| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... snippage... IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to substantiate that claim. Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed ============== According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand your money back... Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for desiring to own an assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of not having them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people quickly. ======================== Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for 1000s) of people? "A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything. Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons, do you, fool? I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... snippage... IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to substantiate that claim. Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed ============== According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand your money back... Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for desiring to own an assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of not having them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people quickly. ======================== Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for 1000s) of people? "A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything. ============== Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the fact that it isn't so. Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons, do you, fool? I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly. ===================== No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed to wound rather than kill. There are many weapons that have far greater chance of killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure, even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they "look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... snippage... IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to substantiate that claim. Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed ============== According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand your money back... Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for desiring to own an assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of not having them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people quickly. ======================== Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for 1000s) of people? "A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything. ============== Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the fact that it isn't so. How much is a lot of donuts? 1000? Only a nut like you thinks "a lot" means 1000s! Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons, do you, fool? I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly. ===================== No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed to wound rather than kill. Oh, great! There are many weapons that have far greater chance of killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure, even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they "look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute. I'll amend: I know that an assault rifle is designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... snippage... IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to substantiate that claim. Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed ============== According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand your money back... Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for desiring to own an assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of not having them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people quickly. ======================== Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for 1000s) of people? "A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything. ============== Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the fact that it isn't so. How much is a lot of donuts? 1000? Only a nut like you thinks "a lot" means 1000s! ======================= LOL Nope, you're the one that keeps talking about a lot, and the 1000s of people that are shot in the US. Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons, do you, fool? I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly. ===================== No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed to wound rather than kill. Oh, great! ===================== What, more ignorance on your part? You really don't know anything about guns except what your brainwashing has taught you, do you? There are many weapons that have far greater chance of killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure, even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they "look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute. I'll amend: I know that an assault rifle is designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. ==================== So can many other weapons. That's why you'll find the statistics of 'assault weapon' use in crime pretty small. Again, tell the the difference between the operation of an assault weapon and others. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... snippage... IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to substantiate that claim. Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed ============== According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand your money back... Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for desiring to own an assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of not having them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people quickly. ======================== Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for 1000s) of people? "A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything. ============== Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the fact that it isn't so. How much is a lot of donuts? 1000? Only a nut like you thinks "a lot" means 1000s! ======================= LOL Nope, you're the one that keeps talking about a lot, and the 1000s of people that are shot in the US. 1) I have talked about "a lot." This does not mean 1000s. 2) I have also talked about the FACT that more than 30000 people die from guns in the US each year. Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons, do you, fool? I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly. ===================== No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed to wound rather than kill. Oh, great! ===================== What, more ignorance on your part? You really don't know anything about guns except what your brainwashing has taught you, do you? Hm. Well, if brainwashing = fanaticism, you should hear yourself. You really sound...well...crazy. There are many weapons that have far greater chance of killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure, even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they "look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute. I'll amend: I know that an assault rifle is designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. ==================== So can many other weapons. Good, get rid of those too. That's why you'll find the statistics of 'assault weapon' use in crime pretty small. Again, tell the the difference between the operation of an assault weapon and others. I know that an assault rifle and many other weapons are designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. Only selfish idiots or people who want to kill a lot of other people would be in favour of having such guns. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"KMAN" wrote in message .. . "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 2/25/05 12:15 AM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , rick at wrote on 2/24/05 9:32 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... snippage... IOW, you know you're beat and are trying to slither out of admitting it. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Besides, YOU are the one who implied substantial US deaths from "assault weapons," so it's up to YOU to substantiate that claim. Unless there are no deaths from them, it doesn't matter. They aren't needed ============== According to whom????? You? You are hardly the arbiter of what people need. If I were you, the first thing I'd do is look for an education. Yours was sorely lacking. Maybe you should demand your money back... Whatever selfish but harmless reasons there might be for desiring to own an assault weapon, they can't possibly outweight the benefits of not having them available to those who wish to kill a lot of people quickly. ======================== Where are all these people that wish to kill 'a lot'(code for 1000s) of people? "A lot" is NOT code for 1000s of people. It's not code for anything. ============== Yes, it is. Especially when you keep saying it, despite the fact that it isn't so. How much is a lot of donuts? 1000? Only a nut like you thinks "a lot" means 1000s! ======================= LOL Nope, you're the one that keeps talking about a lot, and the 1000s of people that are shot in the US. 1) I have talked about "a lot." This does not mean 1000s. ===================== Youn are the one talking about 1000s... 2) I have also talked about the FACT that more than 30000 people die from guns in the US each year. ================ There you go. See, I knew you'd remember sooner or later. Now, put you fantasies together and make them all crack dealers shooting up parks... Again, fortunatly you are not the arbiter of what is or is not needed. You really have no clue about weapons, do you, fool? I know that an assault rifle is designed to kill a lot of people quickly. ===================== No, you don't. Try learning a little more. Many assault weapons calibers are very intermediate cartridges, designed to wound rather than kill. Oh, great! ===================== What, more ignorance on your part? You really don't know anything about guns except what your brainwashing has taught you, do you? Hm. Well, if brainwashing = fanaticism, you should hear yourself. You really sound...well...crazy. ================== from the head loony? hanks fool... There are many weapons that have far greater chance of killing than assualt weapons. Can any weapon kill? Sure, even a slingshot, but they don't kill just because they "look" mean. You really are a hoot. A laugh a minute. I'll amend: I know that an assault rifle is designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. ==================== So can many other weapons. Good, get rid of those too. =============== Fortunately yiou don't get to make that call. That's why you'll find the statistics of 'assault weapon' use in crime pretty small. Again, tell the the difference between the operation of an assault weapon and others. I know that an assault rifle and many other weapons are designed to put a lot of bullets into a lot of people quickly. ================== Well a new tune!! Before it was only assault weapons that could do this. Tap, tap, tap... Only selfish idiots or people who want to kill a lot of other people would be in favour of having such guns. ==================== Only fools would be in favor of curbing everyone elses rights... |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
