Someone on Fox News actually has some intelligence about the assault weapon issue
Jun 17, 2016 16:01:55 #
robertjerl wrote:
There you go again. Changing things to suit your narrative.
The point was that it is the shooter, not the gun. And an assault rifle's less powerful cartridge would not have been effective at the ranges he was shooting.
The point was that it is the shooter, not the gun. And an assault rifle's less powerful cartridge would not have been effective at the ranges he was shooting.
"My narrative"?
Yea, I guess my concern for how many potential victims there could have been based on the weaponry used is just irrelevant useless diversion, isn't it, Robert?
Maybe if you think it is just trying to "suit my narrative", you should maybe talk to the victims and potential victims of mass shootings and see if it "suits their narrative" as well?
Jun 17, 2016 16:43:20 #
Keenan wrote:
"My narrative"?
Yea, I guess my concern for how many potential victims there could have been based on the weaponry used is just irrelevant useless diversion, isn't it, Robert?
Maybe if you think it is just trying to "suit my narrative", you should maybe talk to the victims and potential victims of mass shootings and see if it "suits their narrative" as well?
Yea, I guess my concern for how many potential victims there could have been based on the weaponry used is just irrelevant useless diversion, isn't it, Robert?
Maybe if you think it is just trying to "suit my narrative", you should maybe talk to the victims and potential victims of mass shootings and see if it "suits their narrative" as well?
well aren't you just a sanctimonious barrel of laughs. That was uncalled for and you know it.
Jun 17, 2016 16:46:09 #
hondo812 wrote:
well aren't you just a sanctimonious barrel of laughs. That was uncalled for and you know it.
Why is that? Re-read the topic of the thread. Here, I'll help you:
"Someone on Fox News actually has some intelligence about the assault weapon issue"
My comment was on topic to the thread, so why does that make it a sanctimonious barrel of laughs and uncalled for? You sure like to use a lot of big words that you don't understand the meanings of in order to spew your bullshit, don't you, Hondo?
Oh, and by the way. No one elected you the thread policeman.
But, then again, what else can one expect from an ammosexual such as yourself?
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2016/6/17/406716-2759_3718786494201903155_n.jpg
Jun 17, 2016 16:57:18 #
Jun 17, 2016 16:59:23 #
Keenan wrote:
"My narrative"?
Yea, I guess my concern for how many potential victims there could have been based on the weaponry used is just irrelevant useless diversion, isn't it, Robert?
Maybe if you think it is just trying to "suit my narrative", you should maybe talk to the victims and potential victims of mass shootings and see if it "suits their narrative" as well?
Yea, I guess my concern for how many potential victims there could have been based on the weaponry used is just irrelevant useless diversion, isn't it, Robert?
Maybe if you think it is just trying to "suit my narrative", you should maybe talk to the victims and potential victims of mass shootings and see if it "suits their narrative" as well?
Being the victim, or survivor, of a tragedy does not make one an expert. It DOES, however, offer practical I sight. So, someone getting shot, and living, can talk of the slow motion, the pain, getting away, the recuperation, etc., but they have gained zero new expertise on guns themselves.
Jun 17, 2016 17:00:25 #
Keenan wrote:
b 96 Minutes /b br http://www.texasmonthly.com/a... (show quote)
I'm guessing many less given the difference in accuracy of the two weapons over the range of the victims.
Jun 17, 2016 17:01:10 #
Cykdelic wrote:
Being the victim, or survivor, of a tragedy does not make one an expert. It DOES, however, offer practical I sight. So, someone getting shot, and living, can talk of the slow motion, the pain, getting away, the recuperation, etc., but they have gained zero new expertise on guns themselves.
Sorry, but why does one have to be an "expert" to take a moral stance on mass murder? You don't make any sense. Typical gun nut "logic".
Jun 17, 2016 17:09:05 #
Keenan wrote:
Sorry, but why does one have to be an "expert" to take a moral stance on mass murder? You don't make any sense. Typical gun nut "logic".
Keenan.....,again, you're trying to use typical progressive revisionism to miss whatever point you attempted!
You wrote "...you should maybe talk to the victims and potential victims of mass shootings and see if it "suits their narrative" as well?", and there was zero evidence of a moral stance in your post. Your response to my statement that being a victim doesn't offer any new expertise, which is an accurate point, doesn't make any sense.
Your attempt to change the narrative is cancelled!
Jun 17, 2016 17:23:30 #
Cykdelic wrote:
Keenan.....,again, you're trying to use typical pr... (show quote)
No, your attempt to claim that my point about assault weapons being a relevant issue to how many potential victims there are, which also happens to be in keeping with the topic of this thread, is somehow "changing the narrative", is what is revisionism and your attempt to divert and misdirect. It is also bullshit. Fail. Try again.
Jun 17, 2016 17:45:27 #
He is at it again.
Mass murder is now his topic. Mass murder can be committed by many means, not just guns.
The topic was "assault weapons" and Gretchen Carlson's commentary on them.
Mass murder is now his topic. Mass murder can be committed by many means, not just guns.
The topic was "assault weapons" and Gretchen Carlson's commentary on them.
Jun 17, 2016 17:59:54 #
robertjerl wrote:
He is at it again.
Mass murder is now his topic. Mass murder can be committed by many means, not just guns.
The topic was "assault weapons" and Gretchen Carlson's commentary on them.
Mass murder is now his topic. Mass murder can be committed by many means, not just guns.
The topic was "assault weapons" and Gretchen Carlson's commentary on them.
Do you admit that mass murder has been and continues to be committed with "assault weapons"?
Then, yes, my points about assault weapons is on topic. The more you speak, the more ridiculous you are making yourself, Robert. Does your illogic know no bounds?
Jun 17, 2016 19:00:23 #
Keenan wrote:
Do you admit that mass murder has been and continues to be committed with "assault weapons"?
Then, yes, my points about assault weapons is on topic. The more you speak, the more ridiculous you are making yourself, Robert. Does your illogic know no bounds?
Then, yes, my points about assault weapons is on topic. The more you speak, the more ridiculous you are making yourself, Robert. Does your illogic know no bounds?
What "assault weapons"? Do you mean the ones that civilians can't readily own or possess? What a dull tool you have become. I suppose you'd prefer a vest with ten pounds of C4 and a few thousand ball bearings?
Jun 17, 2016 19:01:23 #
skylane5sp wrote:
What "assault weapons"? Do you mean the ones that civilians can't readily own or possess? What a dull tool you have become. I suppose you'd prefer he wore a vest with ten pounds of C4 and a few thousand ball bearings?
blah blah blah blah blah more misdirection...how surprising...
Jun 17, 2016 19:04:17 #
Keenan wrote:
blah blah blah blah blah more misdirection...how surprising...
The only "misdirection" is your constant condescension and evasion of questions.
Jun 17, 2016 21:37:29 #
Keenan wrote:
Do you admit that mass murder has been and continues to be committed with "assault weapons"?
Then, yes, my points about assault weapons is on topic. The more you speak, the more ridiculous you are making yourself, Robert. Does your illogic know no bounds?
Then, yes, my points about assault weapons is on topic. The more you speak, the more ridiculous you are making yourself, Robert. Does your illogic know no bounds?
Ah, I must have spent too much time reading your posts and it rubbed off.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.