Read the whole thread. I made it very clear which posts, plural, I referred to. That I am suposedly generalizing from just one poster is an unfounded allegation and not my problem.
I'm surprised that Tardman hasn't called me a "Horrible Writer(tm)" in this thread yet, never minding the fact that he's a dickless fuckin' pussy who hasn't ever shown us anything he's done other than take up space and engage in unearned respiration.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/25082880/robbers-target-pizza-delivery-driver-driver-fires-shots Now, one could argue that if it wasn't for lax gun laws, these guys couldn't have pulled a gun on him. Yet somehow I doubt the choice of weapon on their part was the determinant on whether or not they would attempt to rob the guy.
How how many cops, all of the country -- all year long -- so far exceed their authority that they should be shot by their victims in self defense? Instead, we have cops engaging in "no-knock" raids and shotting innocent people to death -- not just "every now and then" in this country, but fucking regularly. My response is, No. These power trippin' pieces of shit should be shot to fucking ribbons, and the agencies that send them decimated, in the ancient Roman sense of the word -- 9 out of 10 among their number put to fucking death. Why? Because cops need a remind of whom it is they work for. And it isn't Debbie Wasserman-I-Look-Like-A-Drowned-Rat. And it fucking isn't Barbara I-Don't-Give-A-Flying-Shit-About-The-Non-Political-Masses Boxer. And it fucking isn't Nancy, "BLLLEEEAAAAAAAAAUUUURRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!! C'THULHU F'TAGN! IA! IA!" Pelosi. Their voting records are clear. Their public statements are clear. Our government is thoroughly infiltrated with pieces of shit who are working, coldly, callously, against our interests as a people. Rip. Them. To. Shreds.
You're right, it wasn't. The determinant was what the pro-defense lobby said it would be, the whole time: "Can this victim resist?" The criminals in the cited story assumed that the "victim" they had selected was unequipped to resist them. Simple as that.
True, but now your gun-crime rate is almost zero, I'm sure. It was a small price to pay to live in Utopia. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No I am not at the present, only because I can't stand not being able to practice with a gun in my backyard. Damn suburbs! That's why I have a bow. My son however just bought a semi-auto pistol with (hang on to your hats gun grabbers, and don't hate me Forbin) a 17 shot capacity - 16 in the magazine + 1 in the chamber. I have however fired AR-15 type guns thousands of times in my 22+ years military career and as a civilian. Neither of us have committed mass murder yet, but there's always hope!
Yes, we all know that scary things can happen on the business end of a gun barrel.....but rarely do. The gun's original intent and actual use are two different things. Pretty fucking weak argument for gun control, or control of anything that can be used for deadly purposes. Hmmm......this object can be used and has been used for a criminal act, therefore we should keep them away from criminals/crazies, and so sorry if we keep them away from everybody, and end up failing miserably in the first area but we really, really, really care, so it's okay.
Gul, are you being intellectually dishonest again, or are you really too stupid to understand how a raffle works?
I just think we would be better off keeping them away from people who think that a gun is no more dangerous than a cookie, or "any object ever used in a crime", or cannot be used to kill because it only fires lead. A gun is designed to be lethal when needed. Pretending it isn't is the worst possible argument against concerns that end up leading to gun control.
I'm not saying the difference is trivial, nor am I stepping up to agree with his point. what I'm saying is that the logic of his argument works even though he may have mis-characterized the gun category. Argue the merits or lack of his position, don't get bogged down in the definitional point, because it makes you look panicked to the fence sitting observer.
You're really sure this is the argument you want to support? Because I'm not letting you off the hook if it is. Just to make this clear once more. Given this set: 1) a cookie 2) an AR-15 3) a fully automatic machine gun ...you lot are insisting that the crucial distinction is the line separating #2 from #3. That's what you're trying to defend. I'm just sitting here watching you dig yourself in deeper.
Yes, I know that. That should have indicated to you that I was being facetious and hyperbolic. Too subtle? I could always throw in more four-letter words and references to deviant sex acts, vegetables, and old people. But nobody really wants to hear about how Packard was conceived, do they?
That's Terrible Writer™ you talentless hack. As for the rest of your post, you don't know jack about what I may have accomplished, and thus are blathering on about something of which you have no knowledge, as usual. So again...
Er... NO. It doesn't. Oh, and thanks for more of the hilarious Impotent Rage, we've all come to associate with you.
YOU SOUP-FUCKING SHIT-WHISPERER! IT DOES BECAUSE I SAY IT DOES! GO SCRAMBLE YOUR ASS AND MAKE YOURSELF INTO A CRAP-OMELETTE!
Cribbing other people's material now? They'll never let you perform at open mike night if you keep that up.
