56
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Oct, 2019 12:58 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

And now you are here presumably to console him and stroke his booboo.


I don't know what weird **** you're into in the NRA, but leave me out of it, and stroke your own ******* whatever it is.

I was sharing incredulity that you seem to be having a completely different conversation to the rest of the English speaking world.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Oct, 2019 01:00 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I'd be careful, you don't want any more snide homoeroticism.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Oct, 2019 05:36 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Seems to me there is in fact a difference between mass shootings and mass killings. One would include any firing of a gun whether or not anyone was killed, whereas the other would just count killings. 147 shToo damned many guns used too viciously, no matter how you slice it.ootings at schools is 147 too manyl whether or not anyone was actually killed.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 5 Oct, 2019 01:31 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I don't know what weird **** you're into in the NRA

I'm not a member of the NRA, nor am I involved in any way with them.
Quote:
I was sharing incredulity that you seem to be having a completely different conversation to the rest of the English speaking world.

No you weren't. Mr. Hinteler lied about what constitutes a mass shooting. When I called him out on it, he defended his lie by offering up a source that does NOT support his claim:

‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subsection— ‘‘(A) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident . . .

The meaning of the preceding is so clear that only an idiot could misinterpret it. And only an idiot would defend that idiot.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Oct, 2019 01:51 pm
@Glennn,
Says the idiot who doesn't know the difference between a question and a statement.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 5 Oct, 2019 02:34 pm
@izzythepush,
Let me get you caught up here. Mr. Hinteler said he googled the number of mass shootings for 2019 and said that he stands by that number. I told him that that doesn't change the fact that in 147 of them, no one was killed. He said, "So mass shootings only count as such, if someone is killed?" He was implying that those 147 shootings qualify as mass shootings. And in support of that opinion, he cited PUBLIC LAW 112–265—JAN. 14, 2013 126 STAT. 2435. When I showed him that what he cited failed to back up his position, he suddenly declared that he has no position here. He was wise to remove himself from that situation.

You, on the other hand, felt the need to defend him by trying to make the case that I don't understand English. So you go ahead and explain how what you've just said is relevant to Mr. Hinteler using PUBLIC LAW 112–265—JAN. 14, 2013 126 STAT. 2435 to support his claim when it actually disproves it.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Oct, 2019 11:53 pm
@Glennn,
Your interpretation of my "position" is wrong.

To clarify and verify it again: I didn't imply anything with my question - even not, when you got this idea from looking through my responses on other threads during the last 17 years.
I didn't "suddenly declare to have no position", because even now I don't have one ... besides that definition in said law.


oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 03:20 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Posting random trivia without ever making a point is unusual behavior on a political messageboard.

It is reasonable for people to sometimes mistakenly assume that you intended to make a point.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 03:31 am
@Glennn,
You were asked a question and because you have problems with language you thought that was someone taking a position. Despite being corrected you still seem unable to appreciate the difference between questions and statements.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 03:33 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

You, on the other hand, felt the need to defend him by trying to make the case that I don't understand English.


You don't need any help from me, you make the case very well all on your own.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 08:34 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
I didn't "suddenly declare to have no position", because even now I don't have one ... besides that definition in said law.

Right. And the definition in said law does not does not support the list of mass shootings that you stand by.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 08:45 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Posting random trivia without ever making a point is unusual behavior on a political messageboard.

Apparently he is here to express his "neutrality" on the issue, and doing a poor job of it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2019 09:39 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
And the definition in said law does not does not support the list of mass shootings that you stand by.
How in God's holy name do you know that?

You really think that I'm of a rather low intellect with lowest intelligence.
Fine, so stop acted with me.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 02:01 pm
sociopathy much?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 02:08 pm
@MontereyJack,
Spare me the virtue signalling. Did your 145 top CEOs get any gun laws passed for you?
0 Replies
 
eurocelticyankee
 
  4  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 02:19 pm
https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxNC1jYzgyZmZjNmI2OTQzZWM2.png
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 02:22 pm
@eurocelticyankee,
Sounds like that police officer is admitting that he has some inferiority problems, if he thinks that's why people carry guns, because presumably he has a gun in his own holster.

Probably all freedom haters have such inferiority problems. European serfs always claim that they are fine with their lack of freedom, but all they ever do is spout bitter name-calling at those of us who actually enjoy freedom.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 07:26 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Your support isnt particularly valuable. The support for more action on gun control by 145 top CEOs presented to trump on the other hand is

Let's look at the track record of those 145 top CEOs.


Bipartisan Background Checks Act: ignored by Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8

Enhanced Background Checks Act: ignored by Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1112

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act: ignored by Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1585

Keep Americans Safe Act: ignored by both House and Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1186

Extreme Risk Protection Order Act: ignored by both House and Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1236

Disarm Hate Act: ignored by both House and Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2708


Boy! If I ever want to not get anything done, now I know just which 145 CEOs to turn to.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 08:46 am
@oralloy,
Once again you make an extremely strong argument for voting out of office every Republican senator running in 2020.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 08:49 am
@MontereyJack,
That's not going to happen.

What's going to happen is, you and your 145 top CEOs are not going to get any new gun laws.

No soup for you!
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 06:34:45