). You've done NOTHING but insult, denegrate, belittle.

And you can't even keep straight who's involved.

To the NRA-oriented, it was impermissible? for this Doctor to even comment upon the growing number of gunshot wounds his colleagues are treating?

Comment upon? Ashton, did you READ the link?

IT WAS HIS WHOLE SPEECH.

If you can't be bothered with learning what the issue is (fer instance, that the NRA ain't involved with this), can you at least not keep posting after its pointed out 2 or 3 times?

I *detest* willful ignorance. I hate it in "rednecks". I hate it in "liberals". I hate it in "conservatives". So no, I don't like it now. I've explained, time and time again, and you just blithely ignore it and keep on saying what you were falsely saying.

*WHAT* can be the EXCUSE for that? (The NRA isn't involved, Ash. Explain how you don't know that by now).

just comments on how stupid the Dr. is! imagining it has anything to do with there being lots of guns everywhere.

AGAIN: This is a doctor. He's the president of the AMA. Who's calling for restrictive gun laws. Who spent a *whole speech* of his initial speech - let me stop and TRY AGAIN to get this across. THIS WASN'T A COMMENT. THIS WAS A WHOLE SPEECH.

Whole speech. Not a comment.

A misinformed, badly researched speech. I *expect* better from doctors. Perhaps I'm silly.

So.. You can't remember this is the Libertarian Party replying (using facts and stats from the FBI, among others). Can't remember its the whole speech.

You're distorting the whole argument, just so you can keep going on about some artificial construct in your head *that has no basis in reality, history, or the likely future*.

*Stat-Facts o'course, brought by the er Gun Owners Foundation's bureau of comfy number massaging... Section of: Unbiased Interpolation.

Ash.... Don't you DARE even TRY and attack anybody else's numbers whent hey're using KELLERMAN.

If you don't know why - then learn. Don't post, learn.

You are correct that - you could infer that I meant: the "farce" has been our EZ tolerance of gun proliferation everywhere.

Good call. I did until I read the explanation. :)

Ashton: have you noticed yet that the problem isn't the tolerance of guns, its the restriction of them from the people who need them? Ie - the law abiding citizens?

They Gonna Steal Our Guns !!!

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?

Look at *your replies* in this thread. *You're trying to steal my guns!*

Its explicit - not even implicit!

YES! that fear was what prompted the person to mention the record of MDs AT ALL. And in the context only of a Gun-defense, did he pay any attention to the Doctor stats = a ploy (if also a correctly founded ploy) ABOUT GUNS.

Because that's what he spent his whole speech talking about.

If he'd talked about the number of cases of cancer caused by corn ingestion, the corn farmers would have been doing the comparison.

He picked the venue, and YOU'RE STILL BLAMING THE GUN OWNERS.

What was that about somehow being paranoid?

Not remotely any plea for reform of the AMA policies. That omission I deem, leads to another inference one could draw; and every speech implies many things:

Yes, the original (Libertarian) speaker suggested maybe he should worry about his own house.

That was the purpose of the comparitive statistics.

I also believe that the NRA rep missed an excellent platform for turning-away wrath BY addressing the sorry AMA record, as a concerned citizen FIRST! a Gun-partisan only SECOND. It is, after all *a rather important factoid*. Isn't it ???

Ashton. 22 people died last night. Is that important?

You can't tell me that. Until you know more. Were they in one building? In a city? Across China? Old age?

AND IT WASN'T THE NRA.

Do you realise you've been brainwashed by this meedja you constantly harp about?

The NRA doesn't even DO THAT MUCH with legislation. Its less than 25% of their efforts (and that only as the gun-grabbers have ramped up). GOA and other organizations were formed because the NRA *WASN'T AND ISN'T* set up for it.

But you have a PATHOLOGICAL hatred of the NRA. Why, I don't know. Because they don't fit into your utopia, I guess, where everybody gets along with everybody, and there's no conflict.

But neither does anybody else.

(This gives at least the appearance that - he might give a fuck about some other aspect of Murican life than - his right to arm bears.)

When the entire point of the speech was to outlaw/legistlate/fritter away that right, WHAT ELSE WOULD HAVE MADE SENSE?

Ashton, had that AMA guy stood up, and gone on about Cameras on streets, and how they should be put in, for his whole speech... the replies would be BASED ON THE NUMBERS he used, and ON HIS TOPIC.

Can't be helped. Different glasses. Different refractive index, thus vision.

Right now, no. Because your glasses are made of opaque glass. But you won't believe that the image painted on them isn't the real one.

You aim for your Eden and I'll take another road, thanks

I answered you before. You've got a problem with equality, and trust.

My Eden is the ability to trust my fellow man, not just the ones weaker and slower than me.

Your Eden is the eden of the T-rex. As long as you're the biggest, strongest, meanest, fastest - *you* can trust anybody.

But who can trust you?

Addison