zulumoose wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Except that [1] you stated in the first of those quoted paragraphs, an intent to conceal and carry if ever you found yourself in the USA, and [2] subsequently cited "self defence" as a an explicit reason for so doing. If you don't think you need a gun whilst occupying US soil, why did you issue these statements? For shits and giggles? Or a somewhat bizarre attempt at "whilst in Rome, do as the Romans do"?

And neither 1 nor 2 amount to my suggesting I think I need to own a gun.

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, there's also the little matter of whether or not a non-US citizen can own a firearm in the first place, a detail that I suspect may be subject to legal restriction, until such time as your residence in the USA permits your transition to naturalised citizen status.

I've no idea why you're telling me this.

It seems obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse. Why not simply state clearly what you mean instead of skirting around the issue and repeatedly (and incorrectly) accusing others of missing some point you do not actually appear to have made?

Well that would take him away the pleasure of telling us how we don't understand what he says, making us look like idiots. He's clearly not interested in any fair discussion, he'll just do that until the discussion shifts to another topic. And no one will know what the discussion was about. That's what he does. No wonder he's sometimes mistaken (?) for a troll.

Calilasseia wrote:Well if you don't think you need a gun when in the USA, why bother expressing an intent to obtain one? And why bother stating "self-defence" as a reason for doing so?

Your assertions thus far, taken as a collection, are inconsistent.

Only they aren’t inconsistent. Why would I not bother, given I don’t think that?

zulumoose wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Except that [1] you stated in the first of those quoted paragraphs, an intent to conceal and carry if ever you found yourself in the USA, and [2] subsequently cited "self defence" as a an explicit reason for so doing. If you don't think you need a gun whilst occupying US soil, why did you issue these statements? For shits and giggles? Or a somewhat bizarre attempt at "whilst in Rome, do as the Romans do"?

And neither 1 nor 2 amount to my suggesting I think I need to own a gun.

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, there's also the little matter of whether or not a non-US citizen can own a firearm in the first place, a detail that I suspect may be subject to legal restriction, until such time as your residence in the USA permits your transition to naturalised citizen status.

I've no idea why you're telling me this.

It seems obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse. Why not simply state clearly what you mean instead of skirting around the issue and repeatedly (and incorrectly) accusing others of missing some point you do not actually appear to have made?

I already have stated clearly what I mean; the obtuseness consists in attributing a view to me I’ve not expressed, then blaming me when I repeatedly (and correctly) point this out. It’s not that a point’s been missed, but that one has been made up. You’ll forgive me for not indulging the fantasy.

aban57 wrote:Well that would take him away the pleasure of telling us how we don't understand what he says, making us look like idiots. He's clearly not interested in any fair discussion, he'll just do that until the discussion shifts to another topic. And no one will know what the discussion was about. That's what he does. No wonder he's sometimes mistaken (?) for a troll.

I’d be delighted to have a fair discussion with you, but I don’t detect the feeling is mutual.

Tracer Tong wrote:
I’d be delighted to have a fair discussion with you, but I don’t detect the feeling is mutual.

You don't get to say that when you spend half a dozen posts saying everything and its contrary, and then claiming we make invalid points regarding what you wrote, without taking the time to tell what exactly is your point, if you have even one.
I asked you simple questions, you gave simple answers, and then pretended we all misunderstood your point. I'm not the one constantly being shifty here, so quit that pretentious pose, you're just making a fool of yourself. No one's buying it.

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I’d be delighted to have a fair discussion with you, but I don’t detect the feeling is mutual.

You don't get to say that when you spend half a dozen posts saying everything and its contrary, and then claiming we make invalid points regarding what you wrote, without taking the time to tell what exactly is your point, if you have even one.
I asked you simple questions, you gave simple answers, and then pretended we all misunderstood your point. I'm not the one constantly being shifty here, so quit that pretentious pose, you're just making a fool of yourself. No one's buying it.

Yeah, I’m still detecting the feeling isn’t mutual. Whenever you’re ready.

Tracer Tong wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I’d be delighted to have a fair discussion with you, but I don’t detect the feeling is mutual.

You don't get to say that when you spend half a dozen posts saying everything and its contrary, and then claiming we make invalid points regarding what you wrote, without taking the time to tell what exactly is your point, if you have even one.
I asked you simple questions, you gave simple answers, and then pretended we all misunderstood your point. I'm not the one constantly being shifty here, so quit that pretentious pose, you're just making a fool of yourself. No one's buying it.

Yeah, I’m still detecting the feeling isn’t mutual. Whenever you’re ready.

Your trolling becomes more obvious. Keep going, you'll get to a point eventually.

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I’d be delighted to have a fair discussion with you, but I don’t detect the feeling is mutual.

You don't get to say that when you spend half a dozen posts saying everything and its contrary, and then claiming we make invalid points regarding what you wrote, without taking the time to tell what exactly is your point, if you have even one.
I asked you simple questions, you gave simple answers, and then pretended we all misunderstood your point. I'm not the one constantly being shifty here, so quit that pretentious pose, you're just making a fool of yourself. No one's buying it.

Yeah, I’m still detecting the feeling isn’t mutual. Whenever you’re ready.

Your trolling becomes more obvious. Keep going, you'll get to a point eventually.

I mean, if you truly think that, you’re welcome to ignore me. I suspect it will be a relief to us both, no?

Tracer Tong wrote:I don't live in the United States, but I can't say I share Calilasseia's views about firearms. I've always thought that if I end up in the United States (as I may well do one day), I'll conceal and carry to whatever extent permissible in the state I live in.

Well that goes someway in explaining your Brexit vote at least.

Tracer Tong wrote:
I mean, if you truly think that,

You have provided literally nothing to the discussion that can suggest otherwise. You still haven't explained what your point was, despite being asked to do so twice.

Tracer Tong wrote:you’re welcome to ignore me. I suspect it will be a relief to us both, no?

And of course, that would suit your purpose pretty well, as I explained before. Why would I stop calling out on your bullshit, and show the world your constant hypocrisy ? It's so instructive.
Here, I'll give you another chance : what was your point ?

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I'm very comfortable with certain firearms under specific circumstances. Sometimes it makes sense for someone to have a rifle on their person. I've lived rurally. I work outdoors in natural resource management. Sometimes the presence of a firearm is warranted.

Seeing firearms outside those circumstances alarms me though. Does matey live somewhere there are lots of cougars or polar bears he needs to be aware of while picking up garbage? Furthermore, the ballistic vest implies he believes he may well be shot at while collecting trash. Is that a problem in his neighbourhood? That definitely worries me.

Guns shouldn't exist outside circumstances in which they're useful. When someone's hauling one around it tells me there's a present threat.

It never makes sense for anyone to have a firearm on their person unless they intend on pointing it at something and pulling the trigger. At all other times the weapon should be cleared and secured. I'm wondering why you think "Sometimes the presence of a firearm is warranted" are you in a place where the deer are surrounding you and thus requires a hero to save you from them eating all your shrubberies?

Tracer Tong wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Well if you don't think you need a gun when in the USA, why bother expressing an intent to obtain one? And why bother stating "self-defence" as a reason for doing so?

Your assertions thus far, taken as a collection, are inconsistent.

Only they aren’t inconsistent. Why would I not bother, given I don’t think that?

zulumoose wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Except that [1] you stated in the first of those quoted paragraphs, an intent to conceal and carry if ever you found yourself in the USA, and [2] subsequently cited "self defence" as a an explicit reason for so doing. If you don't think you need a gun whilst occupying US soil, why did you issue these statements? For shits and giggles? Or a somewhat bizarre attempt at "whilst in Rome, do as the Romans do"?

And neither 1 nor 2 amount to my suggesting I think I need to own a gun.

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, there's also the little matter of whether or not a non-US citizen can own a firearm in the first place, a detail that I suspect may be subject to legal restriction, until such time as your residence in the USA permits your transition to naturalised citizen status.

I've no idea why you're telling me this.

It seems obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse. Why not simply state clearly what you mean instead of skirting around the issue and repeatedly (and incorrectly) accusing others of missing some point you do not actually appear to have made?

I already have stated clearly what I mean; the obtuseness consists in attributing a view to me I’ve not expressed, then blaming me when I repeatedly (and correctly) point this out. It’s not that a point’s been missed, but that one has been made up. You’ll forgive me for not indulging the fantasy.

aban57 wrote:Well that would take him away the pleasure of telling us how we don't understand what he says, making us look like idiots. He's clearly not interested in any fair discussion, he'll just do that until the discussion shifts to another topic. And no one will know what the discussion was about. That's what he does. No wonder he's sometimes mistaken (?) for a troll.

I’d be delighted to have a fair discussion with you, but I don’t detect the feeling is mutual.

So you can't asnwer the question then. Everyone here has called you out so we're all wrong or you are just shit at explaining yourself but I'm sure you'll be right along with quoting yourself where you DID answer the question.

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
I mean, if you truly think that,

You have provided literally nothing to the discussion that can suggest otherwise. You still haven't explained what your point was, despite being asked to do so twice.

I beg to differ on both counts, of course.

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:you’re welcome to ignore me. I suspect it will be a relief to us both, no?

And of course, that would suit your purpose pretty well, as I explained before. Why would I stop calling out on your bullshit, and show the world your constant hypocrisy ? It's so instructive.
Here, I'll give you another chance : what was your point ?

Like I said, I thought it would suit us both, since I assumed you wouldn’t be interested in dialoguing with someone who you took to be trolling and in possession of all the other faults you’ve rattled off. But if you think you’re providing a public service in doing so, have at it, I guess.

You say “another chance”, as though I’ve not already expressed my views. What more are you asking for, exactly?

Teague wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Well if you don't think you need a gun when in the USA, why bother expressing an intent to obtain one? And why bother stating "self-defence" as a reason for doing so?

Your assertions thus far, taken as a collection, are inconsistent.

Only they aren’t inconsistent. Why would I not bother, given I don’t think that?

zulumoose wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

And neither 1 nor 2 amount to my suggesting I think I need to own a gun.



I've no idea why you're telling me this.

It seems obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse. Why not simply state clearly what you mean instead of skirting around the issue and repeatedly (and incorrectly) accusing others of missing some point you do not actually appear to have made?

I already have stated clearly what I mean; the obtuseness consists in attributing a view to me I’ve not expressed, then blaming me when I repeatedly (and correctly) point this out. It’s not that a point’s been missed, but that one has been made up. You’ll forgive me for not indulging the fantasy.

aban57 wrote:Well that would take him away the pleasure of telling us how we don't understand what he says, making us look like idiots. He's clearly not interested in any fair discussion, he'll just do that until the discussion shifts to another topic. And no one will know what the discussion was about. That's what he does. No wonder he's sometimes mistaken (?) for a troll.

I’d be delighted to have a fair discussion with you, but I don’t detect the feeling is mutual.

So you can't asnwer the question then. Everyone here has called you out so we're all wrong or you are just shit at explaining yourself but I'm sure you'll be right along with quoting yourself where you DID answer the question.

What question?

Tracer Tong wrote:
What question?

Since you clearly won't engage in honest discourse, let's see what you said :

Tracer Tong wrote:I don't live in the United States, but I can't say I share Calilasseia's views about firearms. I've always thought that if I end up in the United States (as I may well do one day), I'll conceal and carry to whatever extent permissible in the state I live in.

Tracer Tong wrote: As for conceal and carry, just for self defence.

Tracer Tong wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:You say you want to pack heat for defense. Against what?

Inane questions, presumably.

That's where your shifty posting started. That is the question we've been asking, getting no answer so far. Why do you feel the need to conceal and carry ?

Then there is also this matter :

Tracer Tong wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:A pity, then. The politics of peddling fear work, even across oceans in foreign lands.

Nah: it's not as a result of a politics of fear that I would conceal and carry, but for the reason already specified.

Ahh, yes.. "...for self defense" is what you said.

It is no accident that you think you need a gun, let alone for that purpose.

Self defence, you mean. Besides that, I don't know where you've got the idea that I think I need a gun.

Clear trolling, or dishonesty. Because :

The_Metatron wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
Self defence, you mean. Besides that, I don't know where you've got the idea that I think I need a gun.


I wouldn't take such patronage seriously even without the prefatory 'dude', but with its addition you go from patronage to sacrilege.

Well you should, considering you say, in the same sentence, you feel the need to carry for self defense, and you don't understand why people think you need to carry. Pretty stupid reasoning.

Yeah, that would be pretty stupid reasoning. Almost as stupid as your attributing that reasoning to me, in fact.

Really?

Your words:

Tracer Tong wrote:I don't live in the United States, but I can't say I share Calilasseia's views about firearms. I've always thought that if I end up in the United States (as I may well do one day), I'll conceal and carry to whatever extent permissible in the state I live in.

And...

Tracer Tong wrote:...

I enjoyed shooting too, when I got the opportunity to do it in the CCF; I should probably look into doing it again some time. As for conceal and carry, just for self defence.

It would appear some of us are playing closer attention to your words than you are.

Then we have more trolling :

Tracer Tong wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Except that [1] you stated in the first of those quoted paragraphs, an intent to conceal and carry if ever you found yourself in the USA, and [2] subsequently cited "self defence" as a an explicit reason for so doing. If you don't think you need a gun whilst occupying US soil, why did you issue these statements? For shits and giggles? Or a somewhat bizarre attempt at "whilst in Rome, do as the Romans do"?

And neither 1 nor 2 amount to my suggesting I think I need to own a gun.

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, there's also the little matter of whether or not a non-US citizen can own a firearm in the first place, a detail that I suspect may be subject to legal restriction, until such time as your residence in the USA permits your transition to naturalised citizen status.

I've no idea why you're telling me this.

And then, finally, the obscure story of a point you claim you make, but never did :

Tracer Tong wrote:
I already have stated clearly what I mean; the obtuseness consists in attributing a view to me I’ve not expressed, then blaming me when I repeatedly (and correctly) point this out. It’s not that a point’s been missed, but that one has been made up. You’ll forgive me for not indulging the fantasy.

The obtuseness consists in refusing to answer a simple question, and then pretending you have clearly stated what you meant, when you haven't.

What question?

I am not speaking for others here, in case I have missed something, but the question which would clear up my perception of the confusion here is this:-

Given that you have stated you would carry a gun whenever permitted in the U.S. and have also stated that it is JUST for protection, but further claim that you are not suggesting that you think you need a gun:-

Please explain fully so that everyone will understand, exactly why this is not at all contradictory, including what your motivation/justification would be that is being incorrectly interpreted as a perceived need.

Answer that and the confusion for me is cleared up, except for why you seem to be at pains to avoid clearing it up in the first place, which I believe is rightly regarded as trollish behaviour.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Teague wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Well if you don't think you need a gun when in the USA, why bother expressing an intent to obtain one? And why bother stating "self-defence" as a reason for doing so?

Your assertions thus far, taken as a collection, are inconsistent.

Only they aren’t inconsistent. Why would I not bother, given I don’t think that?

zulumoose wrote:

It seems obvious that you are being deliberately obtuse. Why not simply state clearly what you mean instead of skirting around the issue and repeatedly (and incorrectly) accusing others of missing some point you do not actually appear to have made?

I already have stated clearly what I mean; the obtuseness consists in attributing a view to me I’ve not expressed, then blaming me when I repeatedly (and correctly) point this out. It’s not that a point’s been missed, but that one has been made up. You’ll forgive me for not indulging the fantasy.

aban57 wrote:Well that would take him away the pleasure of telling us how we don't understand what he says, making us look like idiots. He's clearly not interested in any fair discussion, he'll just do that until the discussion shifts to another topic. And no one will know what the discussion was about. That's what he does. No wonder he's sometimes mistaken (?) for a troll.

I’d be delighted to have a fair discussion with you, but I don’t detect the feeling is mutual.

So you can't asnwer the question then. Everyone here has called you out so we're all wrong or you are just shit at explaining yourself but I'm sure you'll be right along with quoting yourself where you DID answer the question.

What question?

The question about are you simple or not because you can't asnwer a simple question and are stil lwasting everyone's time with your BS - this is another point that shows why you voted Brexit - that's two in one thread so well done.

zulumoose wrote:

What question?

I am not speaking for others here, in case I have missed something, but the question which would clear up my perception of the confusion here is this:-

Given that you have stated you would carry a gun whenever permitted in the U.S. and have also stated that it is JUST for protection, but further claim that you are not suggesting that you think you need a gun:-

Please explain fully so that everyone will understand, exactly why this is not at all contradictory, including what your motivation/justification would be that is being incorrectly interpreted as a perceived need.

Answer that and the confusion for me is cleared up, except for why you seem to be at pains to avoid clearing it up in the first place, which I believe is rightly regarded as trollish behaviour.

Look, if if were given habitually to making evasive and pedantic responses to simple questions in ordinary conversations, I might want to carry a firearm with me in case I should ever try interacting with anyone face-to-face. No one is in the right to attack someone bodily for such behavior, but you never know.

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
What question?

Since you clearly won't engage in honest discourse...

I’ve been engaging in honest discourse throughout. What are you talking about?

aban57 wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:You say you want to pack heat for defense. Against what?

Inane questions, presumably.

That's where your shifty posting started. That is the question we've been asking, getting no answer so far. Why do you feel the need to conceal and carry ?

That’s not shifty; it’s letting my interlocutor know he’s asked a stupid question. As for the question you’re asking here, I don’t feel such a need, a misrepresentation that’s repeatedly been corrected.

aban57 wrote:

Clear trolling, or dishonesty...Then we have more trolling :

Neither, in fact, as your quotation of my posts proves.

aban57 wrote:
The obtuseness consists in refusing to answer a simple question, and then pretending you have clearly stated what you meant, when you haven't.

I’ve answered all questions I’ve been asked, and clearly stated what I mean. The obtuseness is yours, I’m afraid.

zulumoose wrote:

What question?

I am not speaking for others here, in case I have missed something, but the question which would clear up my perception of the confusion here is this:-

Given that you have stated you would carry a gun whenever permitted in the U.S. and have also stated that it is JUST for protection, but further claim that you are not suggesting that you think you need a gun:-

Please explain fully so that everyone will understand, exactly why this is not at all contradictory, including what your motivation/justification would be that is being incorrectly interpreted as a perceived need.

Answer that and the confusion for me is cleared up, except for why you seem to be at pains to avoid clearing it up in the first place, which I believe is rightly regarded as trollish behaviour.

I don’t think there is anything to clear up. I’ve said I would do x because of y; I’ve not said I need to do x, which is a misrepresentation you’re trollishly endorsing. What, exactly, is unclear here?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Look, if if were given habitually to making evasive and pedantic responses to simple questions in ordinary conversations, I might want to carry a firearm with me in case I should ever try interacting with anyone face-to-face. No one is in the right to attack someone bodily for such behavior, but you never know.

[/quote]

But if you are incapable of a direct and decisive response, what would be the point of carrying a gun? Isn't that what they are designed for? I don't think they are very effective at leading people on and frustrating them with non-committal vagueness.
May be you could paint it pink and tell people it is a real gun, but not really real, except for real use as intended.

Teague wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Teague wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Only they aren’t inconsistent. Why would I not bother, given I don’t think that?



I already have stated clearly what I mean; the obtuseness consists in attributing a view to me I’ve not expressed, then blaming me when I repeatedly (and correctly) point this out. It’s not that a point’s been missed, but that one has been made up. You’ll forgive me for not indulging the fantasy.



I’d be delighted to have a fair discussion with you, but I don’t detect the feeling is mutual.

So you can't asnwer the question then. Everyone here has called you out so we're all wrong or you are just shit at explaining yourself but I'm sure you'll be right along with quoting yourself where you DID answer the question.

What question?

The question about are you simple or not because you can't asnwer a simple question and are stil lwasting everyone's time with your BS - this is another point that shows why you voted Brexit - that's two in one thread so well done.

Again: what “simple question” am I not answering?