independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another School Shooting
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 6 of 13 « First<2345678910>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #150 posted 11/25/19 1:02pm

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



cborgman said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:





see kids when you are willing to be flexable as I am you get attacked...



falloff Seriously though; are you for the second amendment and freedom, or are you an incemntalist who wants to take our arms away?


If it comes to it.... no regulations... but as they are now they are tolerable...I do not know why you are so stuck on such extremes?

are you for sweeping bans? or No regulations? or for reasomable regulations?



Ahh, so you admit there should be sensible limits on the second amendment.
bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #151 posted 11/25/19 4:04pm

cborgman

avatar

and only says...


tumbleweed

exactly. there's the problem. you actually do support limits on the second amendment. remember that next time you try this argument about how limits are just an attempt to take all guns.

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #152 posted 11/25/19 5:01pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:



cborgman said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:





see kids when you are willing to be flexable as I am you get attacked...



falloff Seriously though; are you for the second amendment and freedom, or are you an incemntalist who wants to take our arms away?


If it comes to it.... no regulations... but as they are now they are tolerable...I do not know why you are so stuck on such extremes?

are you for sweeping bans? or No regulations? or for reasomable regulations?


.
And there is the only we all know. Guns before people and the current resulting death and injury rate at 10 times what other countries find intolerable is tolerable to only. Each and every death is tolerable to you. As others have suggested before you really should tell this to each and every victim's family in your area.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #153 posted 11/25/19 11:50pm

BombSquad

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said: AS usual, your attention to detail is waaaaay off. My only point about the second amendment and your argument about it is it totally makes the case for me having a nuke. But your too hard headed to admit that your argument has a giant nuke-sized flaw. Bombsquad is who youre trying to point poppy to.

that is not my argument. I have said it seems to be limited to basic style small arms... the "then I get a nuke" argument is intresting but I've never made it...

where does the fucking 2nd say that? where???

so why are you hating on the constitution and American values? why are you taking away freedoms of the people? Duh!


YOU CAN NOT DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST A GOVERMENT WITH TANKS AND NUKES WITH "BASIC STYLE ARMS" !!


just imagine the British with nukes and Washington & his crony rebel scum with cute little "basic" baby guns. LOL that makes NO FUCKING SENSE you clown LOL


so AGAIN you prove this:

you have no clue about the constitution and the racist traitors forefathers intention with the 2nd



NO CLUE

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #154 posted 11/26/19 4:58am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

BombSquad said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

that is not my argument. I have said it seems to be limited to basic style small arms... the "then I get a nuke" argument is intresting but I've never made it...

where does the fucking 2nd say that? where???

so why are you hating on the constitution and American values? why are you taking away freedoms of the people? Duh!


YOU CAN NOT DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST A GOVERMENT WITH TANKS AND NUKES WITH "BASIC STYLE ARMS" !!


just imagine the British with nukes and Washington & his crony rebel scum with cute little "basic" baby guns. LOL that makes NO FUCKING SENSE you clown LOL


so AGAIN you prove this:

you have no clue about the constitution and the racist traitors forefathers intention with the 2nd



NO CLUE

again attacked for (such as it is) for being flexible.


second: they are not going to use nukes on their own soil.... LOL


III: we would capture tanks...

Four: "there is no four" I threw it away...

5: many members of the military would side with the people

F: again you admit that ultimately you would accept whatever the government tells you! "Durp we can't win so just give in...." *how very 1930s germany!

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #155 posted 11/26/19 5:03am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

and only says...


tumbleweed

exactly. there's the problem. you actually do support limits on the second amendment. remember that next time you try this argument about how limits are just an attempt to take all guns.

I would not say I SUPPORT it...did I say that? or did you make that up? and even then supporting something is not the same a 100% approval... you supported hillary but I doubt you support her 100%.

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #156 posted 11/26/19 5:49am

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

and only says...

exactly. there's the problem. you actually do support limits on the second amendment. remember that next time you try this argument about how limits are just an attempt to take all guns.

I would not say I SUPPORT it...did I say that? or did you make that up? and even then supporting something is not the same a 100% approval... you supported hillary but I doubt you support her 100%.

oh, NOW you suddenly understand levels and nuance? what happened to the only who calls us rabidly anti-liberty fools who want criminals to have guns, and other such nonsense? the one who screeches about sensible limits are incrementalism meant to cause more mass shootings?

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #157 posted 11/26/19 6:33am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I would not say I SUPPORT it...did I say that? or did you make that up? and even then supporting something is not the same a 100% approval... you supported hillary but I doubt you support her 100%.

oh, NOW you suddenly understand levels and nuance? what happened to the only who calls us rabidly anti-liberty fools who want criminals to have guns, and other such nonsense? the one who screeches about sensible limits are incrementalism meant to cause more mass shootings?

you missed that is was by and large a reaction to someone else's false dichotomy and I have been saying the same for years... nothing new here. Unless you are for sweeping bans...? I also like to TRY to educated you and others that there is not really any such thing as a legally obtainable assault rifle. *Well not for less that tens of thousands of dollars*

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #158 posted 11/26/19 6:42am

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

oh, NOW you suddenly understand levels and nuance? what happened to the only who calls us rabidly anti-liberty fools who want criminals to have guns, and other such nonsense? the one who screeches about sensible limits are incrementalism meant to cause more mass shootings?

you missed that is was by and large a reaction to someone else's false dichotomy and I have been saying the same for years... nothing new here. Unless you are for sweeping bans...? I also like to TRY to educated you and others that there is not really any such thing as a legally obtainable assault rifle. *Well not for less that tens of thousands of dollars*

and in turn, my pointing out you are hypocritical in your stance that sensible laws are just incrementalism is reaction to your falseness. you are for sensible limits on the second amendment, always have been, and either dont realize it or dont want to admit it because doing so blows a giant hole through your histrionics.

also, spare me your education. i educated myself, and still remember finding out how much of your supposed education was straight up lies. i am not likely anytime soon to forget your linking me to a dutch WWII machine gun part when i asked you to prove there are lots of deer rifles with 100+ round mags.

if your gonna claim youre educating us, dont openly lie to us and then pretend youre doing something noble.


.

[Edited 11/26/19 6:46am]

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #159 posted 11/26/19 6:45am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

you missed that is was by and large a reaction to someone else's false dichotomy and I have been saying the same for years... nothing new here. Unless you are for sweeping bans...? I also like to TRY to educated you and others that there is not really any such thing as a legally obtainable assault rifle. *Well not for less that tens of thousands of dollars*

and in turn, my pointing out you are hypocritical in your stance that sensible laws are just incrementalism is reaction to your falseness. you are for sensible limits on the second amendment, always have been, and either dont realize it or dont want to admit it.

also, spare me your education. i educated myself, and still remember finding out how much of your education was straight up lies. i am not likely to forget your linking me to a dutch WWI machine gun part when i asked you to prove there are lots of deer rifles with 100+ round mags.

if your gonna claim youre educating us, dont openly lie to us and then pretend youre doing something noble.

that is what most people mean when they make the claim... and we can tell this as they will say they want to ban CRAZY things like "fully-semiautomatic" guns or guns that take "multiple rounds" or "assault rifles" but no one seems able to even list what features make a rifle an assault rifle... one requirement is a select fire option... those are already effectively banned.

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #160 posted 11/26/19 6:47am

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

and in turn, my pointing out you are hypocritical in your stance that sensible laws are just incrementalism is reaction to your falseness. you are for sensible limits on the second amendment, always have been, and either dont realize it or dont want to admit it.

also, spare me your education. i educated myself, and still remember finding out how much of your education was straight up lies. i am not likely to forget your linking me to a dutch WWI machine gun part when i asked you to prove there are lots of deer rifles with 100+ round mags.

if your gonna claim youre educating us, dont openly lie to us and then pretend youre doing something noble.

that is what most people mean when they make the claim... and we can tell this as they will say they want to ban CRAZY things like "fully-semiautomatic" guns or guns that take "multiple rounds" or "assault rifles" but no one seems able to even list what features make a rifle an assault rifle... one requirement is a select fire option... those are already effectively banned.

well, okay, then lets talk about a ban. i, like reagan was, am for a ban on assault rifles. there is absolutely no reason a private citizen needs military grade weapons.

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #161 posted 11/26/19 6:49am

poppys

OnlyNDaUsa said: "...there is not really any such thing as a legally obtainable assault rifle. *Well not for less that tens of thousands of dollars*"


Legal assault rifles do not cost tens of thousands of dollars.

And I, an old lady, could illegally buy an assault rifle here, probably in one day, for much less than a thousand dollars.

Nothing you say is accurate.

[Edited 11/26/19 7:16am]

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #162 posted 11/26/19 6:49am

cborgman

avatar

would you like me to point out what make a rifle an assault rifle, or are we gonna have to keep pretending its some mythic secret knowledge you are on of few who have, and not easily googled?



last time we did this, it ended with you getting caught in a big lie and still refusing to admit it.

so... yea. tell me more. i have google open and ready, and you already know how much i enjoy researching stuff.

.

[Edited 11/26/19 7:07am]

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #163 posted 11/26/19 7:15am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

that is what most people mean when they make the claim... and we can tell this as they will say they want to ban CRAZY things like "fully-semiautomatic" guns or guns that take "multiple rounds" or "assault rifles" but no one seems able to even list what features make a rifle an assault rifle... one requirement is a select fire option... those are already effectively banned.

well, okay, then lets talk about a ban. i, like reagan was, am for a ban on assault rifles. there is absolutely no reason a private citizen needs military grade weapons.

and they are effectively banned now and have been for decades

Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #164 posted 11/26/19 7:16am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

AR-15's are military grade mister.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #165 posted 11/26/19 7:18am

RodeoSchro

cborgman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

that is what most people mean when they make the claim... and we can tell this as they will say they want to ban CRAZY things like "fully-semiautomatic" guns or guns that take "multiple rounds" or "assault rifles" but no one seems able to even list what features make a rifle an assault rifle... one requirement is a select fire option... those are already effectively banned.

well, okay, then lets talk about a ban. i, like reagan was, am for a ban on assault rifles. there is absolutely no reason a private citizen needs military grade weapons.



I can tell you where this is heading, because I've been all the way down this road before.

Ultimately you will ask him, "OK, if you agree there should be a line with respect to regulating firearms, then where should that line be?" A completely rational and appropriate question.

And his answer will be, "I don't know".

All you will ever get out of him is opposition to any gun regulation because INCREMENTALISM!!1! But he will NEVER offer ANY kind of support for ANY sensible gun legislation.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #166 posted 11/26/19 7:22am

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

well, okay, then lets talk about a ban. i, like reagan was, am for a ban on assault rifles. there is absolutely no reason a private citizen needs military grade weapons.

and they are effectively banned now and have been for decades

so, you dont think ARs and AKs and the knock-offs of those are military grade?

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #167 posted 11/26/19 7:31am

poppys

RodeoSchro said:

cborgman said:

well, okay, then lets talk about a ban. i, like reagan was, am for a ban on assault rifles. there is absolutely no reason a private citizen needs military grade weapons.



I can tell you where this is heading, because I've been all the way down this road before.

Ultimately you will ask him, "OK, if you agree there should be a line with respect to regulating firearms, then where should that line be?" A completely rational and appropriate question.

And his answer will be, "I don't know".

All you will ever get out of him is opposition to any gun regulation because INCREMENTALISM!!1! But he will NEVER offer ANY kind of support for ANY sensible gun legislation.


EXACTLY

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #168 posted 11/26/19 9:59am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

cborgman said:



OnlyNDaUsa said:




cborgman said:



well, okay, then lets talk about a ban. i, like reagan was, am for a ban on assault rifles. there is absolutely no reason a private citizen needs military grade weapons.




and they are effectively banned now and have been for decades



so, you dont think ARs and AKs and the knock-offs of those are military grade?




They are not.
Yo! Sam 'Who's the Boss?'
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #169 posted 11/26/19 10:05am

cborgman

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

cborgman said:

so, you dont think ARs and AKs and the knock-offs of those are military grade?

They are not.

well, then you dont know very much about guns. the AR-15 was DESIGNED for MILITARY use in 1956, for example. the civilian version didnt start until 63, and they really didnt get sold to the public much prior to 1990.

so, do explain how these are not military grade.

.

[Edited 11/26/19 10:15am]

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #170 posted 11/26/19 10:19am

cborgman

avatar

ill go ahead and answer for you. the major difference between an AR-15 style gun and its military equivilant, the M-16, is that the AR is semi-automatic, and the M-16 is full automatic.

its only a difference of holding the trigger down or single-clicking the trigger quickly. being as most of us can easily click quickly, its not a substantial difference.

AR style are very much military grade, and were designed for military. semi is a pretty small step down from fully automatic.


.

[Edited 11/26/19 10:21am]

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #171 posted 11/26/19 7:44pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

BombSquad said:

Damn, this place hasn't progressed a bit over the past decade. Still refusing to see that we regulate every fucking thing, except for fucking guns.


Do we regulate cars or can anyone buy them and speed with 300 through the old town?


Can everyone buy planes and fligh them into Twin Towers?

Can I buy every medication out there or do we regulate it?




The world is full of things that are not used the way they were intended to be used.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE REGULATIONS ON EVERY FUCKING SINGLE ONE OF THEM

yet the fuckturds will probably never understand that


Plenty of gun regulations in the states, but yeah they should get stricter ones.

Yes you need to be a certain age to drive cars, need to pass a driver's test, cannot drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, need to have the car registered and insured, and in most states inspected.

You need to have the proper pilot's license to fly planes. The 9/11 attackers had a license, which shows how meaningless regulating can be.

You need a prescription for strong meds.

Glad you finally realize most regulations don't work because only law abiding citizens will follow them. The bad guys will continue to break the law, no matter what the regulations.

"Never let nasty stalkers disrespect you. They start shit, you finish it. Go down to their level, that's the only way they'll understand. You have to handle things yourself."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #172 posted 11/26/19 8:20pm

cborgman

avatar

Pokeno4Money said:

BombSquad said:

Damn, this place hasn't progressed a bit over the past decade. Still refusing to see that we regulate every fucking thing, except for fucking guns.


Do we regulate cars or can anyone buy them and speed with 300 through the old town?


Can everyone buy planes and fligh them into Twin Towers?

Can I buy every medication out there or do we regulate it?




The world is full of things that are not used the way they were intended to be used.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE REGULATIONS ON EVERY FUCKING SINGLE ONE OF THEM

yet the fuckturds will probably never understand that


Plenty of gun regulations in the states, but yeah they should get stricter ones.

Yes you need to be a certain age to drive cars, need to pass a driver's test, cannot drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, need to have the car registered and insured, and in most states inspected.

You need to have the proper pilot's license to fly planes. The 9/11 attackers had a license, which shows how meaningless regulating can be.

You need a prescription for strong meds.

Glad you finally realize most regulations don't work because only law abiding citizens will follow them. The bad guys will continue to break the law, no matter what the regulations.

so what is your solution? less regulations on piloting because 9/11? no regulations on meds?

not entirely sure what youre arguing here.

.

[Edited 11/26/19 20:35pm]

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #173 posted 11/26/19 8:24pm

RodeoSchro

Pokeno4Money said:

BombSquad said:

Damn, this place hasn't progressed a bit over the past decade. Still refusing to see that we regulate every fucking thing, except for fucking guns.


Do we regulate cars or can anyone buy them and speed with 300 through the old town?


Can everyone buy planes and fligh them into Twin Towers?

Can I buy every medication out there or do we regulate it?




The world is full of things that are not used the way they were intended to be used.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE REGULATIONS ON EVERY FUCKING SINGLE ONE OF THEM

yet the fuckturds will probably never understand that


Plenty of gun regulations in the states, but yeah they should get stricter ones.

Yes you need to be a certain age to drive cars, need to pass a driver's test, cannot drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, need to have the car registered and insured, and in most states inspected.

You need to have the proper pilot's license to fly planes. The 9/11 attackers had a license, which shows how meaningless regulating can be.

You need a prescription for strong meds.

Glad you finally realize most regulations don't work because only law abiding citizens will follow them. The bad guys will continue to break the law, no matter what the regulations.


If you believe "most regulations don't work" then it seems what you're arguing for is no regulations at all. Which is the libertarian view, so I guess that makes you a libertarian.

What you libertarians fail to realize is that the regulations exist for a variety of reasons but one main reason is that you must have a regulation in order to establish a penalty for unsafe behavior. If nothing was against the law, there'd be no way to punish those who break the law. For instance, if there was no law against robbery - because after all, robbers don't follow that law! - then there would be no way to punish anyone who robbed you, would there?

And your comment about the 9/11 hijackers is ridiculous. For some reason you completely ignore that the most important law they broke was the law against murder.

I'm curious - is the law against murder one of those laws you think don't work, or is that one of the good laws?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #174 posted 11/26/19 8:24pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

Pokeno4Money said:

Glad you finally realize most regulations don't work because only law abiding citizens will follow them. The bad guys will continue to break the law, no matter what the regulations.


poppys admitted it too, when she said that she could "illegally" get an assault rifle within a few days. That's an admission that laws only keep weapons out of the hands of those that obey laws.

But since we have knuckleheads saying that semi auto is only a small step down from fully auto without admitting that almost every firearm is semi auto, it's clear that this discussion is a waste of time. No matter what they say, they want ALL guns banned. When they won't admit this, they're not being honest and not worth arguing with. When they do admit it, it's clear that NOTHING will ever change their minds, so... not worth arguing with.

Waste. Of. Time.





[Edited 11/26/19 20:25pm]

djThunderfunk said:
Not because of some silly milano on the org.

PennyPurple thought it was racial slur and said:
Ban! Ban! Ban! Ban! Ban! lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #175 posted 11/26/19 8:28pm

cborgman

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

Pokeno4Money said:

Glad you finally realize most regulations don't work because only law abiding citizens will follow them. The bad guys will continue to break the law, no matter what the regulations.


poppys admitted it too, when she said that she could "illegally" get an assault rifle within a few days. That's an admission that laws only keep weapons out of the hands of those that obey laws.

But since we have knuckleheads saying that semi auto is only a small step down from fully auto without admitting that almost every firearm is semi auto, it's clear that this discussion is a waste of time. No matter what they say, they want ALL guns banned. When they won't admit this, they're not being honest and not worth arguing with. When they do admit it, it's clear that NOTHING will ever change their minds, so... not worth arguing with.

Waste. Of. Time.





[Edited 11/26/19 20:25pm]

well, actually i have been saying for my 20 (?) ish years on the org that my opinions on the subject are exactly the same as reagans were. thats actually never changed in the slightest, and is extremely unlikely to.
.

i am fine with handguns, am actually a great shot with one. i am all for proper handgun ownership, and always have been.

.

but i realize youre just blindly raging instead of honestly discussing, so carry on passive-aggressively wasting time with your strawmen. i know how easy they are for you to fight with.


.

[Edited 11/26/19 20:49pm]

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #176 posted 11/26/19 9:28pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

cborgman said:

djThunderfunk said:


poppys admitted it too, when she said that she could "illegally" get an assault rifle within a few days. That's an admission that laws only keep weapons out of the hands of those that obey laws.

But since we have knuckleheads saying that semi auto is only a small step down from fully auto without admitting that almost every firearm is semi auto, it's clear that this discussion is a waste of time. No matter what they say, they want ALL guns banned. When they won't admit this, they're not being honest and not worth arguing with. When they do admit it, it's clear that NOTHING will ever change their minds, so... not worth arguing with.

Waste. Of. Time.





[Edited 11/26/19 20:25pm]

well, actually i have been saying for my 20 (?) ish years on the org that my opinions on the subject are exactly the same as reagans were. thats actually never changed in the slightest, and is extremely unlikely to.
.

i am fine with handguns, am actually a great shot with one. i am all for proper handgun ownership, and always have been.

.

but i realize youre just blindly raging instead of honestly discussing, so carry on passive-aggressively wasting time with your strawmen. i know how easy they are for you to fight with.


.

[Edited 11/26/19 20:49pm]


I'm raging? Better look in the mirror.

And you say you're fine with handguns, but almost every handgun is semi-automatic, and you've already admitted how you feel about semis, so you're either confused or dishonest.

Either way, you're not capable of an honest, civil debate on the subject. Which is why I say waste of time.

djThunderfunk said:
Not because of some silly milano on the org.

PennyPurple thought it was racial slur and said:
Ban! Ban! Ban! Ban! Ban! lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #177 posted 11/26/19 9:30pm

cborgman

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

cborgman said:

well, actually i have been saying for my 20 (?) ish years on the org that my opinions on the subject are exactly the same as reagans were. thats actually never changed in the slightest, and is extremely unlikely to.
.

i am fine with handguns, am actually a great shot with one. i am all for proper handgun ownership, and always have been.

.

but i realize youre just blindly raging instead of honestly discussing, so carry on passive-aggressively wasting time with your strawmen. i know how easy they are for you to fight with.


.

[Edited 11/26/19 20:49pm]


I'm raging? Better look in the mirror.

And you say you're fine with handguns, but almost every handgun is semi-automatic, and you've already admitted how you feel about semis, so you're either confused or dishonest.

Either way, you're not capable of an honest, civil debate on the subject. Which is why I say waste of time.

really? where did i say that? what i said is i am not fine with assault rifles. ive never said i am not fine with any semi.

.

dishonesty on your part. much like you lied with your strawman. so not surprising.


.

[Edited 11/26/19 21:36pm]

bye felicia!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #178 posted 11/27/19 12:00am

BombSquad

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

BombSquad said:

where does the fucking 2nd say that? where???

so why are you hating on the constitution and American values? why are you taking away freedoms of the people? Duh!


YOU CAN NOT DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST A GOVERMENT WITH TANKS AND NUKES WITH "BASIC STYLE ARMS" !!


just imagine the British with nukes and Washington & his crony rebel scum with cute little "basic" baby guns. LOL that makes NO FUCKING SENSE you clown LOL


so AGAIN you prove this:

you have no clue about the constitution and the racist traitors forefathers intention with the 2nd



NO CLUE

again attacked for (such as it is) for being flexible.

not "flexible"

it is called being against freedom, American values and the constitutition

that is what YOU always say so don't flip flop


second: they are not going to use nukes on their own soil.... LOL

says who?

III: we would capture tanks...

great! you could also capture machine guns and all other weapons?!?! so no need to have guns for ANYONE then! a cool take at the 2nd!! LOL
wow, your dumbed down arguments are beyond stupid, fully contradicting your own previous bullshit views


Four: "there is no four" I threw it away...

still it's the best from your list, cause it's the ONLY argument that can not be easily refuted with the quickness. go figure LOL


5: many members of the military would side with the people

some yes, some not. simply unpredictable (just to play along with your NRA induced P.A.R.A.N.O.I.A. scenarios)

then again that is ANOTHER argument that you don't need guns anyway, cause many will side with you anyway?! another cool take at the 2nd!! LOL
again you contradict your own dumbfuck arguments LOL

you go fully ANTI-AMERICAN and ANTI-LIBERTY LMFAO


F: again you admit that ultimately you would accept whatever the government tells you! "Durp we can't win so just give in...." *how very 1930s germany!

we've been through this, yet you still didn't educate yourself, you lazy bum?

and again you show your total lack of historical knowledge, unreal



so once more, if you think that more guns(*) amongst a population that with a vast majoritiy SUPPORTED Hitler, could have prevented his cimes, that is simply unbelievably stupid and ignorant of any historical fact. MEGAFAIL

(*) yes, even more guns than already have been in circulation, which was quite a lot in fact, Fox&NRA shitheads (whose nonsense you obviously swallow unquestioned) will not tell you that though LOL

now it's time for you to run for the hills, ignore facts and history as always, not do any research, so you can happily bring up the same bullshit in future threads. pathetic



[Edited 11/27/19 2:29am]

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #179 posted 11/27/19 12:08am

BombSquad

avatar

cborgman said:

Pokeno4Money said:


Plenty of gun regulations in the states, but yeah they should get stricter ones.

Yes you need to be a certain age to drive cars, need to pass a driver's test, cannot drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, need to have the car registered and insured, and in most states inspected.

You need to have the proper pilot's license to fly planes. The 9/11 attackers had a license, which shows how meaningless regulating can be.

You need a prescription for strong meds.

Glad you finally realize most regulations don't work because only law abiding citizens will follow them. The bad guys will continue to break the law, no matter what the regulations.

so what is your solution? less regulations on piloting because 9/11? no regulations on meds?

not entirely sure what youre arguing here.

^^this exactly

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 6 of 13 « First<2345678910>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another School Shooting