Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@izzythepush,

We were unwilling to become communist slaves
and we did what we believed that we needed to do to avoid that.
I was acutely aware that it was the 3rd World War; no joke.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

We were unwilling to become communist slaves

And very eager to become the slaves of big business.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

spendius wrote:
Are you not aware that Clint Eastwood was taking the piss out of you lot?

That makes no sense.
He is no surgeon, nor has he any desire for urine.
WHERE do u get these ideas ????

oralloy wrote:

I believe it is a British idiom.

Maybe, but it is unintelligible.
Y is he accused of trying to take urine?????
Thay fail to serve themselves well,
if thay speak in an illogical fashion.

oralloy wrote:

I didn't bother to figure it out because I am not very familiar with Clint Eastwood.

I know he is an actor, but with the notable of Star Wars/Star Trek/Lord of the Rings/Hobbit type movies, I generally don't do movies.

I remember him from RAWHIDE in the later 1950s, wherein he played a cowboy named Rowdy
and I knew him from his Dirty Harry movies,
wherein he championed the use of .44 magnum revolvers and pistols.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David one nice thing is if the USSR had taken over England they would not had have the problem of disarming the population as the fools did that to themselves right down to air rifles. Drunk

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

We were unwilling to become communist slaves

izzythepush wrote:

And very eager to become the slaves of big business.

No. I have a good, symbiotic relationship
with businesses of all sizes. I wish them well. I cheer when thay prosper.

Have u a craving for urine ??

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Now you're taking the piss.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

David one nice thing is if the USSR had taken over England they would not had have the problem of disarming the population as the fools did that to themselves right down to air rifles.

Yea; the English were still free
until approximately 1920. About 20 years thereafter,
thay had to beg us to lend them our guns,
to defend their beaches, their landing grounds,
their fields, their streets & their hills.

To their credit, thay were honorable enuf
to actually return most of our guns to their rightful American owners.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Don't let facts get in the way of your senile rantings. Knives, air rifles, and pistols as well as ordinary rifles and shotguns are legally available in the UK, although some require a licence and others are age restricted.

Only someone suffering from some form of dementia could believe that any force capable of defeating the US military machine would be put off by a bunch of NRA sadsacks.

Speaking of senility, I've noticed your posts have become even more garbled and incoherent of late.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Now you're taking the piss.

I have read about perverts
who engage themselves in that, paying ladies of the night
to befoul them in that fashion. I am not among them
and woud not tolerate such abuse.

WHAT possesses the minds of the English
to run their thawts in such paths. It is very strange.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

It's no weirder than some of your figures of speech, you sloppy New Yorker you.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

the nuclear shield was not about protecting Europe, quite the opposite in fact.

It was there to ensure that, were there to be a conflict between the USA and the USSR, the battleground would be Europe, not the east coast of Russia or the west coast of America. The Cuban missile crisis showed America's willingness to see Europe go up in flames if it stopped American cities being threatened.

Nonsense. Had we been required to nuke the Soviets off the face of the planet, the majority of Soviet nukes would have hit targets within the US.

It likely would have been bad within Europe, but not nearly as bad as it would have been in North America.

Just the fallout from the ICBM fields alone would have killed the eastern half of the US.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I believe it is a British idiom.

Maybe, but it is unintelligible.
Y is he accused of trying to take urine?????
Thay fail to serve themselves well,
if thay speak in an illogical fashion.

That is the nature of idioms. They only make sense if you already understand them ahead of time.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Don't let facts get in the way of your senile rantings. Knives, air rifles, and pistols as well as ordinary rifles and shotguns are legally available in the UK, although some require a licence and others are age restricted.

Last I heard, the shotguns have no more than three shots.

The license to have handguns or rifles requires convincing the government that you "need" the weapon in question (good luck convincing them you "need" an assault weapon).

And the "handguns" may lack the shoulder stock of a rifle, but they are required to have a minimum barrel length of 24 inches.

If it has a 24 inch barrel, it's not a handgun. It's a rifle without a shoulder stock.

Maybe it has changed since I last heard UK gun laws described, but if so I bet the change is for the worse.

izzythepush wrote:

Only someone suffering from some form of dementia could believe that any force capable of defeating the US military machine would be put off by a bunch of NRA sadsacks.

Someone who has even an inkling of guerrilla warfare would believe it.

izzythepush wrote:

Speaking of senility, I've noticed your posts have become even more garbled and incoherent of late.

You know, your childish name-calling does not serve your cause.

3 Replies

There ya have it, folks.
oralloy is intimating that militias (albeit those versed in guerrila warfare) would be a substantial adversary for the United States Armed Forces.

The musings of someone hanging on to reality by a thin thread.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Someone who has even an inkling of guerrilla warfare would believe it.

I have an inkling of guerrilla warfare. I don't believe it.

Quote:

, but if so I bet the change is for the worse.

Or the better.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Maybe it has changed since I last heard UK gun laws described, but if so I bet the change is for the worse.

Oh, you are commenting on things you have only "heard" about again? You really should stop relying on the gun nut interpretations for you info oralloy.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

And the "handguns" may lack the shoulder stock of a rifle, but they are required to have a minimum barrel length of 24 inches.

If it has a 24 inch barrel, it's not a handgun. It's a rifle without a shoulder stock.

If you bothered to do any research you might not get your facts so wrong. The last time I held a gun, the barrel was not the overall length of a gun. But the 60cm isn't even the length of just the gun. It includes an extension added to the grip. (Presumably to make it impossible to conceal it.)

http://www.shootingshow.co.uk/images/stories/site_images/pistols_03.png

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

There ya have it, folks.
oralloy is intimating that militias (albeit those versed in guerrila warfare) would be a substantial adversary for the United States Armed Forces.

Your reading comprehension level must be the stuff of nightmares.

I stated outright (not intimated)

That ordinary armed civilians (not militia)

Would be a substantial adversary for a foreign force that invaded the US (not for the US military).

Sheesh!

However, since you brought up the US military, note that they would indeed face the same troubles dealing with guerrilla warfare.

snood wrote:

The musings of someone hanging on to reality by a thin thread.

Pretty big words for someone who is not capable of pointing out even one fact that I am wrong about.

(Note that your failure to understand the English language does not constitute an error on my part.)

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

the gun nut interpretations

I know you freedom haters are frustrated that you can't abolish freedom in America, but bigoted name-calling isn't going to help.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
And the "handguns" may lack the shoulder stock of a rifle, but they are required to have a minimum barrel length of 24 inches.

If it has a 24 inch barrel, it's not a handgun. It's a rifle without a shoulder stock.

If you bothered to do any research you might not get your facts so wrong. The last time I held a gun, the barrel was not the overall length of a gun.

I do not share your tendency to avoid research. As you well know, I routinely offer you reputable cites whenever you try to deny reality.

Your phrase "facts so wrong" is silly. I know that you're desperate to finally prove me wrong, after so many years of never being able to, but that is at most a trivial error on my part. If the 24 inch requirement is for the total length of the gun (with the barrel needing to be 12 inches), that is still a far cry from a legitimate handgun. The barrel length on that pictured revolver is ludicrous.

parados wrote:

But the 60cm isn't even the length of just the gun. It includes an extension added to the grip. (Presumably to make it impossible to conceal it.)

If the extension is attached to the gun, it counts as part of the total length of the gun.

2 Replies

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know