It Begins. Holder Announces Plan To Ban Semi-Auto Guns

Quote from Thunderdog:

And so begins another self-serving conspiracy theory. :p

Yes, the Founding Fathers who supported the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, . . . and numerous others (look it up - I'm not going to bother posting them. You didn't even read or respond to the Harvard article because it didnt fit your viewpoint, so why should I bother.)

- - - - all of these great men who warned us 200 years ago - - - were conspiracy nuts ! :eek:
 
Quote from Tigerjaw:

Yes, the Founding Fathers who supported the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, . . . and numerous others (look it up - I'm not going to bother posting them. You didn't even read or respond to the Harvard article because it didnt fit your viewpoint, so why should I bother.)

- - - - all of these great men who warned us 200 years ago - - - were conspiracy nuts ! :eek:
200 years ago was 200 years ago. That was then, this is now. Didn't the original Constitution also allow slavery?

Please tell me what is the point, as you understand it, of "disarming the citizenry," as you so charmingly put it?
 
How many guns are within a 10 foot radious of Obama protecting him each day?

If Obama feels that HIS LIFE is worth protecting via the presense of firearms then why isn't mine?

White American's aren't stupid. We know darn well that we're a minimal murderous threat. Hell I can go weeks at a time without reading of a white committing murder in Miami or Chicago-so to tell white America that they should give up their guns while Brown America shoots up everything in site is more than disingenuous.

Chicago has had HANDGUN prohibition since I think 1989. Twenty friggin' years and STILL Chicago routinely leads the U.S. in shooting deaths. The ineffectualness of gun laws should be obvious to anyone with a brain greater than the size of a pea. If 10 years for armed robbery or if capital punishment for murder isn't enough of a deterrent to the criminally inclined why would a bad guy quake in his boots over a short sentence for possession of a firearm?



Quote from Thunderdog:

I don't know the stratified statistics, but even if what you say is true, lax gun laws do not seem to be the answer in the aggregate. If anything, it may point to other issues for which gun crimes are only a symptom. Whatever the case may be, there is nothing to suggest that lax gun laws alleviate whatever underlying problems that need to be addressed. Perhaps Obama may be on to something, eh?
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

How many guns are within a 10 foot radious of Obama protecting him each day?

If Obama feels that HIS LIFE is worth protecting via the presense of firearms then why isn't mine?
That is perhaps the most nonsensical argument I have read today. When you grasp at straws, you do so with manly vigor.
 
If you are so insecure and fearful of being killed or attacked, simply hire an armed private security detail to protect you.

You can afford that, right?

Still stuck on the racist stuff, eh? Old dog, no new tricks.

Oh, and we have laws on the books against drunk driving for a while now...they are bad laws because people still drive drunk? They are ineffective prevention tools because of the laws...or because we have an alcoholic society that refuses to not drink and drive?

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

How many guns are within a 10 foot radious of Obama protecting him each day?

If Obama feels that HIS LIFE is worth protecting via the presense of firearms then why isn't mine?

White American's aren't stupid. We know darn well that we're a minimal murderous threat. Hell I can go weeks at a time without reading of a white committing murder in Miami or Chicago-so to tell white America that they should give up their guns while Brown America shoots up everything in site is more than disingenuous.

Chicago has had HANDGUN prohibition since I think 1989. Twenty friggin' years and STILL Chicago routinely leads the U.S. in shooting deaths. The ineffectualness of gun laws should be obvious to anyone with a brain greater than the size of a pea. If 10 years for armed robbery or if capital punishment for murder isn't enough of a deterrent to the criminally inclined why would a bad guy quake in his boots over a short sentence for possession of a firearm?
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

200 years ago was 200 years ago. That was then, this is now. Didn't the original Constitution also allow slavery?

Please tell me what is the point, as you understand it, of "disarming the citizenry," as you so charmingly put it?

Still no reponse to the Harvard article ?
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If you are so insecure and fearful of being killed or attacked, simply hire an armed private security detail to protect you.

You can afford that, right?


What an elitist response - - so typical of rich libs. Just do a search on Congressional anti-gunners - - - with carry permits because they "need the protection". Laws and rights are for the peons, not for them.

What are you going to say next - "Let them eat cake." ?
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

"How many guns are within a 10 foot radious of Obama protecting him each day?

If Obama feels that HIS LIFE is worth protecting via the presense of firearms then why isn't mine?"
Quote from Thunderdog:

That is perhaps the most nonsensical argument I have read today. When you grasp at straws, you do so with manly vigor.

And your response is the most nonsensical I've read today.

When YOU grasp at straws, YOU do so with girlie man vigor.


Oh and don't flatter yourself, NO I'm not stalking you.
 
Quote from fhl:

"What do Virginia Tech's 32 murders, Columbine High School's 13 murders, Jonesboro Westside Middle School's five murders, Germany's Gutenberg High School's 16 murders, the murder of 14 legislators in Zug, Switzerland, and the murder of eight city council members in a Paris suburb all have in common?

They were all committed by non-BLACKS.
 
Ahhh, a little stalker boy on a mission.

Thanks for the bump...

Quote from MoreCowbell:

Tiger, you've got it all wrong. It is not that he is an elitist. He's just trying to pull your chain, and he has succeeded.

His ridiculous statement telling you to hire a private security detail is designed to elicit exactly the response you gave him. He is undoubtedly giddy as a child, slobbering at the mouth, exhilarated that you have taken the bait. Now he can respond with more nonsensical bullshit that will kill the thread by becoming a tiresome back and forth personal exchange between you and him.

It's clear that you are unfamiliar with the entity that is OPTIONAL777. Perhaps you knew him as ZZZzzzzzzz, before that username was banned a couple of weeks ago for his incessant defense of pedophilia and creepy references to the rape of a particular member's children. Oddly enough, that member was banned from Politics and Religion as well, in addition to another member who trounced Zzzzz on an almost daily basis.

My point is that you should not expect Asshole777 to respond to your questions. He will NEVER try to answer questions which he cannot provide a glib reply to and that will highlight the fallacies of his argument.

To the contrary, his sole purpose is to goad you into a lengthy back and forth which will dissolve into ad hominem attacks and eventually change the focus from the subject of the thread to him and you. See, he is also a narcissist; if he hasn't started the thread, or if it is a subject which offends his lunatic rationale, his objective will be to kill the thread by engaging you and any other victims unfamiliar with his tactics in personal attacks.

At some point you will become frustrated and note that he is not addressing the fundamental point you and others are making about gun ownership. He will simply continue to not address these issues, pile on the ad hominem, and feast on your frustration as you ask, over and over, why he doesn't respond to your questions. He will also throw in how slavery used to be legal, but we have evolved from that, and the firearms issue is the same. This is all a distraction. He will NEVER directly address the possibility that he, or someone with him, will not be able to defend themselves against criminals. Nor will he answer why citizens should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves, their families, and their homes. Instead, he will throw out more ad hominem and try to steer the discussion into his tired mantra about right-wing "regressives" and how evil white men have killed millions over the centuries.

Again, the end result will be the death of the thread, as the subject becomes all about him. This forum is littered with threads that have died such a death.

What frustrates this troll the most is when he lays out the bait, as he has done here with his ludicrous comment that you should hire a private security detail, and you don't fall for it. He got you this time, but you are not familiar with his tactics. Henceforth, treat him as you would if you stepped into some dog shit. Just scrape him off your heel and walk on.

You don't have to take my word for it. Do a search for ZZZzzzzzzz and pedophilia, or troll, etc. and you'll get all sorts of background info that will educate you on what a sick, perverted lowlife lozzzer you're dealing with.
 
Back
Top