On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:47:34 PM UTC-4, jps wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:20:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 12:53:01 PM UTC-4, jps wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:52:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:







The National Rifle Association's annual meeting is this weekend and it's



a galaxy of pro-gun stars!


Sarah Palin!


Glenn Beck!


Newt Gringrich!


Ollie North!


Oh, and no guns.



You obviously missed: "North Carolina State law prohibits the carrying of firearms in the Charlotte Convention Center..."


Your knee must really be tired.


Why in God's name would the NRA choose a venue that didn't allow guns?

Because there aren't any large, suitable arenas that *do* allow guns?

It's far more likely that the "star" power at that convention demands that it be gun free. After all, what better place for a anti-gun nut to make a statement by killing a gun freedom advocate. They can't ensure that all attendees are well meaning NRA members. Why, even *you* can join under false pretenses.

The reason is that leadership are a bunch of ****ing liars and
probably afraid of being killed by their own members.

That's just stupid.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:00:56 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:30:09 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:47:34 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:20:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Why in God's name would the NRA choose a venue that didn't allow guns?

Why not?

Because in every case of mass murder, the NRA has supported the idea
that more guns would have made the situation safer.


"Gun Free Zones" are anathema to the NRA.

Bull****.

You must be daft. The NRA has been arguing against gun free zones and
citing them as the reason that shooters are attracted to them. This
argument was used in response to Sandyhook and elsewhere.

The reason is that leadership are a bunch of ****ing liars and
probably afraid of being killed by their own members.

More bull****.

Why would they book their event in an arena where guns were
prohibited? The leadership is very vocal about guns making our
citzenry safer.

What's bull**** is any of your arguments, because you don't field
anything that a brain would recognize as an argument.

Here, just for you. Food for thought.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/8085...-shootings/12/


Deflection. Your best argument is to turn your head away and post
bull**** that supports your point of view.

You can't argue the points because there's no good argument.

I can't believe you were a teacher. You'd think that math required
critical thinking skills but your arguments contain none.
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

On 9/24/13 4:43 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:20:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Because there aren't any large, suitable arenas that *do* allow guns?

I bet there are if they went to Texas.


When is Texas seceding?

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:30:09 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:47:34 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:20:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Why in God's name would the NRA choose a venue that didn't allow
guns?

Why not?

Because in every case of mass murder, the NRA has supported the idea
that more guns would have made the situation safer.


"Gun Free Zones" are anathema to the NRA.

Bull****.

You must be daft. The NRA has been arguing against gun free zones and
citing them as the reason that shooters are attracted to them. This
argument was used in response to Sandyhook and elsewhere.

The reason is that leadership are a bunch of ****ing liars and
probably afraid of being killed by their own members.

More bull****.

Why would they book their event in an arena where guns were
prohibited? The leadership is very vocal about guns making our
citzenry safer.

What's bull**** is any of your arguments, because you don't field
anything that a brain would recognize as an argument.

Here, just for you. Food for thought.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/8085...-shootings/12/


Deflection. Your best argument is to turn your head away and post
bull**** that supports your point of view.

You can't argue the points because there's no good argument.

I can't believe you were a teacher. You'd think that math required
critical thinking skills but your arguments contain none.

--------------------------

Sure enough. The standard liberal tactic of name calling begins.

On 9/24/13 5:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

--------------------------

Sure enough. The standard liberal tactic of name calling begins.


Your boychik, FlaJim, is no stranger to name-calling, and neither are
Herring, Bert, Jack Goff, and a bunch of other right wingers.

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 6:11:41 PM UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/24/13 5:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



--------------------------



Sure enough. The standard liberal tactic of name calling begins.





Your boychik, FlaJim, is no stranger to name-calling, and neither are

Herring, Bert, Jack Goff, and a bunch of other right wingers.

You taught us well, eh? You are the *king* of name calling in rec.boats.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:11:41 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/24/13 5:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

--------------------------

Sure enough. The standard liberal tactic of name calling begins.


Your boychik, FlaJim, is no stranger to name-calling, and neither are
Herring, Bert, Jack Goff, and a bunch of other right wingers.

Cite?
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

On 9/24/2013 7:52 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:11:41 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 9/24/13 5:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

--------------------------

Sure enough. The standard liberal tactic of name calling begins.


Your boychik, FlaJim, is no stranger to name-calling, and neither are
Herring, Bert, Jack Goff, and a bunch of other right wingers.

Cite?

Harry can't defend himself so he tries to sully the good names of
others. That's his M. O. Has been for as long as I can remember.

jps wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:52:02 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The National Rifle Association's annual meeting is this weekend and it's
a galaxy of pro-gun stars!

Sarah Palin!

Glenn Beck!

Newt Gringrich!

Ollie North!

Oh, and no guns.

Yes, in this celebration of all things that go bang, each of these
NRA-sanctioned speakers will be offering their address before a crowd of
disarmed gun enthusiasts.

On its website, the NRA warns:

North Carolina State law prohibits the carrying of firearms in the
Charlotte Convention Center, and the Time Warner Cable Arena. In
addition, the Rules and Regulations of the Charlotte Convention Center
prohibit the carrying of firearms in the Center. Pursuant to Time Warner
Cable Arena policy, all individuals entering the Arena will be subject
to a magnetometer security check.

To think that you'd have to suffer the indignity of going through a
metal detector to hear someone proselytize about your right to carry
your gun anywhere you want is easy irony.

READ MO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s..._b_576680.html
63


- - -

snerk

But what could be safer than having everybody armed? Isn't that what
the NRA preaches?

Won't they be sitting ducks for anyone targeting a "gun free zone?"

This just shows what absolute hypocrites the NRA are and how little
they believe in their own message. It's about selling more guns to an
ever smaller part of the population.
The gangbangers would be raiding their cars for handguns but they are
too dumb.