When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

[FDF12389]

600SUX......

What are you even trying to argue? All you do is personal insults, every argument you just claim superiority. Do you expect us to beleive you are a marksman & award winning debater that doesnt know anything about firearms or arguing? State your position and then post some facts with links to back them up.

If you reply to this with nothing more than "-1 for logic you lose"..... Ill **** you.






With a .22


But dont worry a .22 cant do anything.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Students with guns on their hips may be a little too radical and a recipe for disaster. Maybe if some of the teachers that wanted to carry firearms were allowed to that might be a good idea. It does not have to be a gun, it could be a taser. The new style tasers will drop a man easily.

I work at a community college and even a good thing may not work out with the best of plans. Maybe some students may be mature enough to handle a firearm with a conceal carry permit, but a lot of young kids out of High School are not that trustworthy.

umm, we're talking about adults here - not kids. Since when did college teachers gain some sort of moral superiority above and beyond those they teach? Why are you trying to redefine the concept of adulthood?

If an adult is old enough to carry a weapon, anywhere, that doesn't change the minute he/she walks onto a campus. 21 is 21, regardless of location and circumstance. If these same young adults can carry in a shopping mall, or in a movie theater, then there is no damn reason whatsoever that a magic line should be drawn around a campus.

I can understand why guns are often barred from places that serve alcohol because the consumption of alcohol often adversely effects one's ability to make a decision. Therefore, the risk-level goes up and it makes sense to remove weapons from said environment. But, is the consumption of knowledge dangerous? What makes a college campus different from anywhere else, in terms of risk?

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Any moron knows that it isn't the debaters who declare the winner of the debate, it's the people listening (in this case reading). You claim your an award winning debater. What award was it you won, biggest blowhard liar? 😛

The only truth I see is that you think you can declare victory without posting a single link proving anything or even pointing out what truth it is you declare I'm denying. I guess it's easier to engage in name calling then it is to talk facts. Go condescend someplace else. I think everybody in this thread has had their fill of your trolling.

First, admit your mistakes. Then you will be capable of having an honest argument. Until then, you've lost and I won't give you more of my time.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
... while it would be a silly thing to do, any firing of a gun under any circumstances could be banned, so long as ownership itself was not banned.

Under a strict reading of the Second Amendment, private ownership of guns can also be banned. It only describes a right to "keep and bear", and that arguably only in service to a militia. A ban on firing of any guns under any circumstances, however, would be impossible because to give effect to the "keep and bear" language, one has to be able to fire the gun under some circumstances. Any legal scholar will tell you. Nobody has even attempted to make your argument because it just wouldn't work.

Ohhhh, somebody "thinks" he's on a roll.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


You can make that argument, but that's all it is, an argument. It doesn't explicilty state that you have to have to be IN a militia to own a firearm. In fact many people at the time that owned firearms weren't in a militia.

So show me where they were arrested or there firearms confiscated. 😛

I don't "think" I'm on a roll, or think I'm on a roll. I just made a few simple statements which are all true. Strictly speaking, the Second Amendment does not describe a right of ownership-- and I only said that because 3chordcharlie started to get nitpicky about language. In addition, not only is it arguably true that the right described only applies to militias, it is the majority position in the U.S. from the standpoint of federal law; it has to at least be fair to say this, and I used the word "arguably" just so people like you wouldn't get your panties in a twist.

Arguments which are just arguments win in courts all the time, with major impact on our rights. Don't sell arguments short. An ATOT argument is well-nigh worthless, of course. I would argue that they can be impossible to win, since it has become popular for the loser to just deny or ignore his loss and go into a mode of repeating himself over and over.

Any lack of a Constitutional right does not ever imply the lack of a state-granted or other right. A lack of a Constitutional right cannot be disproven by a lack of prosecution.

Yes, the old militia argument.

Please use your exaulted wisdom to explain to me why everyone I know owns guns, yet no one I know (except people in the military) belongs to a militia? It's always been that way in this country also. Look at the American Revolution or the old west. Can you imagine the pioneers settling the country without being in possesion of firearms? Or do you think they belonged to some miltia? :laugh:

Show me where anyone in this country, EVER was put into prison for having a firearm without belonging to a milita? Clearly, if you want to make the argument that you need to belong to a milita in order to posess a firearm you are at odds with the way things are always have and currently are being done, so establish some precendent.

Just because somebody makes a claim that people can't own guns without being in a militia doesn't mean anything. if you want to change the status quo, prove your case.

Here we go again. You completely failed to understand that other thread about the Second Amendment, and you have failed completely to understand my very simple statements here. I will break it down for you:

1. I never said the Constitution prohibits owning firearms for non-militia members. In fact, no one has made that ridiculous claim. Pay attention.

2. Even if the Constitution doesn't provide a right, there may be a state right.

3. People do plenty of things not protected by the Constitution every day. One of them is looking at pornography. That's right-- pornography is not protected by the First Amendment.

Please, please don't expose your ignorance again without taking some time to really think about what's being said. And when you come back, ditch the snotty tone. You should be a little more humble, unless you have a reason not to be that you haven't shown here.

6000sux, I highlighted above what you said in this very post:

Under a strict reading of the Second Amendment, private ownership of guns can also be banned. It only describes a right to "keep and bear", and that arguably only in service to a militia

pwned

I am glad you chose to actually read what I wrote this time, but you should drop your insulting ways. You've made another mistake. The Second Amendment does not prohibit ownership for anyone; and under a strict reading, it would not prevent the state or federal government from banning private ownership. These are not irreconcilable.

Next time, you will make less of an ass of yourself if you ask questions about things of which you're unsure, and avoid jumping to hasty conclusions. You've made a thorough ass of yourself here.

(This message has been repeated to add to your self-pwnage. You probably won't respond this time, either. You lose.)

Repeated again, on the off chance that 1ezduzit may either address the argument or admit his/her mistake.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
... while it would be a silly thing to do, any firing of a gun under any circumstances could be banned, so long as ownership itself was not banned.

Under a strict reading of the Second Amendment, private ownership of guns can also be banned. It only describes a right to "keep and bear", and that arguably only in service to a militia. A ban on firing of any guns under any circumstances, however, would be impossible because to give effect to the "keep and bear" language, one has to be able to fire the gun under some circumstances. Any legal scholar will tell you. Nobody has even attempted to make your argument because it just wouldn't work.

Ohhhh, somebody "thinks" he's on a roll.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


You can make that argument, but that's all it is, an argument. It doesn't explicilty state that you have to have to be IN a militia to own a firearm. In fact many people at the time that owned firearms weren't in a militia.

So show me where they were arrested or there firearms confiscated. 😛

I don't "think" I'm on a roll, or think I'm on a roll. I just made a few simple statements which are all true. Strictly speaking, the Second Amendment does not describe a right of ownership-- and I only said that because 3chordcharlie started to get nitpicky about language. In addition, not only is it arguably true that the right described only applies to militias, it is the majority position in the U.S. from the standpoint of federal law; it has to at least be fair to say this, and I used the word "arguably" just so people like you wouldn't get your panties in a twist.

Arguments which are just arguments win in courts all the time, with major impact on our rights. Don't sell arguments short. An ATOT argument is well-nigh worthless, of course. I would argue that they can be impossible to win, since it has become popular for the loser to just deny or ignore his loss and go into a mode of repeating himself over and over.

Any lack of a Constitutional right does not ever imply the lack of a state-granted or other right. A lack of a Constitutional right cannot be disproven by a lack of prosecution.

Yes, the old militia argument.

Please use your exaulted wisdom to explain to me why everyone I know owns guns, yet no one I know (except people in the military) belongs to a militia? It's always been that way in this country also. Look at the American Revolution or the old west. Can you imagine the pioneers settling the country without being in possesion of firearms? Or do you think they belonged to some miltia? :laugh:

Show me where anyone in this country, EVER was put into prison for having a firearm without belonging to a milita? Clearly, if you want to make the argument that you need to belong to a milita in order to posess a firearm you are at odds with the way things are always have and currently are being done, so establish some precendent.

Just because somebody makes a claim that people can't own guns without being in a militia doesn't mean anything. if you want to change the status quo, prove your case.

Here we go again. You completely failed to understand that other thread about the Second Amendment, and you have failed completely to understand my very simple statements here. I will break it down for you:

1. I never said the Constitution prohibits owning firearms for non-militia members. In fact, no one has made that ridiculous claim. Pay attention.

2. Even if the Constitution doesn't provide a right, there may be a state right.

3. People do plenty of things not protected by the Constitution every day. One of them is looking at pornography. That's right-- pornography is not protected by the First Amendment.

Please, please don't expose your ignorance again without taking some time to really think about what's being said. And when you come back, ditch the snotty tone. You should be a little more humble, unless you have a reason not to be that you haven't shown here.

It's not shocking to me that you never owned up to your mistake here either, since you have so much trouble understanding what's even been said.

1ezduzit still hasn't addressed this either. It's not easy to admit it when one is wrong; it is above his/her/its ability, apparently.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: FDF12389
600SUX......

What are you even trying to argue? All you do is personal insults, every argument you just claim superiority. Do you expect us to beleive you are a marksman & award winning debater that doesnt know anything about firearms or arguing? State your position and then post some facts with links to back them up.

If you reply to this with nothing more than "-1 for logic you lose"..... Ill **** you.

With a .22


But dont worry a .22 cant do anything.

If you were here I'd have already smacked you in the mouth for talking trash. But you're not, so you can anonymously get away with it. You haven't read the thread. I made some very simple, correct statements that were hard for the resident gun nuts to deal with.

News flash, numbskull: I never said a .22 couldn't "do anything". I dared to say that not all guns have the same capabilities. This is such a simple and obvious fact I don't need to post a link. If you deny this it is obvious you know nothing of guns.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Nope. I am an actually an award-winning debater.

:roll: Sure you are. If you truly were a good debater, you'd know that an appeal to authority is a losing argument.

I made no appeal to authority. You misunderstand what an appeal to authority is, and what I've said.

I know exactly what I said. Your argument is often "I'm a better debater than you, therefore you lose." You've said that several times in this thread alone.

Fact it, you have no debate skills, and you have no facts. But when all else fails, I guess you can always fall back your old standby of overwhelming a thread with nonsense. Have you won your "debate awards" by shouting louder than the other guy?

LOL That's not an appeal to authority.

And you're not an award winning debater.

Actually, I am. I am not surprised you are not admitting your latest mistake.

It's really nothing to be that proud of, even if you are. I was taking firsts my second tournament ever. The competition is simply not that hard. Even at nationals the speaking skills of most teams is abhorrent.

Maybe you can educate Boberfett on his mistake, if you have actually debated competitively. (He/she/it mischaracterizes what I've said, but no matter-- what is bolded is not an appeal to authority.) I'm not proud, I merely mentioned it; it is certainly not a source of shame for me.

 

[BoberFett]

Here he goes again. :roll:

I know exactly what an appeal to authority is, and in the context your using your supposed "award winning" debate skills, it most certainly is. Your argument consists of "I'm an award winning debater, therefore you lose." If you lack the logical capacity to figure out why I'm right, then I'm afraid you lose.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Nope. I am an actually an award-winning debater.

:roll: Sure you are. If you truly were a good debater, you'd know that an appeal to authority is a losing argument.

I made no appeal to authority. You misunderstand what an appeal to authority is, and what I've said.

I know exactly what I said. Your argument is often "I'm a better debater than you, therefore you lose." You've said that several times in this thread alone.

Fact it, you have no debate skills, and you have no facts. But when all else fails, I guess you can always fall back your old standby of overwhelming a thread with nonsense. Have you won your "debate awards" by shouting louder than the other guy?

LOL That's not an appeal to authority.

And you're not an award winning debater.

Actually, I am. I am not surprised you are not admitting your latest mistake.

It's really nothing to be that proud of, even if you are. I was taking firsts my second tournament ever. The competition is simply not that hard. Even at nationals the speaking skills of most teams is abhorrent.

Maybe you can educate Boberfett on his mistake, if you have actually debated competitively. (He/she/it mischaracterizes what I've said, but no matter-- what is bolded is not an appeal to authority.) I'm not proud, I merely mentioned it; it is certainly not a source of shame for me.

I was just pointing out that structured debate (in high school or college) isn't really what it once was. Worlds style is close, and true parli (not that you can find it now) is pretty good stuff. Now it's all just game playing though - technicalities and poli-puking. There's a big difference between competitive debate and useful debate.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Here he goes again. :roll:

I know exactly what an appeal to authority is, and in the context your using your supposed "award winning" debate skills, it most certainly is. Your argument consists of "I'm an award winning debater, therefore you lose." If you lack the logical capacity to figure out why I'm right, then I'm afraid you lose.

You're a fool for posting this. Run, don't walk, to the university or library nearest you.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

1ezduzit still hasn't addressed this either. It's not easy to admit it when one is wrong; it is above his/her/its ability, apparently.

I'd feel confident venturing a guess that your an expert on that one.

After all your condescending remarks and insults, at this ppoint I really don't care what you think, therefore arguing with you is a waste of my time. However, if you actually have an argument to make, then make it.

Otherwise save your insults for a more proper time and location. Your family reunion perhaps?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: piasabird
Students with guns on their hips may be a little too radical and a recipe for disaster. Maybe if some of the teachers that wanted to carry firearms were allowed to that might be a good idea. It does not have to be a gun, it could be a taser. The new style tasers will drop a man easily.

I work at a community college and even a good thing may not work out with the best of plans. Maybe some students may be mature enough to handle a firearm with a conceal carry permit, but a lot of young kids out of High School are not that trustworthy.

umm, we're talking about adults here - not kids. Since when did college teachers gain some sort of moral superiority above and beyond those they teach? Why are you trying to redefine the concept of adulthood?

If an adult is old enough to carry a weapon, anywhere, that doesn't change the minute he/she walks onto a campus. 21 is 21, regardless of location and circumstance. If these same young adults can carry in a shopping mall, or in a movie theater, then there is no damn reason whatsoever that a magic line should be drawn around a campus.

I can understand why guns are often barred from places that serve alcohol because the consumption of alcohol often adversely effects one's ability to make a decision. Therefore, the risk-level goes up and it makes sense to remove weapons from said environment. But, is the consumption of knowledge dangerous? What makes a college campus different from anywhere else, in terms of risk?

It just doesn't make sense.

The idea here is concealed carry. That means two things.

First, everyone with a concealed carry permit has, as a requirement for the permit, taken a safety class oriented toward defensive situations. Therefore anyone carrying concealed will have already been trained and will be aware of all the hazards everybody is bringing up (ie: checking your target, what is behind it, crowded environments, etc).

Second, the guns will not be on students hips, but concealed. Out of sight, out of mind. Since nobody can see the guns, they can FEEEEEEEEL safe and pretend nobody has guns just like they did with their friend Mr. Cho. But should some nut case start executing people, someone can respond by bringing out their concealed weapon and ending it, thus students can actually BE safe as well as simply FEEEEEEEELING safe. Best of both worlds.

I think we should allow concealed carry on airlines too while we are at it. We can't afford to have a marshal on all flights, after all. Another place where the private sector can meet a need more efficiently than the government. Revamp conceal carry classes to cover special circumstances such as on a airliner at high altitude, on crowded school grounds, etc. I can't think of a more fitting application of the 2nd Amendment than defending an American airliner from five foreign enemy combatants over American soil.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

1ezduzit still hasn't addressed this either. It's not easy to admit it when one is wrong; it is above his/her/its ability, apparently.

I'd feel confident venturing a guess that your an expert on that one.

After all your condescending remarks and insults, at this ppoint I really don't care what you think, therefore arguing with you is a waste of my time. However, if you actually have an argument to make, then make it.

Otherwise save your insults for a more proper time and location. Your family reunion perhaps?

How about if you look up in the page at the repeated ownage of you, which you've ignored up to now, and admit you're wrong? Or, at least, try to explain it all away. Otherwise, it's obvious to any reader what's going on; you've lost and won't admit it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

1ezduzit still hasn't addressed this either. It's not easy to admit it when one is wrong; it is above his/her/its ability, apparently.

I'd feel confident venturing a guess that your an expert on that one.

After all your condescending remarks and insults, at this ppoint I really don't care what you think, therefore arguing with you is a waste of my time. However, if you actually have an argument to make, then make it.

Otherwise save your insults for a more proper time and location. Your family reunion perhaps?

How about if you look up in the page at the repeated ownage of you, which you've ignored up to now, and admit you're wrong? Or, at least, try to explain it all away. Otherwise, it's obvious to any reader what's going on; you've lost and won't admit it.

GD would you post what you think "repeated ownage" is already and stop talking about it? This thread is 27 pages long and even after you saying that you owned someone over and over people still aren't going to go searching through all 27 pages looking for your BS post.

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: FDF12389
600SUX......

What are you even trying to argue? All you do is personal insults, every argument you just claim superiority. Do you expect us to beleive you are a marksman & award winning debater that doesnt know anything about firearms or arguing? State your position and then post some facts with links to back them up.

If you reply to this with nothing more than "-1 for logic you lose"..... Ill **** you.

With a .22


But dont worry a .22 cant do anything.

If you were here I'd have already smacked you in the mouth for talking trash. But you're not, so you can anonymously get away with it. You haven't read the thread. I made some very simple, correct statements that were hard for the resident gun nuts to deal with.

News flash, numbskull: I never said a .22 couldn't "do anything". I dared to say that not all guns have the same capabilities. This is such a simple and obvious fact I don't need to post a link. If you deny this it is obvious you know nothing of guns.

Ive read the thread from first post to last. You have no reason to be here, you havnt taken a stance, your just picking fights. So I picked one back with the .22 comment.

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Stupid. Read a little better, think a little more. My saying that a blanket statement is dumb doesn't even imply a stance on any issue.

WHAT IS YOUR STANCE? You claim to be an excellent debater but have yet to state your stance in this thread.

 

[BoberFett]

His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.

-1 for logic you lose

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.

Don't forget, he can shoot better then us too, just ask him. If that doesn't prove his case I don't know what will?? :laugh:

 

[exdeath]

I see now... his tactic, it you want to call it that, is simply to get people all worked up in pointless groundless arguments about who is debating who, who sucks, who is pwning who, etc. That way we are supposed to forget what the original topic was and the thread dies into a chaotic clamor. I'd say hes succeeded judging by the last few pages. It's clear he has no stance in this topic, that his sole purpose was simply to derail this thread and prevent others from discussing a topic he doesn't agree with.

Lets stop talking about 6000SUX, who is clearly beneath this thread, and get back to the gun topic we had going before his pointless carcass arrived.

He loses... at life.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
His stance is that he wins, you lose. I thought that was obvious. Remember, he's an award winning debater.

Don't forget, he can shoot better then us too, just ask him. If that doesn't prove his case I don't know what will?? :laugh:

-1 you lose.

Because I can shoot better, run faster, jump higher, hit harder, drive faster, piss farther, and debate better than he could ever dream. It's easy for someone like him to back talk to his superiors from a keyboard on the other side of the world.

Here is *my* proof:

http://members.cox.net/exdeath/pic1.jpg

300 yards with my .300 WM hand built on a rem 700 with a Navy sniper barrel. Not exactly one hole but still spinal cord width, given a shitastic 9x scope (now taking donations for a Nightforce 12-42x56 😀)
(disregard the 6 shots to the lower right, they were from another gun, a .338 if I remember, desperately looking for some unused paper at the end of the day before taking the targets down)

Oh, and my daddy can beat up his daddy. Therefore I win.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: exdeath
http://members.cox.net/exdeath/pic1.jpg

300 yards with my .300 WM hand built on a rem 700 with a Navy sniper barrel (the 6 shots to the lower right were from another gun, a .338 if I remember, desperately looking for some unused paper at the end of the day before taking the targets down) Not exactly one hole but still spinal cord width, given a shitastic 9x scope.

Oh, and my daddy can beat up his daddy. Therefore I win.

Scopes are for sissies, real men use iron sights. 😉

Seriously though, nice shooting.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: exdeath
http://members.cox.net/exdeath/pic1.jpg

300 yards with my .300 WM hand built on a rem 700 with a Navy sniper barrel (the 6 shots to the lower right were from another gun, a .338 if I remember, desperately looking for some unused paper at the end of the day before taking the targets down) Not exactly one hole but still spinal cord width, given a shitastic 9x scope.

Oh, and my daddy can beat up his daddy. Therefore I win.

Scopes are for sissies, real men use iron sights. 😉

Seriously though, nice shooting.

When I sight in my AR-15s using standard battle zero procedure with iron sights (one click CW from 8/3 and sight in at 25m, one click CCW puts zero at 300m) I used all 30 rds in the mag and made a single hole the size of a quarter in the sighting target at 25m 😀 Or maybe it was a silver dollar or 50 cent piece, but you get the idea. And I don't mean a tight grouping of 30 tiny holes, I mean one big hole and nothing else.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: FDF12389
600SUX......

What are you even trying to argue? All you do is personal insults, every argument you just claim superiority. Do you expect us to beleive you are a marksman & award winning debater that doesnt know anything about firearms or arguing? State your position and then post some facts with links to back them up.

If you reply to this with nothing more than "-1 for logic you lose"..... Ill **** you.

With a .22


But dont worry a .22 cant do anything.

If you were here I'd have already smacked you in the mouth for talking trash. But you're not, so you can anonymously get away with it. You haven't read the thread. I made some very simple, correct statements that were hard for the resident gun nuts to deal with.

News flash, numbskull: I never said a .22 couldn't "do anything". I dared to say that not all guns have the same capabilities. This is such a simple and obvious fact I don't need to post a link. If you deny this it is obvious you know nothing of guns.

Ive read the thread from first post to last. You have no reason to be here, you havnt taken a stance, your just picking fights. So I picked one back with the .22 comment.

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Stupid. Read a little better, think a little more. My saying that a blanket statement is dumb doesn't even imply a stance on any issue.

WHAT IS YOUR STANCE? You claim to be an excellent debater but have yet to state your stance in this thread.

I'm not picking fights. I've pointed out many inaccuracies... including your trollish mischaracterization of what I said. Have a nice life.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

1ezduzit still hasn't addressed this either. It's not easy to admit it when one is wrong; it is above his/her/its ability, apparently.

I'd feel confident venturing a guess that your an expert on that one.

After all your condescending remarks and insults, at this ppoint I really don't care what you think, therefore arguing with you is a waste of my time. However, if you actually have an argument to make, then make it.

Otherwise save your insults for a more proper time and location. Your family reunion perhaps?

How about if you look up in the page at the repeated ownage of you, which you've ignored up to now, and admit you're wrong? Or, at least, try to explain it all away. Otherwise, it's obvious to any reader what's going on; you've lost and won't admit it.

GD would you post what you think "repeated ownage" is already and stop talking about it? This thread is 27 pages long and even after you saying that you owned someone over and over people still aren't going to go searching through all 27 pages looking for your BS post.

My posts aren't BS. I repeated them twice, and world-beating scholar 1ezduzit somehow failed to respond; after trumpeting his "pwnage" of me you'd think he'd have the decency to admit his newbie mistakes. Two repetitions of the mistakes he's not owning up to are 9 and 10 posts above yours, respectively. I can repeat them again-- he will just fail to even acknowledge the posts again. This is a common tactic here.

 

[Vic]

One thing I'm confused about here. If we can prevent all gun crime by completing doing away with all guns, does that mean that the police and the military will be disarmed as well?