[quote=Dukehorn]
Oh, I forgot: one of those elitists with an anti-gun agenda……
[/quote]
You have been on the board long enough to know that I don’t respond to ad-hominem, nor straw man arguments. I don’t know if this person is anti-gun/pro-gun or whatever. I look at the statements and look for inconsistencies.. ie: how does a radiologist see the actual internal wounds = they don’t, that is the surgeon. Do Xrays give good imagery to soft tissue = no they don’t. Does CT scans give good imagery to soft tissue = no it doesn’t (CTs use Xrays combined with digital processing to resolve an array of individual scans around a body into a matrix of ‘densities’. It is still an Xray). Does a MRI give a good image of soft tissue – yes and no. Frequency being detected in an MRI is resonant/spin frequency on hydrogen(dipole), which is about 64Mhz in the magnetic field used. Wavelength and resolving power vs diffraction etc end up mattering. This is why Gadolinium (contract enhancer – which is toxic) is used as a contrast medium.
I want rational discussion on gun subjects not emotional pleas, tugging on heart strings.
[quote=Dukehorn]PS. I like how the NRA thinks federal agents are jackboot thugs but police going around engaging and killing civilians without any attempt to defuse the situation doesn’t really seem to be a problem.[/quote]
No, I think that some NRA types think that ALL law enforcement act like jackboot thugs. That said, Ruby Ridge and Waco does not help the Fed’s image. On the other hand, I feel that the Fed’s held back too much on the Clive Bundy situation.
