No One Was Ever Killed By A Gun

[D2D]

1965hawks does fancy himself the board's official spelling policeman!

He bought his own plastic whistle, badge, red pen and dictionary!

He feels he is the supreme apparatchik!

[1965hawks]

wmdn_bs: Hawks, if all you have is word parsing and typo criticism, you've already conceded.

Stop hiding behind D2D's inane posts.  Come out and defend your argument, first by stating exactly what you meant by the use of nay. Was it or was it not a typo. if so, what was th intended word?

[D2D]

1965hawks does fancy himself the board's official spelling policeman!

He bought his own plastic whistle, badge, red pen and dictionary!

He feels he is the supreme apparatchik!

[1965hawks]

wmdn_bs: You've convinced me. My families [sic] guns must all be defective. None have killed or injured anyone.


Your logical fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule--a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is presented as evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule or mockery is presented (typically directed at the claim).

2. Therefore, claim C is false.

This line of reasoning is fallacious because simply mocking a claim does not provide evidence to show that it is false.

In other words, wmdn_bs, despite your ridiculous argument that your family's firearms must be defective because they've never killed or injured anyone, the fact remains that guns do indeed kill and cause injury. Isn't that right, wmdn_bs?

[D2D]

1965hawks does fancy himself the board's official spelling policeman!

He bought his own plastic whistle, badge, red pen and dictionary!

He feels he is the supreme apparatchik!

[wmdn_bs]

wmdn_bs: Hawks, if all you have is word parsing and typo criticism,....


wmdn_bs,
So are you saying now that nay was a typographical error? OK. So what word did you intend to type?

I'm surprised that a genius like you couldn't jumble the letters and come up with ANY reasonable substitute.

wmdn_bs: You've convinced me. My families [sic] guns must all be defective. None have killed or injured anyone.


Your logical fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule--a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is presented as evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule or mockery is presented (typically directed at the claim).

2. Therefore, claim C is false.

This line of reasoning is fallacious because simply mocking a claim does not provide evidence to show that it is false.

In other words, wmdn_bs, despite your ridiculous argument that your family's firearms must be defective because they've never killed or injured anyone, the fact remains that guns do indeed kill and cause injury. Isn't that right, wmdn_bs?

Not ridicule, but sarcasm. Again, a person with your obvious superior intellect, (or at least obvious to you), should have been able to detect that.

The FACT remains the second amendment is a constitutionally protected RIGHT that shall not be abridged. Enough said.

[scott_free]

bullshit, sonny.  you are for abridging it.  should shoulder fired ground to air missiles be legal to own and purchase, including at most gun shows where no ID is needed to buy as many as you might want, as assault weapons today are?  Are you in favor of people being able to carry their assault weapons onto passenger jets?  into jail visitation areas?  into courtrooms where their relatives might being sentenced? how about tanks and fully automatic machine guns and nuclear weapons that are also "arms," since the Amendment clearly refers to the right to own and bear "arms," and arms are all weapons that might be used in war.  how about carrying assault weapons into grade schools or universities or NAACP headquarters or NRA headquarters or to just mill around in Planned Parenthood clinics or the campaign offices of Clinton or Sanders or even Trump?

[wmdn_bs]

We have a right to free speech too, one that you abuse quite regularly, but there are limits to that as well. See what happens if you yell fire in a crowded movie theater. There are reasonable limits. what you consider an assault rifle is no more or less dangerous than a Remington Model 700 BDL, and has just as many sporting uses.

[D2D]

 

bullshit, sonny.  you are for abridging it.  should shoulder fired ground to air missiles be legal to own and purchase, including at most gun shows where no ID is needed to buy as many as you might want, as assault weapons today are? 

That is a flat out lie!

If you can afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to purchase a ground to air missile why can't you?

You lying skunk in no gun show can you purchase a firearm without an ID!

Damned liar!

[scott_free]

how do I abuse freedom of speech?  by using it?  you abuse it by lying about something so goddamn simple even a right winger laughs at how stupid you are-  that an assault weapon that can quickly accept 30 round clips, be reloaded quickly and keep firing so many rounds in so few overall seconds is not that much more effective at killing as many people as possible in a small radius as any weapon that cannot accept high capacity clips.  dumbass.


The Remington 700 BDL is a Bolt Action rifle that shoots .30-06 Springfield ammunition. With a maximum capacity of 4 rounds, the Remington 700 BDL holds an average amount compared to other rifles of the same caliber.

at most gun shows you can buy guns without showing ID, lying dvd.  watch your lying mouth, boy. 

[D2D]

Scott in any of the mass shooting you decry if the shooter had used a Remington 700 he would have killed more people!

It is not the weapon but the skills of the person that handles it!

[scott_free]

anybody can shoot 20 kids in a classroom in a matter of moments with an assault weapon and 30 round high capacity clips, and their teachers, who could have rushed him if he only had 4 rounds and used them up, you goddamn piece of shit bitch.  shut up.  you are too fucking stupid to comment. 

LOOK AT THE LOON WHO ACTUALLY DID IT. PROBABLY EVEN A BIGGER WIMP AND LOSER THAN YOU.