Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@gungasnake,

Thanks for a good laugh gunga.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Great way to multiply your casualties.

What casualties? No bombs went off. Millions of kids had the fear of nuclear war brought home to them for nothing. There was never going to be a nuclear war.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

I think it is all well and good that you can't kill somebody for stealing your furniture.

even is you consider them scum...

Easy to say when it isn't your furniture, or other prized possessions.

By the way, you can do that, in Texas.

Well, if they drop your stuff and leave it behind you can't kill them for having made the attempted theft. But if they keep on carrying your possessions away, it is legal for you to lie in ambush and shoot them in the back as they flee.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
What claim? Regarding their current proposal, I have not taken the time to read it, and so have made no claims about it.

Perhaps you forgot what you JUST posted in the post previous to this...

Quote:
The treaty does exist, as a proposal.

That looks like a claim to me oralloy.

Yes. It is a claim that they have proposed a treaty.

"Claiming that they have proposed a treaty" is quite different from "making a claim about the nature of their proposal".

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Well, currently it is a proposed treaty.

And based on their past attempts, it is reasonable to be suspicious of this one.

Whether this one mirrors their past attempts will have to be judged my looking over the text of their proposal.

Is this the proposal that doesn't exist and you have never claimed existed?

Very unlikely that it doesn't exist.

parados wrote:

Or is this the proposal that you claim exists but you can't produce evidence of it existing other than completely misrepresenting a different proposal?

I expect that I could quite easily produce evidence that they have a proposed treaty.

I have not misrepresented any proposal. And you cannot produce any quote from me misrepresenting any proposal.

1 Reply

I mean, I can understand 10 of twelve jurors smoking too much reefer on a given day... I can understand gypsies (the 16-year-old burglar was a gypsy) staring down the judge and jurors during trial... I can even understand a nation which once had cajones but no longer does sending one of its own off to prison to avoid the appearance of anti-gypsyism...

What I CAN'T understand is that same nation providing one of the shot but still alive burglars with £5,000 in public money with which to sue the poor farmer who shot the assholes in order simply to protect himself and his property.

That's beneath contempt.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I expect that I could quite easily produce evidence that they have a proposed treaty.

Oh.. so if I ask you to provide evidence of a proposed treaty that would take guns away from American citizens, you feel you can point to any old proposed treaty as evidence of the existence of something that doesn't exist?

Quote:

I have not misrepresented any proposal. And you cannot produce any quote from me misrepresenting any proposal.

Could you explain this oralloy?It certainly looks like evidence you claimed such a proposed treaty exists.

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
There is no treaty to take guns away from American citizens.

Well, currently it is a proposed treaty.

There is no proposed treaty to take guns away from American citizens. You statement can ONLY be taken that you are stating such a proposed treaty exists. I would suggest that quote from you does misrepresent the proposal.

1 Reply

Banning knives:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/12/04/britain-looking-to-ban-knives-now-too.php

Quote:

Anyone with half a brain could tell you what would happen if you ban guns. It does not halt all violent crimes... it just means murderous criminals would find new ways to kill people they want to kill. And that's exactly what Britain has been seeing, especially towards teenagers. Teen killings have apparently doubled in London alone, with one teenager being murdered every 5 days in Britain, and 2/3 of those murders being stabbings. The British response? Get rid of the knives!

0 Replies

The future of English dining:

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShKxvFnrnoONd9BLXKbWazJjHL8pBYVFSVqkvsAJfu0kIl2Tqb

0 Replies

@oralloy,

proudly, as if you were a good american...

god bless texas.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I expect that I could quite easily produce evidence that they have a proposed treaty.

Oh.. so if I ask you to provide evidence of a proposed treaty that would take guns away from American citizens, you feel you can point to any old proposed treaty as evidence of the existence of something that doesn't exist?

I expect that I could point to their proposed treaty, as evidence that they have proposed a treaty.

Whether this proposal will attempt to violate the Constitutional gun rights of Americans, as their past proposals have attempted, will have to be determined by looking over the proposal.

But based on their history of past proposals, suspicion is warranted regarding the current one. I would not at all be surprised to find that they are pushing the same old gun ban again.

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I have not misrepresented any proposal. And you cannot produce any quote from me misrepresenting any proposal.

Could you explain this oralloy? It certainly looks like evidence you claimed such a proposed treaty exists.

"Claiming that they have proposed a treaty" is quite different from "making a claim about the contents of the proposed treaty".

Yes. I do claim that a proposal for a treaty exists.

I have not made any claim whatsoever regarding the content of the current proposal. As such, I cannot have misrepresented its contents.

As far as the contents of the proposal go, so far all I've done is be suspicious.

parados wrote:

You statement can ONLY be taken that you are stating such a proposed treaty exists. I would suggest that quote from you does misrepresent the proposal.

No. Pointing out that a proposal exists is quite different from commenting on the contents of the proposal.

1 Reply

Snopes says that as usual this is a case of the rightwing getting its knickers in a twist, because of completely bogus misinformation and baseless rumor.

1 Reply

Snopes says that as usual this is a case of the rightwing getting its knickers in a twist because of completely bogus misinformation and baseless rumor. This has been floating around right wing circles for a couple years now. There's no substance to it. It is, in short, FALSE.

Every few months some wild-eyed loon posts it again. Never been true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I remind you that my IQ is double yours.

That's **** all. Only double. Mine is ten times yours. So there!! Mmmnnuurgh! (Sticks out tongue whilst involuntarily urinating slightly).

1 Reply

Spendius says:

Quote:

Mmmnnuurgh! (Sticks out tongue whilst involuntarily urinating slightly).

There are pills you can take to cure that.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The General Assembly and associated committees though, really need to be driven into the sea and left to drown.

Yer what??!! They spend a fortune in NYC. Have decent parties every time 193 delegations have a national day of celebration or it's the leader's birfday or a native of their country has won a silver medal in the underwater crossbow event.

I bet not one single NYC whore will support such a useless cause. And that's just the front line.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

You're a simple soul gunga. Naive even.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Snopes says that as usual this is a case of the rightwing getting its knickers in a twist, because of completely bogus misinformation and baseless rumor.

Maybe, but I'm going to look up the proposed treaty when I get time and draw my own conclusions.

Based on past proposals, I have little confidence that this one will be harmless. Still, I'll give this proposal a fair hearing when I critique it.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Snopes says that as usual this is a case of the rightwing getting its knickers in a twist because of completely bogus misinformation and baseless rumor. This has been floating around right wing circles for a couple years now. There's no substance to it. It is, in short, FALSE.

Every few months some wild-eyed loon posts it again. Never been true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Actually, no. Previous proposals have in fact had gun bans in them.

And while it is true, on paper, that the Constitution trumps a treaty, the freedom-hater movement also envisions creating a Supreme Court that deliberately allows our rights to be violated.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I remind you that my IQ is double yours.

That's **** all. Only double. Mine is ten times yours. So there!!

Hardly. You aren't even an insect compared to me.

1 Reply

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know