Your "see the light" suggests an evangelical furor that does not bode well for a "debate". You will concede nothing. Not even the pure logic that a home with a gun in it is more likely to have a gun death in it. And if your definition of troll means name calling and insults, then that would surely include Gassy, but I can only assume that, because he agrees with you, that is not the case. I haven't defined "ignorant", but clearly it means "someone who does not share your viewpoint".
Mr. Soupie, I don't nessesarily agree with name calling unless it is warranted. My definition of a troll is the same as most forums define it. Trolls are people who constantly go off subject to defame or denegrate others just to piss them off forcing people to defend themselves. This is your M.O. and countless times, your very first response to a post by Gasman, NIM, a few others and even myself have been exactly like that. I will not concede your point because it contains Zero logic, and false information that has been debunked time and time again, but instead of learning it for yourself, you continue to spread the lie even further. There are over 350 milliion firearms in the homes of over 80 million Americans, if your statistic even had an oz. of truth the gun death rate in this country would be in the millions each year, but it's less than deaths by motor vehicle. I do not concede when I know I'm right! No one likes to be wrong, it's human nature, but when I'm wrong, I admit it. I'm not wrong here!
I don't believe that you have ever admitted to being wrong in your lifetime. As for the rest of your diatribe, I understand. It is okay for the right wing to defile, defame, and insult, but never anyone who may be on the other side. It's very typical of Rush, Glenn, and your ilk. Luckily, the force of that group is circling the drain.
Im laughing my naked ass off reading all this ... weapons are awesome and some like to use their mouths for blowing a man away...lol. pun intended.. soupy, you should stay away from posts like this, as the barrel of the gun will always be pointed at you.. ha ha...
I really curious to see the answers to this question from the people who have been arguing with me and others about the 2nd Amendment!
If you were at an establishment in the US where gun ownership was legal and carrying a gun for protection was legal and a criminal gunman stormed the place, and while you were crawling under the table hoping to live (probably finding God in some way) a law abiding gun owner stood up and stopped the attack Would you:
1) Thank him or her for saving your life?
2) Thank Him or her for saving your life but then complain to management that they allow people to carry firearms?
3) Lecture the good guy with a gun that the perp was only there to take money and tell him or her that they risked the lives of everyone in the room by standing up and engaging the bad guy?
4) Tell everyone that if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened in the first place?
5) Other (With explanation)
Jesus Christ, it's "howl". That's pretty simple isn't it? Of course this thread will go nowhere, because it was clearly created to be a "yay guns, everyone should have a gun!" thread. You will brook no dissent. All in favour of the 2nd amendment, but not crazy about the first. Now that is trampling.
FF - you've conjured an anecdote about crawling under a table, a rare but possible occurrence. (Realistically, these things don't end with a citizen shooter, but with police action, or when the shooter runs out of ammunition or has to stop shooting to fuss with the gun somehow.) Let me cite a perfectly real anecdote, and one that is much more representative of what guns really do, most of the time.
Do you think Oscar Pistorius is telling the truth? Then maybe he shot his girlfriend mistaking her for an intruder. Or maybe he was addled by drugs. Do you think he's lying? Then he shot her in a domestic dispute.
Do you think he's glad there was a gun in the house?
well, I would answer that if there were no guns, this wouldn't happen in the first place. But you would argue the logic of that as well. Because you would argue with God.
Actually, there is logic in a statement that if there were no guns at all, there would be no shootings! But the problem with a response like that in the scenario given is would be silly at best, moronic and ungrateful at worst but not something I'd be surprised with!
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!