"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 11:01 PM:
"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:20 PM:
snip...
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.
================
So do weapons.
What are the valuable purposes of assault weapons that are
comparable to the
valuable purposes of cars?
========================
LOL Tap, tap, tap. First it's does it have a need? As if
'need' is the determenat as to whether an object can be owned.
Now it's a 'valuable' need! You really don't have a clue, do
you, liarman.
What a surprise, the coward isn't going to answer!
Here's what you said: see above!
===
KMAN: cars have many other valid and valuable purposes.
rick: So do weapons
===
So, coward, why are you being a scumbag and refusing to name
those valid and
valuable purposes of assault weapons?
======================
Because, liarman, unlike you, I don't purport to be the arbiter
of what is useful, valuable, or necessary. That is the
perogative of eack person, liarman.