Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#841
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon for killing a lot of people quickly. Nothing wrong with killing a lot of people quickly, if they need killing. And there you have it, Scott Weiser, future mass murderer. Er...that might qualify as libel. I'd be a bit more careful if I were you. You do understand that there are times when it is perfectly legitimate, legal and moral to kill lots of people quickly, don't you? Ever hear of the Chosin Reservoir? How about Stalingrad? Omaha Beach? ============== canadian health care system? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
#842
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message snip.. In terms of ability to kill more people more quickly, it is definitely more dangerous than any bolt action. You won't find too many drug dealers sporting a Field King LOL! ================= LOL Thanks again for the proof of your stupidity. Why bring up bolt actions? Besides, many people can fire bolt actions very very quickly. My question was what makes the AK knockoff any more dangerous that other weapons of the type? I doubt it. ==================== You doubt what? I asked a question, but I doubt that you can answer, as that would require some knowledge. Again, tell us what makes the ak knockoff more dangerous than other. I'm sure there are lots of others as dangerous or more dangerous. ====================== Then why the spew on only assault weapons for the last few days, fool? Agenda? Because assault weapons are an obvious and logical starting point in getting rid of weapons that serve no useful purpose but to kill people. ==================== LOL If the death of people is the only justification for getting rid of anything, then cars should be first, cigarettes, Canadian health care system... Lots of things kill far more people that assault weapons. thanks for again proving your ideological brainwashing, fool... All you are focusing on are visual aspects of a gun, the operation is not any different that many other weapons. It is different than any type of weapon where a lot of ammunition can't be fired quickly. ================= Now you ignorance is really taking over, isn't it? There are many other weapons not on the assault weaopn list that you like to spew about that fire just as fast, and just as many projectiles. I didn't say otherwise. Look again. ==================== I have, you only want to rant about the cause of the day that your ideology demands. I'm not ranting at all. ================== LOL Okay, lying.... Again you porvw that you can't think for yourself, but rely on ignorance and sensationalism for your ideology. No idea what you are babbling about. ==================== Of course not, that would require some thoughts of your own, and your brainwashing doesn't allow for that, does it? If you mean someone brainwashed me into thinking that 30000+ people dying every year from guns is not a good thing, you are right. But at least I am not a liar and a coward like you. ====================== LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since you are the one afraid to look up the data I have already presented, and told you where to look. You have never provided any reference to prove your allegation that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care. You are a liar and a coward. ====================== LOL Looks like you should know all about being a coward, since you are the one afraid to look up the data I have already presented, and told you where to look. |
#843
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I didn't think so, you are just spreading Democrat propaganda. I am? Yes, you are. I don't think so. Which merely makes you a deluded stooge of the Liberal/Democrat/Socialist machine. How did they manage this? That you don't know proves how effective their brainwashing and propaganda is. LOL. Since they never gave me any information about it, it was a hell of a trick! Perhaps. More likely you're just hell for stupid. Good one (?) |
#844
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() KMAN wrote: ....snip ... Sigh. It sounds reasonable even if John Kerry has an atomic bomb in his basement. So is it alright for Kerry to have an assault weapon since he is breaking the law. Would you want a law breaker having access to the A-Bomb, as long as he is your man, bought and paid for? I'm saying it is not all right! Geezus you can be thick. Kerry is not "my man" in the least. Where'd you get that crazy idea? Different music being piped than in Nov, I guess I need to learn some different dance steps to keep up with you! If he's got illegal weapons, string him up by the balls, go for it. And string Bush up next to him for invading a country and killing people on false pretenses. As far as Kerry being strung up, he has paid the price for his duplicity! President Bush is still operating within the scope of his autority, no false pretenses that I can indite him on. You ask if I am one of these gun nuts too? Please define your label, which you seem to be willing to stick on everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you. Personally I have come to prefer dispensing aspirin. Tnt A gun nut...someone who thinks everyone should have a gun and then the world would be safer. Someone who thinks the term "assault rifle" is some "liberal" nonsense contrived to give the FBI the opportunity to invade everyone's homes and steal their guns so "the government" can take over. Y'know, Tinkerntom...gun nuts. Gun nut, I guess your definition again doesn't fit me. I would not want everyone to have a gun, though I believe that if they are of sound mind, that they should be able to possess a gun if they desire. The term "assault weapon" as applied by liberals is only looney if they use it to demonize all firearms, which infact actually demonstates their underlying ideology, and not any particular awareness of the function, limit, and value of particular weapons. Ironically, if the FBI is using the nonsense to invade peoples homes, confiscating their weapons, the liberal is more than likely a typical target of the FBI, in that historically they have had more problems with the FBI than conservatives. That might be a good reason for liberals to reframe from gun ownership. Leave it to us who know how to handle them safely. The FBI I mean! Tnt |
#846
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#847
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#848
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#850
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General |