Busted with arms, researched killing Biden

[Brian37]

No, I really don’t. Could you explain it to me, please?

Boru

Probably not as you all have been sucessfully conditioned to hate and fear firearms.

Lets be clear here Dirty Harry, nobody fears the object. We do question the attitudes of firearm owners though.

A car cant kill anyone when it is off and not in motion. But an asshole who thinks they have the right to speed and drink and drive is the problem. And even with the technology itself, car companies bitched and screamed when Nader told them their products were unsafe. But because of legislation seat belts and air bags were mandated.  If you are willing to take a license away from a drunk driver, then it is reasonable to take a firearm away from suicidal person, a domestic abuser, and a violent felon. 

NOBODY IS OUT TO GET YOU........ But your attitude sucks, and it will not reduce firearm violence.

You are stuck in the era when at the time muskets were the only arms that existed. TIMES HAVE CHANGED! You cant apply the same laws they had back then to modern technology. Otherwise we should have cell phone companies abide by rotary phone communication laws.

[Angrboda]

You are a joke.  All you've got is invective.  You can't convince people because you suck at it, not because the other person is incapable of being persuaded.

The real joke?

The media jerking you off and you don't even question it - because it fits what you already think.

I give Boru the most credit here - for admitting that guns were mentioned first - even before pedophilia - for no other reason than sensationalism.

Maybe when they start going after atheists in the headlines you will notice.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

You're never gonna know what people actually think if you are unable to leave your bubble of bigoted stereotypes and continue telling other people what they believe. You don't have a clue what I believe, what I think, or how my opinions have been formed. You're just spouting ignorant crap. You know dick, but like most stupid people, that doesn't stop you from running your mouth.

But by all means, keep showing people that I'm right about you with crap arguments, strawmen, and invective.

(As I recall, you accused me of simply believing because it fit what I already think last time. You need to get some new material. But I guess if all you've got is a hammer....)

[onlinebiker]

Probably not as you all have been sucessfully conditioned to hate and fear firearms.

Lets be clear here Dirty Harry, nobody fears the object. We do question the attitudes of firearm owners though.

A car cant kill anyone when it is off and not in motion. But an asshole who thinks they have the right to speed and drink and drive is the problem. And even with the technology itself, car companies bitched and screamed when Nader told them their products were unsafe. But because of legislation seat belts and air bags were mandated.  If you are willing to take a license away from a drunk driver, then it is reasonable to take a firearm away from suicidal person, a domestic abuser, and a violent felon. 

NOBODY IS OUT TO GET YOU........ But your attitude sucks, and it will not reduce firearm violence.

You are stuck in the era when at the time muskets were the only arms that existed. TIMES HAVE CHANGED! You cant apply the same laws they had back then to modern technology. Otherwise we should have cell phone companies abide by rotary phone communication laws.

Let's be honest here Mama's boy...

Of COURSE you fear the object.

Proof?



Ok. Should I be able to buy a machine gun?

No?

Big surprise.

Why not?


You can be killed just as fucking dead with a single shot.

And don't go off on the "mass killing" angle. It does not hold. Lethality isn't about how much lead you spray. It' s ALL about aimed fire. 


So a machine gun isn't going to make you deader than a single shot.

Nope. 

You are AFRAID that if somebody has one of the "evil" guns - they won't be able to resist killing a bunch of people.

You are AFRAID that the gun runs the show - not the person holding it.

You are afraid of an inanimate object.

Troglodyte thoughts.

[Angrboda]

Whoah, look! Another wall of moronic drivel. That's a surprise. NOT.

[onlinebiker]

Whoah, look!  Another wall of moronic drivel.  That's a surprise.  NOT.

Just as poorly constructed insults, your forte, is unsurprising.

[Angrboda]

Whoah, look!  Another wall of moronic drivel.  That's a surprise.  NOT.

Just as poorly constructed insults, your forte, is unsurprising.

If that were true, it might be a concern. But it's not. It's just you once again ignorantly spewing shit to see what sticks. Not surprisingly, very little.

[The Grand Nudger]

If rate of fire were irrelevant, infantry squads wouldn't carry two belt fed guns. It's completely rational to assert that a more dangerous weapon deserves more stringent legal requirements. A drivers license won't qualify you to drive a semi and I doubt that the legal difference between a semi and a car is their relative amount of inherent evil. The same is true of firearms, and that's why it's an extra hassle to legally own a machine gun.

A machine gun absolutely will make a whole lot more stuff more dead than a sporting rifle. Let's not be absurd.

[downbeatplumb]

If rate of fire were irrelevant, infantry squads wouldn't carry two belt fed guns.  It's completely rational to assert that a more dangerous weapon deserves more stringent legal requirements.  A drivers license won't qualify you to drive a semi and I doubt that the legal difference between a semi and a car is their relative amount of inherent evil.  The same is true of firearms, and that's why it's an extra hassle to legally own a machine gun.

A machine gun absolutely will make a whole lot more stuff more dead than a sporting rifle.  Let's not be absurd.

There is a reason that all modern armies use assault rifles and not snipers as their main infantry weapons. Its about the fire power not the aimed shot.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Probably not as you all have been sucessfully conditioned to hate and fear firearms.

Buddy i have been using hunting rifle since i was 8 . I don't fear guns . It doesn't require fear to believe a weapon needs to be controlled 

The real joke?

This whole unhinged proformance your putting on 

The media jerking you off and you don't even question it - because it fits what you already think.

I think a dangerous nutcase planning on killing Joe Biden as plausible and worrisome . What's there to question . Please have been trying to kill US politicians forever . Nothing makes this guy any different then all the others 

I give Boru the most credit here - for admitting that guns were mentioned first - even before pedophilia - for no other reason than sensationalism.

Then you even dumber then i thought . The placement of guns in the title hold significance only to your tint triggered mind .

Maybe when they start going after atheists in the headlines you will notice.

What the hell would atheism have to do with a guy planning domestic terrorism 

But I wouldn't bet on it.

Yes because that would absurd

---

You can conclude whatever you like.

He concludes it because it's reasonable 

It's easy when you play the "either/or" game the way you are.

I'm seeing no game 

Doesn't mean you're right.

And you ain't.

From any rational standpoint he way more right then you

---

Let's be honest here Mama's boy...

Of COURSE you fear the object.

Proof?



Ok. Should I be able to buy a machine gun?

No?

Big surprise.

Why not?


You can be killed just as fucking dead with a single shot.

And don't go off on the "mass killing" angle. It does not hold. Lethality isn't about how much lead you spray. It' s ALL about aimed fire. 


So a machine gun isn't going to make you deader than a single shot.

Nope. 

You are AFRAID that if somebody has one of the "evil" guns - they won't be able to resist killing a bunch of people.

You are AFRAID that the gun runs the show - not the person holding it.

You are afraid of an inanimate object.

Troglodyte thoughts.

And your proof nonsensical ravings and baseless speculation on someone else's emotional state 

You are unhinged

---

[...]

Do you wear a seatbelt because you are afraid to drive in a car?

Stupid Analogy seatbelts are needed due to the nature of driving . Your not afraid of the car . Your prepared for the million and one things that happen on the road which may result in collusion .

[onlinebiker]

If rate of fire were irrelevant, infantry squads wouldn't carry two belt fed guns.  It's completely rational to assert that a more dangerous weapon deserves more stringent legal requirements.  A drivers license won't qualify you to drive a semi and I doubt that the legal difference between a semi and a car is their relative amount of inherent evil.  The same is true of firearms, and that's why it's an extra hassle to legally own a machine gun.

A machine gun absolutely will make a whole lot more stuff more dead than a sporting rifle.  Let's not be absurd.

There is a reason that all modern armies use assault rifles and not snipers as their main infantry weapons. Its about the fire power not the aimed shot.

And of course that translates perfectly from a well equipped army to a lone individual - much as a supercharger off a Peterbuilt translates onto a skateboard.