Gun sales skyrocket

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

H20 Man, I asked if this

Quote:
Citizens will be forced to fend for and protect themselves.

is your answer to my question: But what does gun ownership have to do with your opinion of Obama's policies?

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

0 Replies

@cjhsa,

Dream on, loser . . .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

So, regardless of the word limited, that means you think that Mr. Obama can exercise some control over Congress. I see no good reason to assume that any president can exercise any control over Congress, other than Congress determining on its own to cooperate.

And that's precisely what roger was talking about, which should be apparent to anyone with basic reading comprehension.

Quote:

But what you are trying to dodge here is an apparent conslusion on your part that you need guns and ammunition because of "a certain perception of the Obama administration" which you think is justified. Do you seriously expect that you will need firearms to protect yourself from this administration? Do you seriously think that if the FBI or the ATF came for you, you'd be able to handle the situation with your Smith and Wesson?

Like i said, Twilight Zone . . .

You are either being daft or being an ass, but most likely a bit of both.

It's very clear that he is talking about Obama's leanings on gun control and not about needing to protect himself from Obama yet you are trying to portray him as a paranoid nut defending himself from the FBI and ATF.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

It's very clear that he is talking about Obama's leanings on gun control . . .

Leaving aside that that was not "very clear" from his posted remark, i suspect that you are either being daft or being an ass, but most likely a bit of both. If his only concern were Mr. Obama's "leanings" on gun control, why would he need to purchase ammunition, or even additional fire arms in response to that? If he does not feel that he needs ammunition or additional firearms to protect himself from the ATF, then does he comtemplate armed rebellion? And, of course, Mr. Obama has no power to force gun control legislation on the Congress.

Keep your remarks about being daft and ass to yourself, as well as your puerile remarks about a person's reading comprehension. If his meaning is what you say it is, which is not at all certain, it still does not explain why buying ammunition and possibly additional firearms is an appropriate response to such a potentiality.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If his only concern were Mr. Obama's "leanings" on gun control, why would he need to purchase ammunition, or even additional fire arms in response to that?

Even a fool should be able to understand this. It would be in order to obtain them before their sale is restricted.

Quote:

If he does not feel that he needs ammunition or additional firearms to protect himself from the ATF, then does he comtemplate armed rebellion?

He said nothing about armed rebellion, this is just your inability to comprehend what you read at work.

Quote:

Keep your remarks about being daft and ass to yourself, as well as your puerile remarks about a person's reading comprehension.

You are daft and you are an ass, roger's too nice a guy to say so but I have no such compunctions. If you don't like being called out for your reading incomprehension then don't misrepresent what people say. And if you don't like being treated rudely then you should reconsider your penchant for mocking others.

You sure can dish it out, even if you can't take any.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Yeah, i have no doubt that you are daft enough an ass to pick a fight where none was offered to you. If Roger's only intent were to buy ammunition and firearms in anticipation of restrictions thereon, he need only have said as much, but he didn't. My response has been conditioned by the tenor of this thread, and Roger could easily have dealt with my questions without your help, and in a reasonable manner, but he has not done so--so i have continued to question his statement. I did not, of course, seek your permission to do so.

The loon who started this thread quoted this piece which he got from the Freepers, hardly the lights of measured, reasoned debate:

Quote:

“Gun sales have at least doubled,” said the longtime owner of Hoffman’s Gun Center on the Berlin Turnpike. “Business is up at least 50 percent and that’s in a bad economy. It shows you how scared people are.” .....

That sets the tenor for the thread. Subsequently, Roger wrote:

Quote:

I was in a Big 5 sporting goods store last week. They had a sign apologizing for the absence of advertised ammunition. Truely, the shelves were 80% empty. I suspect a certain amount of over reaction.

Merry Andrew responded to that by writing:

Quote:

I suspect a rather gigantic amount of over-reaction. Go tell Henny Penny the sky is falling.

To this Roger responded, and included the following remarks:

Quote:

I don't know. There is a certain perception of the Obama administration, which I think is justified. (emphasis added)

You must be a mind-reader to have deduced from that that Roger simply meant that one ought to buy ammunition and firearms in anticipation of new legislation. He states that he thinks that a "certain perception" of Mr. Obama's administration is justified, but he neither explicitly, nor even implicitly states that he is only concerned with the ability to buy ammunition in the future, which would not in any case be something about which Mr. Obama could do anything. So i questioned it. Even in the matter of whether or not one could buy ammunition (ammunition in the thousands of rounds and handguns can be purchased from the back of pickup trucks all across the country just about every day of the week, despite what the law may say), this has the ring of a paranoid attitude.

I see you haven taken the opportunity while i was preparing my reply to trot out your schoolyard playground tripe about being able to dish it out but not to take it. I have not complained about being treated rudely, i've simply offered you a dose of the same medicine you have tried to force on me. I take it just fine, and i'm as happy to dish it out to you as to anyone else.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Yeah, i have no doubt that you are daft enough an ass to pick a fight where none was offered to you.

That describes you to a T. Which is why I hold you in such low regard and which is why I'll gladly take up fights with you.

Quote:

If Roger's only intent were to buy ammunition and firearms in anticipation of restrictions thereon, he need only have said as much, but he didn't.

He didn't say a word about armed rebellion though, and that didn't stop you from jumping to your idiotic conclusion.

Quote:

My response has been conditioned by the tenor of this thread, and Roger could easily have dealt with my questions without your help, and in a reasonable manner, but he has not done so--so i have continued to question his statement.

He did, he indicated to you that your response was not to what he had actually wrote, you pressed on to insist it was.

Quote:

The loon who started this thread quoted this piece which he got from the Freepers, hardly the lights of measured, reasoned debate:

And said loon has nothing to do with roger, who you were painting with the same brush.

Quote:

You must be a mind-reader to have deduced from that that Roger simply meant that one ought to buy ammunition and firearms in anticipation of new legislation.

This is pretty funny coming from a guy who just started fabricating nonsense about roger feeling threatened by Obama, about armed rebellion, and about FBI and ATF raids.

How then did you reach your conclusions? Mind reading?

At the very least it's clear that I read minds a lot better than you do then, but I prefer a more pedestrian explanation: you lack sufficient reading comprehension.

Quote:

He states that he thinks that a "certain perception" of Mr. Obama's administration is justified, but he neither explicitly, nor even implicitly states that he is only concerned with the ability to buy ammunition in the future, which would not in any case be something about which Mr. Obama could do anything.

So? Where did he say he felt threatened by the Obama administration and was stocking up weapons for an ATF/FBI raid?

This is hilarious, you are faulting me for understanding what he actually was talking about while defending your leaps to absurd conclusions.

Quote:

So i questioned it.

No, you derided it. Even after he told you that you didn't understand his point. And if you are willing to make a fool out of yourself in public this way I am willing to help, and am deriding your inability to demonstrate basic reading comprehension here.

Quote:

I have not complained about being treated rudely, i've simply offered you a dose of the same medicine you have tried to force on me.

You told me to stop deriding your daft reading incomprehension, my response is that you don't moderate your own derision so you should expect nothing less than derision when you are daft.

Quote:

I take it just fine...

No you don't, you enter convoluted arguments trying to defend your indefensible position vainly trying to save face. You know damn well, or should know, that you erroneously jumped to an unstated conclusion here but can't bring yourself to acknowledge it.

0 Replies

I didn't pick a fight with Roger, i asked him some questions. You're the one who has come here to pick a fight. My remark about armed rebellion was in response to your assertion that he clearly would not want ammunition to defend himself against Mr. Obama's administration. Once again, that was a question, not an assertion, so the idiocy is all yours. I didn't insist that my response was to what he had actually written despite his denial, i pointed out that he had evaded the other question i had asked. I didn't paint Roger with any brush, i asked questions germane to the exchange which took place between him and other members. I did not "fabricate" any "nonsense" about what Roger feels threatened by, i asked him. So far, he hasn't responded. Asking a question is not reaching a conclusion, but i'll accept the inference that you don't understand that sort of thing. My reading comprehension is sufficient to distinguish a question from an assertion--apparently, yours is not. Tediously, allow me to point out once again that i leapt to no conclusions, i asked a series of questions. Was the intent satire?--certainly it was. Is there a prohibition on satire here? Or is there just a prohibition on addressing satirically those members whom you like? Will i need to read minds with your penetrating clarity so that i can know whom i can address with satire, and who is beyond the pale of your personal approbation?

I have no need to "save face" here, and i have offered no convoluted arguments. My argument is the same as it has been since i first addressed Roger. I certainly have no need to save face in an exchange with you, as the more i interact with you, the lower my opinion of you becomes. I jumped to no conclusions, i asked a series of questions. Roger could easily have put it all to rest by responding with the explanation you allege accounts for his remarks. Of course, i would then have questioned to what extent Mr. Obama could be expected to prevent him from buying ammunition in the future, but that's how these exchanges progress. You truly are a legend in your own mind, you know?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Look, as fun as it is to poke fun at your stupidity, I don't have all day.

If you really think your reading comprehension was right and mine wrong then put your money where your mouth is. I will donate $1,000 to a literacy charity of your choice if your interpretation is closer to accurate than mine. Will you do the same or are you just full of hot air?

He already told you that you were barking up the wrong tree, that should have been hint enough and if you really want to persist in your stupidity then I think some kids should at least be able to learn to read as a result.

So are you game? Or do you know damn well you are wrong despite being unwilling to admit it? If you won't put your money where your big mouth is, then that will be ample demonstration that you know full well that you misrepresented his point.

1 Reply

Give Women Guns

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/02/magazine/02moral_color.480.jpg

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I'm sure your time is much more valuable than mine, after all, you imply as much. I had no doubt at all what Roger meant when he wrote what he did. I did not "interpret" what he wrote, i satirized it. I'd not have done so, i'd have ignored his posts, had he not written: ". . . there is a certain perception of the Obama administration, which i feel is justified."

In the last 30 years, there have been 20 years of Republican administrations, and 10 years of Democratic administrations. The conservatives of this country are so honked off at losing the last election that they have erected Mr. Obama as the great Satan. The call him a socialist, and they attribute all sorts of horrors to him, which are yet to be realized. Not Mr. Obama, nor any member of his administration can effect a single gun-control measure. When Mr. Clinton was the president, any gun control legislation was the product of the Congress. For the last six of his eight years in office, that Congress was controlled by the Republicans. To disparage Mr. Clinton for actions taken by a Congress controlled by the Republicans would be unjust. It would be equally unjust to attribute the surpluses run by government during Mr. Clinton's administration to Mr. Clinton alone, without giving credit to the Republican-controlled Congress.

So when someone makes ludicrous claims about what may be expected to occur during the Obama administration, in an area over which Mr. Obama and his executive branch have no control, it is likely that i will indulge in satire, usually in the form of such questions as have gotten your frilly little lace panties in a twist here, because it is just another case of demonizing the man unjustly. Since Mr. Obama does have a certain amount of control over the FBI (an agency of the Justice Department in the executive branch) and the BATF (an agency of the Treasury Department in the executive branch), i used them as his proxy boogiemen. If it happens to be Roger who provides the opportunity to ask such sarcastic questions, that's just the risk we all take when we post here. Just as i take the risk of your two-bit self-righteousness whenever i post. Too bad, so sad.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I had no doubt at all what Roger meant when he wrote what he did. I did not "interpret" what he wrote, i satirized it.

This is a bald lie. You claimed he was contemplating armed rebellion when he said nothing of the sort. This was your misinterpretation and you can't beg off as a satire.

I see that you aren't willing to put your money where your big, lying mouth is so my work here is done. It should be clear enough to anyone now that even you won't defend your brainfart anymore and are now trying to portray it as some brand of humor and attempting to move the conversation to the likelihood of gun control instead of the initial armed conflict you pulled out of your ass and accused roger of being in the "twilight zone" about.

I hope that at least to yourself, you admit your errors even if you can't bring yourself to do it in public.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I did not claim that he was contemplating armed rebellion. You are a liar. I asked you if he were contemplating armed rebellion, but apparently, your ability to recognize satire is as poor as you claim my reading comprehension to be. At not time, in any response to Roger, did i state or imply that he contemplated armed rebellion.

You can rant to your heart's content, but it won't alter that i did not at any time state that Roger felt he needed to defend himself from Mr. Obama's administration, nor at any time state that Roger intended armed rebellion.

Your work here is done ? ! ? ! ? Your are hilarious, in addition to being a liar. You truly are a legend in your own mind.

1 Reply

If i ever addressed a post to Roger in which i claimed he was contemplating armed rebellion, it should be the simplest of acts for you to link it.

Otherwise, i hope that you can admit to yourself that it never happened, even if you can't admit it public.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

In this you are correct and I am incorrect, you did not state explicitly that he "was contemplating armed rebellion" but you did however imply it very strongly by repeatedly asking him if he thought his guns would protect him from the government and with your "twilight zone" digs.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I already did so while you were composing this post.

Now how about you admit that you misrepresented his position and implied that he intends to use guns to protect him from the Obama administration and the FBI/ATF?

0 Replies

It appears Setanta brought a sword to a gun fight.

0 Replies

As i have repeatedly pointed out, i was not wilfully misrepresenting his position, i was satirizing him for his comment to the effect that "there is a certain perception of the Obama administration, which [he considers] justified." It is no fault of mine that you don't readily understand sarcasm, or that you don't readily recognize satire. I'd have thought that the "Twilight Zone" reference would have tipped you wise right away, but i guess your reading comprehension, when it comes to sarcasm or satire, is just not up to the mark.

Once again, i did not represent his position in any respect, i asked a series of questions, the tone was sarcastic and the intent was satire. It's no fault of mine if you decided to ride in as the knight in shining armor because you failed to recognize that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I do understand sarcasm, and I do understand satire. But I also understand that your attempts at it were based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what he was saying. You even tried to dispute my interpretation of it with more sarcasm about me being a "mind reader".

Predictably, you prefer to see "no fault of your own", but my offer still stands. If he cares to weigh in on what he meant (again) I will donate $1,000 to a literacy charity if my interpretation of his position is less correct than your portrayal. Would you?

1 Reply

Robert plays with Set like I play with food.

Get in mah belly!

0 Replies

Gun sales skyrocket

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know