***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (5 Viewers)

[ichris]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

You live in America dude. True story, when the Brits attempted to disarm the people it was met with resistance. We considered them tyrants. No lie.Tyranny is a perception, isn't it?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to through the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

What are you talking about? Hey, I'm in favor. Any ####-up on that form, lock 'em up. You forgot you were arrested 23 years ago? You thought it was ok? Too bad. Jail time.With any luck, we could make these restrictions broader and more complex.

Having a violent felony or domestic assault on your record is what we're talking about obviously.. And the penalty is always dependent on other mitigating factors and applied on a gradient.. Don't be obtuse..

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Mistake of fact generally is.

At some point, the responsibility for knowing the law falls on the convicted criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you have the slightest bit of doubt, you shouldn't try to buy a gun. Because if you break any technicality, we'll throw you in jail for 4 years.Come to think of it, I may like this.

Any statist would.It's the follow up I want to see happen. If we have a violent prohibited person attempt to purchase a weapon and NICS rejects the sale, it should be followed up. Often times the prohibited person will not stop looking for a weapon just because they get rejected the first time.

Like you say, this isn't rocket surgery.

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to through the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

I chuckle about how you were upset at being called a drama queen.

Great story (fiction).. When you're done trolling you can join the conversation..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

No, actually, he made the statment.. you contested..

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

You live in America dude. True story, when the Brits attempted to disarm the people it was met with resistance. We considered them tyrants. No lie.Tyranny is a perception, isn't it?

The British troops occupied the American populace. They were sent here in large numbers to quell the resistance of the colonists. That is very different from a tyrannical government disarming its own citizens. Are you in fear of a foreign invasion? Perhaps the British are coming back?

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

No, actually, he made the statment.. you contested..

No he asked a question. I answered it. It is not true that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people. In fact, sometimes tyrannical governments arm the people more (as in the case of Nazi Germany.) Sometimes non-tyrannical governments disarm the people as their first action (as in the case of the United States occupying Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII). The question ichris raised is based on a revisionist sense of history that the NRA and its supporters have been touting in order to further their agenda. It's a big lie.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to through the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

What are you talking about? Hey, I'm in favor. Any ####-up on that form, lock 'em up. You forgot you were arrested 23 years ago? You thought it was ok? Too bad. Jail time.With any luck, we could make these restrictions broader and more complex.

Having a violent felony or domestic assault on your record is what we're talking about obviously.. And the penalty is always dependent on other mitigating factors and applied on a gradient.. Don't be obtuse..

Question 11c. Have you ever been convicted of a felony or other crime which could have gotten you a sentence of more than 1 year, even if you served less.Maybe lots of folks with a couple DUIs will forget that in their state they eventually add up to a felony-level crime. They lie. We throw 'em in jail. With any luck, we could make this big enough to encompass half or more of the gun owners.

This is your plan.

It's a question, answer it honestly, if you're wrong, then pay a fine.. If you're a violent felon, and are prohibited from buying guns, but you try anyway,... hit that guy hard..But rather than do anything about any of that at all, we'll just let the guy go on trying to buy a gun elsewhere, illegally, meanwhile, we'll ban people who broke no laws from buying guns illegally

 

[timschochet]

It's a question, answer it honestly, if you're wrong, then pay a fine.. If you're a violent felon, and are prohibited from buying guns, but you try anyway,... hit that guy hard..

But rather than do anything about any of that at all, we'll just let the guy go on trying to buy a gun elsewhere, illegally, meanwhile, we'll ban people who broke no laws from buying guns illegally

We ARE trying to do something about it. That's what closing the loophole is all about. That's what giving the ATF a larger budget is all about. Stop fighting us and maybe we'll get somewhere.

 

[mad sweeney]

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

Link? I guarantee there isn't a story that alludes to a 3rd suspect, potential or otherwise. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Prove it.And why are you doing it here? Why not do it in the other thread. You know, the one you just told me we should discuss this in?

Bump it up and I'll go there, I'm not looking for it.. I really don't care.. I'm sure you could easily find an article telling you they were looking for a suspect.. It was actually in one of the first few articles linked..

You're a clown. So much energy spent in trying to avoid it (for something you don't care about, of course you cared about it before you got stumped...). If it's so easy, and you've already said we should discuss it, why don't you show me? You're the one making the claim, you back it up. You even in this thread said you would (See the bolded above!* ) That's debate/discussion 101. Of course it's easier and safer for you to blow a bunch of crap around and dilly dally around actually backing up anything you say and avoid questions than it is to find something to back up your wagon full of horse manure. How about the question I've re-asked in this thread?

* - I guess in your screwed up world "I'll show you over there" means "I don't care, I won't look it up and back my claims, I have no intellectual honesty or testicular fortitude and I'll just blast away at how useless you are, in this thread I said we should get away from, in hopes that you just drop it". Good to know.

PS- I did look up a bunch of articles after you made the factual claim of 3 suspects (not a "potential" third) and didn't find anything. That's why I asked you for a link then and why I'm asking now. There isn't one, but you won't admit it.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

No, actually, he made the statment.. you contested..

No he asked a question. I answered it. It is not true that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people. In fact, sometimes tyrannical governments arm the people more (as in the case of Nazi Germany.) Sometimes non-tyrannical governments disarm the people as their first action (as in the case of the United States occupying Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII). The question ichris raised is based on a revisionist sense of history that the NRA and its supporters have been touting in order to further their agenda. It's a big lie.

History tells me that Hitler did, indeed, disarm people in countries that his military had conquered

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's a question, answer it honestly, if you're wrong, then pay a fine.. If you're a violent felon, and are prohibited from buying guns, but you try anyway,... hit that guy hard..

But rather than do anything about any of that at all, we'll just let the guy go on trying to buy a gun elsewhere, illegally, meanwhile, we'll ban people who broke no laws from buying guns illegally

We ARE trying to do something about it. That's what closing the loophole is all about. That's what giving the ATF a larger budget is all about. Stop fighting us and maybe we'll get somewhere.

A law, that's on the books already can be enforced by the police department. We don't need new laws that won't be enforced..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's a question, answer it honestly, if you're wrong, then pay a fine.. If you're a violent felon, and are prohibited from buying guns, but you try anyway,... hit that guy hard..

But rather than do anything about any of that at all, we'll just let the guy go on trying to buy a gun elsewhere, illegally, meanwhile, we'll ban people who broke no laws from buying guns illegally

Why don't you want to enforce the existing laws?

I do.. Every person breaking a law doesn't receive the maximum penalty do they?

 

[mad sweeney]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

No, actually, he made the statment.. you contested..

If only you'd follow your own posts...

 

[mad sweeney]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Mistake of fact generally is.

At some point, the responsibility for knowing the law falls on the convicted criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you have the slightest bit of doubt, you shouldn't try to buy a gun. Because if you break any technicality, we'll throw you in jail for 4 years.Come to think of it, I may like this.

Any statist would.It's the follow up I want to see happen. If we have a violent prohibited person attempt to purchase a weapon and NICS rejects the sale, it should be followed up. Often times the prohibited person will not stop looking for a weapon just because they get rejected the first time.

Like you say, this isn't rocket surgery.

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to through the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

I chuckle about how you were upset at being called a drama queen.

Great story (fiction).. When you're done trolling you can join the conversation..

I've been trying. You won't answer the questions I asked. Y'know, the exact same one you asked me and that I answered.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

Link? I guarantee there isn't a story that alludes to a 3rd suspect, potential or otherwise. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Prove it.And why are you doing it here? Why not do it in the other thread. You know, the one you just told me we should discuss this in?

Bump it up and I'll go there, I'm not looking for it.. I really don't care.. I'm sure you could easily find an article telling you they were looking for a suspect.. It was actually in one of the first few articles linked..

You're a clown. So much energy spent in trying to avoid it (for something you don't care about, of course you cared about it before you got stumped...). If it's so easy, and you've already said we should discuss it, why don't you show me? You're the one making the claim, you back it up. You even in this thread said you would (See the bolded above!* ) That's debate/discussion 101. Of course it's easier and safer for you to blow a bunch of crap around and dilly dally around actually backing up anything you say and avoid questions than it is to find something to back up your wagon full of horse manure. How about the question I've re-asked in this thread?

* - I guess in your screwed up world "I'll show you over there" means "I don't care, I won't look it up and back my claims, I have no intellectual honesty or testicular fortitude and I'll just blast away at how useless you are, in this thread I said we should get away from, in hopes that you just drop it". Good to know.

PS- I did look up a bunch of articles after you made the factual claim of 3 suspects (not a "potential" third) and didn't find anything. That's why I asked you for a link then and why I'm asking now. There isn't one, but you won't admit it.

You made an ### of yourself in that thread, and you'll do it again at this rate.. Go away you fool..There were several articles that would tell you inspectors were searching for a suspect that was thought to have fled the scene. And plenty would tell you 2 suspects went to the hospital.. So, there was potential for 3 suspects..

You are grasping at straws bud.. You made a complete ### of yourself there, now you're looking for any technicality..

 

[ichris]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

No, actually, he made the statment.. you contested..

No he asked a question. I answered it. It is not true that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people. In fact, sometimes tyrannical governments arm the people more (as in the case of Nazi Germany.) Sometimes non-tyrannical governments disarm the people as their first action (as in the case of the United States occupying Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII). The question ichris raised is based on a revisionist sense of history that the NRA and its supporters have been touting in order to further their agenda. It's a big lie.

Not a big lie.And are you arguing that tyranny doesn't exist? Or that it is not a fundamental reason why the founders felt it was important enough to be the second amendment? Or do you just think the concept is outdated so it shouldn't be a concern? Should the angry people in upstate NY who feel their state government is being tyrannical just shut up and do what they're told?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Mistake of fact generally is.

At some point, the responsibility for knowing the law falls on the convicted criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you have the slightest bit of doubt, you shouldn't try to buy a gun. Because if you break any technicality, we'll throw you in jail for 4 years.Come to think of it, I may like this.

Any statist would.It's the follow up I want to see happen. If we have a violent prohibited person attempt to purchase a weapon and NICS rejects the sale, it should be followed up. Often times the prohibited person will not stop looking for a weapon just because they get rejected the first time.

Like you say, this isn't rocket surgery.

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to through the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

I chuckle about how you were upset at being called a drama queen.

Great story (fiction).. When you're done trolling you can join the conversation..

I've been trying. You won't answer the questions I asked. Y'know, the exact same one you asked me and that I answered.

Show me a post of yours on this page were you address the topic..75% of your posts don't address the topic, and that's a conservative estimate..

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

No, actually, he made the statment.. you contested..

No he asked a question. I answered it. It is not true that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people. In fact, sometimes tyrannical governments arm the people more (as in the case of Nazi Germany.) Sometimes non-tyrannical governments disarm the people as their first action (as in the case of the United States occupying Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII). The question ichris raised is based on a revisionist sense of history that the NRA and its supporters have been touting in order to further their agenda. It's a big lie.

History tells me that Hitler did, indeed, disarm people in countries that his military had conquered

So, you mean that AFTER the Nazis conquered countries, THEN people were disarmed. Oooh, good point, that proves exactly nothing. If anything, Mad Sweeney has overestimated your skills at this.

 

[mad sweeney]

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

Link? I guarantee there isn't a story that alludes to a 3rd suspect, potential or otherwise. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Prove it.And why are you doing it here? Why not do it in the other thread. You know, the one you just told me we should discuss this in?

Bump it up and I'll go there, I'm not looking for it.. I really don't care.. I'm sure you could easily find an article telling you they were looking for a suspect.. It was actually in one of the first few articles linked..

You're a clown. So much energy spent in trying to avoid it (for something you don't care about, of course you cared about it before you got stumped...). If it's so easy, and you've already said we should discuss it, why don't you show me? You're the one making the claim, you back it up. You even in this thread said you would (See the bolded above!* ) That's debate/discussion 101. Of course it's easier and safer for you to blow a bunch of crap around and dilly dally around actually backing up anything you say and avoid questions than it is to find something to back up your wagon full of horse manure. How about the question I've re-asked in this thread?

* - I guess in your screwed up world "I'll show you over there" means "I don't care, I won't look it up and back my claims, I have no intellectual honesty or testicular fortitude and I'll just blast away at how useless you are, in this thread I said we should get away from, in hopes that you just drop it". Good to know.

PS- I did look up a bunch of articles after you made the factual claim of 3 suspects (not a "potential" third) and didn't find anything. That's why I asked you for a link then and why I'm asking now. There isn't one, but you won't admit it.

You made an ### of yourself in that thread, and you'll do it again at this rate.. Go away you fool..There were several articles that would tell you inspectors were searching for a suspect that was thought to have fled the scene. And plenty would tell you 2 suspects went to the hospital.. So, there was potential for 3 suspects..

You are grasping at straws bud.. You made a complete ### of yourself there, now you're looking for any technicality..

So you're not going to do what you just said you'd do, in this very thread. But I'm the fool Care to answer my question from this thread or just keep avoiding it as I've predicted?

 

[Dvorak]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

And every time you do, I'll post this link.History lesson by Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

No, actually, he made the statment.. you contested..

No he asked a question. I answered it. It is not true that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people. In fact, sometimes tyrannical governments arm the people more (as in the case of Nazi Germany.) Sometimes non-tyrannical governments disarm the people as their first action (as in the case of the United States occupying Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII). The question ichris raised is based on a revisionist sense of history that the NRA and its supporters have been touting in order to further their agenda. It's a big lie.

History tells me that Hitler did, indeed, disarm people in countries that his military had conquered

So, you mean that AFTER the Nazis conquered countries, THEN people were disarmed. Oooh, good point, that proves exactly nothing. If anything, Mad Sweeney has overestimated your skills at this.

Was Germany not a tyrant in those countries?

 

[mad sweeney]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Mistake of fact generally is.

At some point, the responsibility for knowing the law falls on the convicted criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you have the slightest bit of doubt, you shouldn't try to buy a gun. Because if you break any technicality, we'll throw you in jail for 4 years.Come to think of it, I may like this.

Any statist would.It's the follow up I want to see happen. If we have a violent prohibited person attempt to purchase a weapon and NICS rejects the sale, it should be followed up. Often times the prohibited person will not stop looking for a weapon just because they get rejected the first time.

Like you say, this isn't rocket surgery.

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to through the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

I chuckle about how you were upset at being called a drama queen.

Great story (fiction).. When you're done trolling you can join the conversation..

I've been trying. You won't answer the questions I asked. Y'know, the exact same one you asked me and that I answered.

Show me a post of yours on this page were you address the topic..75% of your posts don't address the topic, and that's a conservative estimate..

You asked me if I thought the AW ban was ridiculous. I asked you if you thought your car/kitchen knife comparisons were ridiculous. If replying directly to you and your posts on the topic "don't adress the topic" then I don't know what does. I've asked you repeatedly, I answered your query, but you keep running away from answering it yourself. It's absurd the amount of effort you put into having to admit that you're wrong, EVEN AFTER YOU SAY YOU WILL!!!!!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Outstanding issues?

As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

Link? I guarantee there isn't a story that alludes to a 3rd suspect, potential or otherwise. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Prove it.And why are you doing it here? Why not do it in the other thread. You know, the one you just told me we should discuss this in?

Bump it up and I'll go there, I'm not looking for it.. I really don't care.. I'm sure you could easily find an article telling you they were looking for a suspect.. It was actually in one of the first few articles linked..

You're a clown. So much energy spent in trying to avoid it (for something you don't care about, of course you cared about it before you got stumped...). If it's so easy, and you've already said we should discuss it, why don't you show me? You're the one making the claim, you back it up. You even in this thread said you would (See the bolded above!* ) That's debate/discussion 101. Of course it's easier and safer for you to blow a bunch of crap around and dilly dally around actually backing up anything you say and avoid questions than it is to find something to back up your wagon full of horse manure. How about the question I've re-asked in this thread?

* - I guess in your screwed up world "I'll show you over there" means "I don't care, I won't look it up and back my claims, I have no intellectual honesty or testicular fortitude and I'll just blast away at how useless you are, in this thread I said we should get away from, in hopes that you just drop it". Good to know.

PS- I did look up a bunch of articles after you made the factual claim of 3 suspects (not a "potential" third) and didn't find anything. That's why I asked you for a link then and why I'm asking now. There isn't one, but you won't admit it.

You made an ### of yourself in that thread, and you'll do it again at this rate.. Go away you fool..There were several articles that would tell you inspectors were searching for a suspect that was thought to have fled the scene. And plenty would tell you 2 suspects went to the hospital.. So, there was potential for 3 suspects..

You are grasping at straws bud.. You made a complete ### of yourself there, now you're looking for any technicality..

So you're not going to do what you just said you'd do, in this very thread. But I'm the fool Care to answer my question from this thread or just keep avoiding it as I've predicted?

I've predicted you trolling and your posts being off topic.. I'm right.. I win.. Now go away..

 

[mad sweeney]

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them).

You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

Link? I guarantee there isn't a story that alludes to a 3rd suspect, potential or otherwise. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Prove it.And why are you doing it here? Why not do it in the other thread. You know, the one you just told me we should discuss this in?

Bump it up and I'll go there, I'm not looking for it.. I really don't care.. I'm sure you could easily find an article telling you they were looking for a suspect.. It was actually in one of the first few articles linked..

You're a clown. So much energy spent in trying to avoid it (for something you don't care about, of course you cared about it before you got stumped...). If it's so easy, and you've already said we should discuss it, why don't you show me? You're the one making the claim, you back it up. You even in this thread said you would (See the bolded above!* ) That's debate/discussion 101. Of course it's easier and safer for you to blow a bunch of crap around and dilly dally around actually backing up anything you say and avoid questions than it is to find something to back up your wagon full of horse manure. How about the question I've re-asked in this thread?

* - I guess in your screwed up world "I'll show you over there" means "I don't care, I won't look it up and back my claims, I have no intellectual honesty or testicular fortitude and I'll just blast away at how useless you are, in this thread I said we should get away from, in hopes that you just drop it". Good to know.

PS- I did look up a bunch of articles after you made the factual claim of 3 suspects (not a "potential" third) and didn't find anything. That's why I asked you for a link then and why I'm asking now. There isn't one, but you won't admit it.

You made an ### of yourself in that thread, and you'll do it again at this rate.. Go away you fool..There were several articles that would tell you inspectors were searching for a suspect that was thought to have fled the scene. And plenty would tell you 2 suspects went to the hospital.. So, there was potential for 3 suspects..

You are grasping at straws bud.. You made a complete ### of yourself there, now you're looking for any technicality..

So you're not going to do what you just said you'd do, in this very thread. But I'm the fool Care to answer my question from this thread or just keep avoiding it as I've predicted?

I've predicted you trolling and your posts being off topic.. I'm right.. I win.. Now go away..

I've given you an offer in the other thread. You know, the one you've repeatedly said we should discuss the 3rd suspect in, even though you've done everything to avoid doing so. I've aasked you point blank, several times, and on-topic question about your posts in this thread that you've ignored every time. You can't win if you don't play. You're not playing, youre just making noise.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Mistake of fact generally is.

At some point, the responsibility for knowing the law falls on the convicted criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you have the slightest bit of doubt, you shouldn't try to buy a gun. Because if you break any technicality, we'll throw you in jail for 4 years.Come to think of it, I may like this.

Any statist would.It's the follow up I want to see happen. If we have a violent prohibited person attempt to purchase a weapon and NICS rejects the sale, it should be followed up. Often times the prohibited person will not stop looking for a weapon just because they get rejected the first time.

Like you say, this isn't rocket surgery.

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to through the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

I chuckle about how you were upset at being called a drama queen.

Great story (fiction).. When you're done trolling you can join the conversation..

I've been trying. You won't answer the questions I asked. Y'know, the exact same one you asked me and that I answered.

Show me a post of yours on this page were you address the topic..75% of your posts don't address the topic, and that's a conservative estimate..

You asked me if I thought the AW ban was ridiculous. I asked you if you thought your car/kitchen knife comparisons were ridiculous. If replying directly to you and your posts on the topic "don't adress the topic" then I don't know what does. I've asked you repeatedly, I answered your query, but you keep running away from answering it yourself. It's absurd the amount of effort you put into having to admit that you're wrong, EVEN AFTER YOU SAY YOU WILL!!!!!

wtf are you talking about.. a car to gun analogy is as good, and at times better than many other analogies made here, and certainly better than any point you've made about the topic, which is likely none..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..

You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

Link? I guarantee there isn't a story that alludes to a 3rd suspect, potential or otherwise. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Prove it.And why are you doing it here? Why not do it in the other thread. You know, the one you just told me we should discuss this in?

Bump it up and I'll go there, I'm not looking for it.. I really don't care.. I'm sure you could easily find an article telling you they were looking for a suspect.. It was actually in one of the first few articles linked..

You're a clown. So much energy spent in trying to avoid it (for something you don't care about, of course you cared about it before you got stumped...). If it's so easy, and you've already said we should discuss it, why don't you show me? You're the one making the claim, you back it up. You even in this thread said you would (See the bolded above!* ) That's debate/discussion 101. Of course it's easier and safer for you to blow a bunch of crap around and dilly dally around actually backing up anything you say and avoid questions than it is to find something to back up your wagon full of horse manure. How about the question I've re-asked in this thread?

* - I guess in your screwed up world "I'll show you over there" means "I don't care, I won't look it up and back my claims, I have no intellectual honesty or testicular fortitude and I'll just blast away at how useless you are, in this thread I said we should get away from, in hopes that you just drop it". Good to know.

PS- I did look up a bunch of articles after you made the factual claim of 3 suspects (not a "potential" third) and didn't find anything. That's why I asked you for a link then and why I'm asking now. There isn't one, but you won't admit it.

You made an ### of yourself in that thread, and you'll do it again at this rate.. Go away you fool..There were several articles that would tell you inspectors were searching for a suspect that was thought to have fled the scene. And plenty would tell you 2 suspects went to the hospital.. So, there was potential for 3 suspects..

You are grasping at straws bud.. You made a complete ### of yourself there, now you're looking for any technicality..

So you're not going to do what you just said you'd do, in this very thread. But I'm the fool Care to answer my question from this thread or just keep avoiding it as I've predicted?

I've predicted you trolling and your posts being off topic.. I'm right.. I win.. Now go away..

I've given you an offer in the other thread. You know, the one you've repeatedly said we should discuss the 3rd suspect in, even though you've done everything to avoid doing so. I've aasked you point blank, several times, and on-topic question about your posts in this thread that you've ignored every time. You can't win if you don't play. You're not playing, youre just making noise.

No, I made a prediction, and I was right, so I win.. you lose..

 

[timschochet]

Not a big lie.And are you arguing that tyranny doesn't exist? Or that it is not a fundamental reason why the founders felt it was important enough to be the second amendment? Or do you just think the concept is outdated so it shouldn't be a concern? Should the angry people in upstate NY who feel their state government is being tyrannical just shut up and do what they're told?

1. That article's been posted before. It is indeed a big lie. The Soviets did not disarm their people. In fact, in order to increase the size of the Red Army to fight against the Whites, they actually increased gun ownership. The same thing occurred during World War II, as well. It is true that during the horrors of collectivization, there were cases where the Ukrainians and the Kulaks were disarmed. But not through gun control legislation, more like through massacre. And the bulk of the Russian population were never disarmed. There are many, many books available about the Russian Revolution and the early history of the Soviet Union. I suggest you read up on some of them instead of relying on NRA sponsored propaganda. 2. Of course tyranny exists. 3. There is much debate on why the Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment. It's an interesting discussion, but not at all applicable to the current debate, since exactly NONE of the proposed gun control measures would violate the 2nd Amendment in any manner. 4. I do believe personally that the notion that private gun ownership can prevent tyranny is indeed outdated. I challenge the fact that it ever was relevant, but even if it was, it certainly isn't now. 5. No they should not shut up. They should speak out and contact their elected officials and try to get a majority to agree with them. Personally I don't agree with them. But that's what they need to do. If they attempt to use their firearms to resist the government, they should be arrested and punished.

 

[mad sweeney]

Any statist would.

It's the follow up I want to see happen. If we have a violent prohibited person attempt to purchase a weapon and NICS rejects the sale, it should be followed up. Often times the prohibited person will not stop looking for a weapon just because they get rejected the first time.

Like you say, this isn't rocket surgery.

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to through the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

I chuckle about how you were upset at being called a drama queen.

Great story (fiction).. When you're done trolling you can join the conversation..

I've been trying. You won't answer the questions I asked. Y'know, the exact same one you asked me and that I answered.

Show me a post of yours on this page were you address the topic..75% of your posts don't address the topic, and that's a conservative estimate..

You asked me if I thought the AW ban was ridiculous. I asked you if you thought your car/kitchen knife comparisons were ridiculous. If replying directly to you and your posts on the topic "don't adress the topic" then I don't know what does. I've asked you repeatedly, I answered your query, but you keep running away from answering it yourself. It's absurd the amount of effort you put into having to admit that you're wrong, EVEN AFTER YOU SAY YOU WILL!!!!!

wtf are you talking about.. a car to gun analogy is as good, and at times better than many other analogies made here, and certainly better than any point you've made about the topic, which is likely none..

Actually, no it's not. A car which has zero intended lethal uses and an infinite amount of non-lethal, economically necessary uses being banned because people die in/using them is not a comparison to banning a gun whose sole purpose is death. That' like comparing consenting gay adults to bestiality. Brain dead morons think they have a cutesy comparison that works in their favor, but it isn't.

 

[mad sweeney]

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

Link? I guarantee there isn't a story that alludes to a 3rd suspect, potential or otherwise. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Prove it.And why are you doing it here? Why not do it in the other thread. You know, the one you just told me we should discuss this in?

Bump it up and I'll go there, I'm not looking for it.. I really don't care.. I'm sure you could easily find an article telling you they were looking for a suspect.. It was actually in one of the first few articles linked..

You're a clown. So much energy spent in trying to avoid it (for something you don't care about, of course you cared about it before you got stumped...). If it's so easy, and you've already said we should discuss it, why don't you show me? You're the one making the claim, you back it up. You even in this thread said you would (See the bolded above!* ) That's debate/discussion 101. Of course it's easier and safer for you to blow a bunch of crap around and dilly dally around actually backing up anything you say and avoid questions than it is to find something to back up your wagon full of horse manure. How about the question I've re-asked in this thread?

* - I guess in your screwed up world "I'll show you over there" means "I don't care, I won't look it up and back my claims, I have no intellectual honesty or testicular fortitude and I'll just blast away at how useless you are, in this thread I said we should get away from, in hopes that you just drop it". Good to know.

PS- I did look up a bunch of articles after you made the factual claim of 3 suspects (not a "potential" third) and didn't find anything. That's why I asked you for a link then and why I'm asking now. There isn't one, but you won't admit it.

You made an ### of yourself in that thread, and you'll do it again at this rate.. Go away you fool..There were several articles that would tell you inspectors were searching for a suspect that was thought to have fled the scene. And plenty would tell you 2 suspects went to the hospital.. So, there was potential for 3 suspects..

You are grasping at straws bud.. You made a complete ### of yourself there, now you're looking for any technicality..

So you're not going to do what you just said you'd do, in this very thread. But I'm the fool Care to answer my question from this thread or just keep avoiding it as I've predicted?

I've predicted you trolling and your posts being off topic.. I'm right.. I win.. Now go away..

I've given you an offer in the other thread. You know, the one you've repeatedly said we should discuss the 3rd suspect in, even though you've done everything to avoid doing so. I've aasked you point blank, several times, and on-topic question about your posts in this thread that you've ignored every time. You can't win if you don't play. You're not playing, youre just making noise.

No, I made a prediction, and I was right, so I win.. you lose..

Are you holding your breath in a tantrum while you write this? I've been right about you from the start, I WIN!!!!!

You know how you win? Being honest and answering questions, backing up your claims and doing what you said you'd do. That's called being a man. That's winning at life. You've done none of this. You're a child depserately trying to avoid having to say you were wrong. It's utterly pathetic and the only one being fooled is you. And even you can't be stupid enough to believe your own ####.

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

No, actually, he made the statment.. you contested..

No he asked a question. I answered it. It is not true that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people. In fact, sometimes tyrannical governments arm the people more (as in the case of Nazi Germany.) Sometimes non-tyrannical governments disarm the people as their first action (as in the case of the United States occupying Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII). The question ichris raised is based on a revisionist sense of history that the NRA and its supporters have been touting in order to further their agenda. It's a big lie.

History tells me that Hitler did, indeed, disarm people in countries that his military had conquered

So, you mean that AFTER the Nazis conquered countries, THEN people were disarmed. Oooh, good point, that proves exactly nothing. If anything, Mad Sweeney has overestimated your skills at this.

Was Germany not a tyrant in those countries?

Just stop. Are you afraid of us being conquered? Is that your argument?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

No, you explain. I just made an assertive statement. If you have facts to contradict them, please explain.

No, actually, he made the statment.. you contested..

No he asked a question. I answered it. It is not true that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people. In fact, sometimes tyrannical governments arm the people more (as in the case of Nazi Germany.) Sometimes non-tyrannical governments disarm the people as their first action (as in the case of the United States occupying Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII). The question ichris raised is based on a revisionist sense of history that the NRA and its supporters have been touting in order to further their agenda. It's a big lie.

History tells me that Hitler did, indeed, disarm people in countries that his military had conquered

So, you mean that AFTER the Nazis conquered countries, THEN people were disarmed. Oooh, good point, that proves exactly nothing. If anything, Mad Sweeney has overestimated your skills at this.

Was Germany not a tyrant in those countries?

Just stop. Are you afraid of us being conquered? Is that your argument?

We are already conquered, but I've never said anything to that note..And those countries were already conquered and now a territory belonging to the German empire before they were disarmed.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You know how you win? Being honest and answering questions, backing up your claims and doing what you said you'd do. That's called being a man. That's winning at life.

So basically you're saying you always lose?

 

[mad sweeney]

You know how you win? Being honest and answering questions, backing up your claims and doing what you said you'd do. That's called being a man. That's winning at life.

So basically you're saying you always lose?

Whenever you're ready to man up, feel free. I've given you excessive amounts of opportunities to answer questions and back up your claims. I've put my money where my mouth is (figuratively) and given you an offer in the other thread that will shut me up if you can back up your claims. If you're unwilling/unable to take up that offer, then keep on being the cowardly, dishonest joke that you are.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You know how you win? Being honest and answering questions, backing up your claims and doing what you said you'd do. That's called being a man. That's winning at life.

So basically you're saying you always lose?

Whenever you're ready to man up, feel free. I've given you excessive amounts of opportunities to answer questions and back up your claims. I've put my money where my mouth is (figuratively) and given you an offer in the other thread that will shut me up if you can back up your claims. If you're unwilling/unable to take up that offer, then keep on being the cowardly, dishonest joke that you are.

For anyone interested in what he's talking about here, it's This

 

[mad sweeney]

You know how you win? Being honest and answering questions, backing up your claims and doing what you said you'd do. That's called being a man. That's winning at life.

So basically you're saying you always lose?

Whenever you're ready to man up, feel free. I've given you excessive amounts of opportunities to answer questions and back up your claims. I've put my money where my mouth is (figuratively) and given you an offer in the other thread that will shut me up if you can back up your claims. If you're unwilling/unable to take up that offer, then keep on being the cowardly, dishonest joke that you are.

For anyone interested in what he's talking about here, it's This

Cool, you have a link to me being wrong, which I freely admit. Now show us how you were right about your "factual" claim of 3 suspects.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

The State of New York at this time is a tyrannical government.

 

[tom22406]

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

The State of New York at this time is a tyrannical government.

And this is the point where rational discussion collapses.

 

[Henry Ford]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

 

[MaxThreshold]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

I stand corrected. He has shot more than ZERO times.

 

[Henry Ford]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

I stand corrected. He has shot more than ZERO times.

Your instincts about what you should believe for a second are terrible.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

I hadn't realized he was left handed.. Looks rather awkward with a shotgun in his hand.. Maybe that's just because it's shouldered to the left..

 

[mad sweeney]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

I hadn't realized he was left handed.. Looks rather awkward with a shotgun in his hand.. Maybe that's just because it's shouldered to the left..

Blah blah blah.....I can't believe you have the gall to post again.Seriously, put up or shut up. You owned yourself with your substance-free bluster. So prove you're not a gigantic sack of vacuous hot air or stay out of threads that you got your ### handed to you (by yourself, no less).

 

[Alex P Keaton]

This thread continues to amuse. Carolina Hustler.....talk about a misnomer. Rare to see someone get so thoroughly hustled.....

 

[MaxThreshold]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

I stand corrected. He has shot more than ZERO times.

Your instincts about what you should believe for a second are terrible.

Every now and then I guess Obama has to tell the truth. But it is more than zero, so I'll give you that. We now have ONE instance of Obama shooting a gun. However, this is far from "we shoot all the time". I'm just not one of the Obama sheep like you are, so I'm a little more skeptical. You can continue to take every word from his lips as Gospel, though.

 

[MaxThreshold]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

I hadn't realized he was left handed.. Looks rather awkward with a shotgun in his hand.. Maybe that's just because it's shouldered to the left..

Blah blah blah.....I can't believe you have the gall to post again.Seriously, put up or shut up. You owned yourself with your substance-free bluster. So prove you're not a gigantic sack of vacuous hot air or stay out of threads that you got your ### handed to you (by yourself, no less).

JHC. When will the mods ban you?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

I hadn't realized he was left handed.. Looks rather awkward with a shotgun in his hand.. Maybe that's just because it's shouldered to the left..

Blah blah blah.....I can't believe you have the gall to post again.Seriously, put up or shut up. You owned yourself with your substance-free bluster. So prove you're not a gigantic sack of vacuous hot air or stay out of threads that you got your ### handed to you (by yourself, no less).

JHC. When will the mods ban you?

^good question there..

 

[mad sweeney]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

I hadn't realized he was left handed.. Looks rather awkward with a shotgun in his hand.. Maybe that's just because it's shouldered to the left..

Blah blah blah.....I can't believe you have the gall to post again.Seriously, put up or shut up. You owned yourself with your substance-free bluster. So prove you're not a gigantic sack of vacuous hot air or stay out of threads that you got your ### handed to you (by yourself, no less).

JHC. When will the mods ban you?

^good question there..

Did someone say something? I think you're probably an even bigger joke than ITS. At least he's just ignoring all the crap he spewed and isn't addressing it at all. You think you're going to make some kind of point about something, anything, when you've just been proven to be the most worthless poster on the boards. Exceptionally sad...eta: especially since I gave you the perfect opportunity to get me out of your hair forever, all you had to do was something that you tried to demean me about as being very easy to do (and said, more than once that you would do). So no point complaining about me when your pathetic blowhard skills wouldn't even let you perform the selfappointed, self-described very easy task.

 

[mad sweeney]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Photograph of the President shooting on August 4, 2012 at Camp David.

I hadn't realized he was left handed.. Looks rather awkward with a shotgun in his hand.. Maybe that's just because it's shouldered to the left..

Blah blah blah.....I can't believe you have the gall to post again.Seriously, put up or shut up. You owned yourself with your substance-free bluster. So prove you're not a gigantic sack of vacuous hot air or stay out of threads that you got your ### handed to you (by yourself, no less).

JHC. When will the mods ban you?

Yes, we need to make the internet safe for your phenomenal contributions of phallic nicknames and "you're gay" jokes.