Meghan54
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2009
- 11,504
- 5,027
- 136
What?
Shhhh.....he's on a roll. I'm waiting for the "Nazis bombed Pearl Harbor".
What?
So you can NOT dispute his post and what do you do? Insult, name calling, and all of liberal usual tactics. How sad and pathetic.
Here you go, suck on this -
Gun stores, firearm instructors notice number of women buying guns on the rise
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WBMA) - New numbers show more women have a gun at home and local gun stores and teachers of firearm classes say they notice the difference. That study shows, since 2017, the number of women buying guns has been on the rise. Some site social media, but others say now is the time...abc3340.com
So what now? What other names are you and your ilks going to use on these new gun buyers? No penis? Oh wait....they are females. LOL.
I didn't mention penis in my post but you did in your reply. I said "ammosexual". If your first thought about guns is "penis" then that's on you bub. Kind of like when someone says "cheerleaders" your immediate response is "little girls". Your mind works in some interesting ways.
Funny how you "FORGOT" my other points in the same post....." Insult, name calling,..."
ammosexual = Ammosexual: A person who exhibits an extreme love of firearms, possibly to the point of fetishization. Coined from ammunition and sexual, with sonic overtones of homosexual.
= (slang, derogatory)
You were saying?
BTW, you did state in public that you would put me on ignore because you were being a pest. How could you was able to see my post to reply? Uh huh.
WTF is your point? Yes it was an insult to those buying guns it was not. Congrats you were able to figure that out all on your own, little Einstein.
BTW I didn't call the poster I responded to an ammosexual.
As for the rest of the post, yes dig into your files of those who have wronged you and whine about it here.
He didn’t post anything to refute. He drew conclusions based on limited data just as you did that are not supported by that data. We don’t know why people were buying those guns, or who they are or even their political affiliation. I responded to hyperbole with hyperbole.Again, the point of my original post to you was ...Do You Have Anything To Dispute His Assertion? Yes or No?
If Yes. Post a link or two to dispute his assertion or hit the road. So far, you and the other poster were critical of his post but you two have NOTHING to back up your assertion/statements.
Good grief.
BTW, I just point out how liberals love to talk the talk about "intellectual superior", "honesty", "inclusive", "open minded", "tolerance"...<insert more feel good slogans here> but can't walk the walk. Don't want to remind of what you posted? Then don't post them. You guys love to post of what others said days, months, or even years ago but now the shoe is on the the foot, you whine and cry about it? LOL. Another perfect example of "do what you say and not as you do".
When are you going to put me back on ignore then tell everyone about it? LOL.
He didn’t post anything to refute. He drew conclusions based on limited data just as you did that are not supported by that data. We don’t know why people were buying those guns, or who they are or even their political affiliation. I responded to hyperbole with hyperbole.
I know it’s shocking I said we don’t have the data. Therefore we can’t draw conclusions based on evidence of the reasons behind the increase in gun sales. I don’t think anyone in this thread is disputing the number of background checks that were run, that’s an easily verifiable fact. What is in dispute is drawing conclusions from that single fact other than more guns were sold than before. Now do you have data they breaks that number down based on factors such as race, sex, political affiliations, first time gun buyer or adding to an existing collection, etc. With that kind of data you could start to discuss what is driving the surge in gun sales. Without it, it’s just feels man.So you have nothing? Color me shock. Not.
Here is another link for you. Look like this company is doing very well -
.
And I thought they would be in bankruptcy court. Uh huh.
Gunmakers have been living on fear mongering for a long time. The NRA runs their advertising campaign...
It is my fervent hope that in the not much distant future the term "law abiding gun owner" will be a 100% oxymoron.3. For those of you who do, why do you hate law abiding people who keep and bear arms?
I know it’s shocking I said we don’t have the data. Therefore we can’t draw conclusions based on evidence of the reasons behind the increase in gun sales. I don’t think anyone in this thread is disputing the number of background checks that were run, that’s an easily verifiable fact. What is in dispute is drawing conclusions from that single fact other than more guns were sold than before. Now do you have data they breaks that number down based on factors such as race, sex, political affiliations, first time gun buyer or adding to an existing collection, etc. With that kind of data you could start to discuss what is driving the surge in gun sales. Without it, it’s just feels man.
Brycehoney, do your own homework if that’s the level of detail you want to get into. My main point was to give the stupid premise the OP vomited out a poke in the eye. Didn’t take much.
Where is the witty defense of that? Just lots of typical lefty drivel instead.
If you want to deep dive into why people are buying guns and ammo in record numbers, do your own research. Not my job. I made my case, now make yours. From the weak-ass repartee I’ve read so far, it’s not bloody likely.
Since it may not have sunk in the first time:So you have nothing, ZERO, nada, zip, to support your assertion and yet you want the moon from the other side? LOL.
Here is another one for my assertion. Smith and Wesson stock price is up to over $22 from the low of $6 (within the last year or so). Oh no...bankruptcy..Uh huh.
I know it’s shocking I said we don’t have the data. Therefore we can’t draw conclusions based on evidence of the reasons behind the increase in gun sales. I don’t think anyone in this thread is disputing the number of background checks that were run, that’s an easily verifiable fact. What is in dispute is drawing conclusions from that single fact other than more guns were sold than before. Now do you have data they breaks that number down based on factors such as race, sex, political affiliations, first time gun buyer or adding to an existing collection, etc. With that kind of data you could start to discuss what is driving the surge in gun sales. Without it, it’s just feels man.
So, I went back and looked at the Salon article the OP linked and it’s a pretty standard lefty anti-2A piece. Not much to it.
The gist being 1. the NRA is losing funding, mainstream support is eroding and it’s leadership is dysfunctional. 2. The firearms industry is bottoming out and heading down the tubes.
I stipulate the obvious foolfuckery exhibited by the NRA leadership, especially and primarily it’s president. The other conclusions are laughable and a gun grabbers wet dream.
The follow-on comments from the vast majority of posts are typical rehash of anti- NRA, 2A, gun owner, gun industry narrative.
I say this to ask a few challenging questions toward the original premise to follow as separate posts...
2. Do you really think all gun owners are, gleaning from many, many responses here, stupid incest babies, nut jobs, racists, forever trumpers, right wingers, rubes, pussies, etc, bad people, etc?
Since it may not have sunk in the first time:
Funny how you "FORGOT" my other points in the same post....." Insult, name calling,..."
ammosexual = Ammosexual: A person who exhibits an extreme love of firearms, possibly to the point of fetishization. Coined from ammunition and sexual, with sonic overtones of homosexual.
= (slang, derogatory)
You were saying?
BTW, you did state in public that you would put me on ignore because you were being an annoying pest. How could you was able to see my post to reply? Uh huh.
Gotta love how you dismissed my links and the other poster's assertion while you are still UNABLE to provide anything to back up your assertions.
Remember these gems of yours?
"Trump drones"
" been fooled"
"driven by misinformation"
"irrational fear"
I asked you already where are the supports of your assertions/statements and so far, nothing.
You were saying something about "basic failures of logic and critical thinking"
Failing grade you said? LOL. Do as you say and not as you do, eh? Uh huh.
Feel this one slide between your lips, across your tongue and try not to gag...
so? you realize that number is small in comparison to the total number of white people in the United states?Feel this one slide between your lips, across your tongue and try not to gag...
African-American Gun Group Saw Membership Surge After George Floyd Killing
An African-American gun-rights group announced last Thursday it has seen unprecedented growth in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd.freebeacon.com
What!! This doesn’t fit the uninformed, lefty narrative at all. Can you feel it tickling your tonsils?
From the NAGGA website:
Presently 19% of African Americans nationwide own firearms. Since at least 2015, this percentage has grown, with doctors, lawyers, dentists, business men and women, plumbers, single moms, republicans, democrats, and many more all becoming active firearm owners in today’s society.
Gosh, you mokes are so easy. No wonder the greatest douchebag of a generation is going to get re-elected.
I knew you'd try to turn around that rather than acknowledging the basic flaws in your own argument. It's not that hard:
Fox News and fellow hyper-partisan outlets have been deliberately exaggerating the scope of rioting, making it seem as if it's commonplace when it's actually quite rare. Among other things, Fox is notorious for having doctored images and, of course, relying on fearmongering from its op-ed hosts. And the Trump link? Well, it's no secret that Trump also fearmongers over BLM, and Fox fawns over Trump most of the time.
Now, it's well established that Fox News by itself not only has a significant portion of TV and online news readership in the US, but that those viewers and readers are highly suggestible. That's a lot of people who could scared witless by seeing manipulated images and yelling hosts who make it sound like BLM is anarchy incarnate.
And if you're a conservative who's scared witless, what do you do? You're more likely to buy a gun than a liberal counterpart, that's for sure.
Now, that's not to say everyone panic-buying a gun is a Fox/Trump devotee, but historical patterns suggest they're more likely to be part of that group.
ahahahhaa for every one example there are many more from FOX!! sad....pathetic.....So more wordings from you and still no link? No data? Nothing? Uh huh.
Gotta love how you bash Fox News but "forgot" to mention how "honest" CNN, NBC, Washington Post, and other liberal "news" outlet.
Remember this?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html
Integrity, honesty, pure journalism, right? LOL Shall I go on? Like how MSN/NBC edited the audio of the T. Martin incident? You were saying about failing grade? LOL.
BTW, I don't have cable or satellite at home (only rabbit ear) so no cable news so no Fox News for me.
As I said to the other poster...until you have some links and/or data to dispute my assertion, I am done with you in this thread.
ahahahhaa for every one example there are many more from FOX!! sad....pathetic.....