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