"rick" wrote in message
k.net...
"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , rick at
wrote on 2/28/05 6:52 PM:
"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..
"rick" wrote in message
.net...
"KMAN" wrote in message
. ..
snip...
If you are using cars as a justification for assault
weapons,
then you are
comparing the two, fool. LOL.
==========================
No fool. It is you that is trying to justify something
based on
what YOU determine to be a need. You failed.
You brought up cars, not me.
======================
No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the
determination whether or not people should have them. You
lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant
spews...
You brought up cars. Check.
===============
LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar?
Nope. You brought up cars. Check.
======================
No
So you didn't bring up cars?
========================
Nice bit of dishonesty there fool.
So you didn't bring up cars?
=======================
You didn't bring up need as the basis for owning anything, liar?
Here, let me restore your dishonesty again, liar..
"No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the
determination whether or not people should have them.
You lost, again, and now have you resort to your
ignorant spews... checkmate, proven liar..."
What is the need for assault weapons to the general public? It's a valid
question. They are only useful for spraying bullets. Why else do you need
them? In response to this YOU brought up the fact that people get killed by
cars. But cars have many other valid and valuable purposes.
But you don't want to address that, even though YOU brought it up. Scum.