billvon 3,116 #251 December 27, 2009 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #252 December 27, 2009 Quote You seriously expect anyone to ADMIT to it? That hardly matters to you - you claim we admit to a lot of shit we saif nothing about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #253 December 27, 2009 QuoteYour one warning. Cut it out. Can we get yellow cards issued for flopping too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #254 December 28, 2009 Quote Quote 4 tail pipes??? Yep. You go to the local auto store and buy splitters: one pipe becomes two, two become four. Does nothing for the performance but looks "cool" to the immature mind. www.autoproducts.com/products/5235847/Vibrant-Stainless-Steel-Exhaust-Tips-Dual-Outlet-Weld-On.htm To someone who likes working on autos or making something (automobiles) high performance or perform better, "dual" exhaust means something. 4 tail pipes?????Ok, it that is what turns you on. Resembles your posted knowledge of "scary" weapons/guns Hard to decipher your tortured English, but are you saying you've NEVER seen a car with 4 tailpipes just for cosmetic reasons? I guess you don't cruise the same 'hoods as the cool teenagers. Nope, that is not what I am sayin. And I dont cruise at all anymore Keep postin though. I need the laughs"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #255 December 28, 2009 QuoteDude, you did not provide a single link in at least last three posts at all. And yet you have provided NONE at all. And I have referenced REAL world examples that have proven you wrong. Yet you still ignore them. QuoteI suggest you practice your reading first, and then you may understand the difference between what I wrote, and what you're writing here. Then we might talk. May I suggest you actually know the topics before you claim to be an expert?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #256 December 28, 2009 QuoteCould it be that it appeals to the same immature minds that think a Camaro with racing stripes and 4 tailpipes is cool, although it doesn't go any faster or handle any better? Duel exhaust DOES increase performance. Why do you paint your MG? I assume it has paint right? If it were primer gray it would perform the same right? QuoteIf the gun-o-philes only care about functionality, all that cosmetic stuff is a waste of money, right? You still can't make the basic connection that most gun banners go after the looks, and most pro gun people go for function. People behind the 94 ban ADMITTED to using LOOKS as the method to decide what weapons to ban, and didn't ban weapons of the same caliber and functionality.... You really have no leg to stand on here. For example they tried to ban the AR15, yet didn't ban the mini14. Same bullet, both take magazines, but only one LOOKS "evil". I am STILL waiting on you to answer these. They were all banned in 94: Care to explain to the group how many crimes have been committed with a bayonet? Care to explain to the group how a flash suppressor on a semi auto makes any difference? Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES? Maybe you could explain how the DOJ said that even before the ban only 3-4% of crimes were committed with the types of weapons banned meant that they should be banned?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidWicked 0 #257 December 28, 2009 Quotethe dudes that caused 9/11 also caused Iraq and Afganistan LOL! I laughed and laughed.Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #258 December 28, 2009 Quote And yet you have provided NONE at all. Neither I claimed that I "provided references and facts" or "pointed out all your errors". When one claims to share his opinion, no links are needed at all, but when one claims to provide FACTS, the references are expected. Quote And I have referenced REAL world examples that have proven you wrong. In your dreams, maybe. Or your firewall stripped out every link from your posts. You might want to check it. Quote May I suggest you actually know the topics before you claim to be an expert? Well, you can, but I gonna ignore such a suggestion - pretty much as I ignore suggestions of Bible trumpets that I need to spend ten years studying theology before I can say the Bible is full of shit (and it is). So no, I'm not going to become a gun expert just to say that guns indeed make ordinary people more dangerous, and looking on recent massacre statistics guns do more harm than good to society at a whole.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #259 December 28, 2009 >Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to > make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell >the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES? I guess the same reason there are export restrictions on nuclear device triggers (like krytrons) even though export of highly enriched uranium is also restricted - and even though no crimes have been committed with nuclear device triggers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #260 December 28, 2009 QuoteIn your dreams, maybe. Or your firewall stripped out every link from your posts. You might want to check it. No, in this thread. Try reading them instead of thinking you already know everything. When I say Harris and Klebold did "X".... That is a reference. You only seem to think only links are references.... That is just you refusing to admit you don't know what you are talking about. But hey.... Here is one where they posted on a website about building and testing bombs: Quotehttp://history1900s.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=history1900s&cdn=education&tm=19&f=10&su=p897.6.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=1&zu=http%3A//denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0502why10.shtml Brooks Brown's mother, Judy, told Jefferson County authorities about Harris' Web site, where he talked about test-firing pipe bombs. A detective found Harris' arrest record, but that information never made it to the district attorney's office, which could have put the two together. But if you had known anything about the case.... You would have already known that. Just admit that your opinions don't stand the light of day. QuoteWell, you can, but I gonna ignore such a suggestion Well you have admitted you are unwilling to learn about the things you already claim to "know"... You have shown how stupid and uninformed your position is through your posts. And you have admitted you would rather stay ignorant than learn anything. I guess we really are done. I have provided references to real world examples that have crushed your ignorant opinions."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #261 December 28, 2009 QuoteI guess the same reason there are export restrictions on nuclear device triggers (like krytrons) even though export of highly enriched uranium is also restricted - and even though no crimes have been committed with nuclear device triggers. I asked him to explain why it made SENSE, not if there was a precedent. If you are going to jump in, care to answer the question ASKED? And care to answer the OTHER questions since you seem to want to answer for him?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #262 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteCould it be that it appeals to the same immature minds that think a Camaro with racing stripes and 4 tailpipesQuote is cool, although it doesn't go any faster or handle any better? Duel exhaust DOES increase performance. ? Try reading for a change instead of inventing a new straw man to attack. I wrote TAILPIPES, not exhausts. Dual tailpipes for the last 6" on a single exhaust does NOTHING for performance. (Duelling exhausts, a novel concept).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #263 December 28, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Could it be that it appeals to the same immature minds that think a Camaro with racing stripes and 4 tailpipes Quote is cool, although it doesn't go any faster or handle any better? Duel exhaust DOES increase performance. ? Try reading for a change instead of inventing a new straw man to attack. I wrote TAILPIPES, not exhausts. Dual tailpipes for the last 6" on a single exhaust does NOTHING for performance. (Duelling exhausts, a novel concept). You are right!! It does nothing for performance. Funny how you walked into a trap of your own setting"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #264 December 28, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Could it be that it appeals to the same immature minds that think a Camaro with racing stripes and 4 tailpipes Quote is cool, although it doesn't go any faster or handle any better? Duel exhaust DOES increase performance. ? Try reading for a change instead of inventing a new straw man to attack. I wrote TAILPIPES, not exhausts. Dual tailpipes for the last 6" on a single exhaust does NOTHING for performance. (Duelling exhausts, a novel concept). You are right!! It does nothing for performance. Funny how you walked into a trap of your own setting Ummm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #265 December 28, 2009 QuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #266 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon. No I don't. It's my OPINION based on posts you, JR, and others have made in the past.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #267 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon. No I don't. It's my OPINION based on posts you, JR, and others have made in the past. Then you need to label it as such. Also means we can stop this silly discussion since it's just your OPINION.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #268 December 28, 2009 >I asked him to explain why it made SENSE, not if there was a >precedent. If you are going to jump in, care to answer the >question ASKED? Sure. Yes, it does make sense to restrict multiple components of nuclear weapons, since it makes them much more difficult to construct if someone (say, a terrorist) has only one of those two components. Making it more difficult to assemble nuclear weapons is, overall, a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #269 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon. No I don't. It's my OPINION based on posts you, JR, and others have made in the past. Then you need to label it as such. Also means we can stop this silly discussion since it's just your OPINION. Indeed it is, based soundly on the stuff about the "scary" appearance of these weapons that you, johnrich and others have posted in previous threads. Thanks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #270 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon. No I don't. It's my OPINION based on posts you, JR, and others have made in the past. Then you need to label it as such. Also means we can stop this silly discussion since it's just your OPINION. Indeed it is, based soundly on the stuff about the "scary" appearance of these weapons that you, johnrich and others have posted in previous threads. Thanks. "Scary black gun" is a phrase ridiculing the pro-ban people. That's something that's been explained to you SEVERAL times, but evidently it's beyond your capability to understand.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites georgerussia 0 #271 December 28, 2009 Quote No, in this thread. Try reading them instead of thinking you already know everything. If only they were there. Quote When I say Harris and Klebold did "X".... That is a reference. You think so high of yourself? Sorry, dude, you're not an authority, and your words are exactly that - just your opinion - unless you provide proof. So when you say A did B, it will only be considered a reference if you provided a link which confirms that A indeed did B; optionally you provide further explanation why your words should be considered (for example, you personally knew A or your close friend helped him with B). Otherwise you're not different from any religious nut with "I say God exist; prove me wrong". Quote But hey.... Here is one where they posted on a website about building and testing bombs: Brooks Brown's mother, Judy, told Jefferson County authorities about Harris' Web site, where he talked about test-firing pipe bombs. A detective found Harris' arrest record, but that information never made it to the district attorney's office, which could have put the two together. So what is your point? No system is 100% proof; even presidents got shot. This does not mean the restricting laws and police are useless. And Russia is full of teenagers obsessed with violent video games as well, which contributes to school violence but not shooting (and the major difference there, as I already pointed out, is the murder count). Quote But if you had known anything about the case.... You would have already known that. Just admit that your opinions don't stand the light of day. And yet again you're trying something irrelevant to discussion. You didn't even manage to explain what exactly you're trying to prove. Quote Well you have admitted you are unwilling to learn about the things you already claim to "know"... I will learn from people who I consider worth learning from. Quote You have shown how stupid and uninformed your position is through your posts. And you have admitted you would rather stay ignorant than learn anything. I guess we really are done. Agree. Thank you for your time and your "references" (lol).* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #272 December 28, 2009 And care to answer the OTHER questions since you seem to want to answer for him?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #273 December 28, 2009 Still waiting on you to answer these John..... Now, please put up or shut up. Care to explain to the group how many crimes have been committed with a bayonet? Care to explain to the group how a flash suppressor on a semi auto makes any difference? Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES? Maybe you could explain how the DOJ said that even before the ban only 3-4% of crimes were committed with the types of weapons banned meant that they should be banned?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #274 December 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou keep saying that the 'gunnies' are buying just for the 'looks' factor - are you planning to ever provide any proof of this, or is this going to be like your 'straw purchase' smokescreen in the NYC shooting thread? Well, since you (among others) have claimed a number of times previously that the various ban proposals select weapons to be outlawed based on "scary" looks and not on functionality, the only logical conclusion is that these weapons only differ from acceptable guns on looks and not on functionality, and therefore that people who buy such guns do so on account of the "scary" looks and not on functionality. I bought an AR this year, not because it was "scary looking", but because it was fun to shoot. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #275 December 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou keep saying that the 'gunnies' are buying just for the 'looks' factor - are you planning to ever provide any proof of this, or is this going to be like your 'straw purchase' smokescreen in the NYC shooting thread? Well, since you (among others) have claimed a number of times previously that the various ban proposals select weapons to be outlawed based on "scary" looks and not on functionality, the only logical conclusion is that these weapons only differ from acceptable guns on looks and not on functionality, and therefore that people who buy such guns do so on account of the "scary" looks and not on functionality. I bought an AR this year, not because it was "scary looking", but because it was fun to shoot. Blues, Dave You're obviously mistaken - just re-read the post you're replying to. So has kallend spoken, so shall it be done.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 11 of 12 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rushmc 23 #263 December 28, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Could it be that it appeals to the same immature minds that think a Camaro with racing stripes and 4 tailpipes Quote is cool, although it doesn't go any faster or handle any better? Duel exhaust DOES increase performance. ? Try reading for a change instead of inventing a new straw man to attack. I wrote TAILPIPES, not exhausts. Dual tailpipes for the last 6" on a single exhaust does NOTHING for performance. (Duelling exhausts, a novel concept). You are right!! It does nothing for performance. Funny how you walked into a trap of your own setting"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #264 December 28, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Could it be that it appeals to the same immature minds that think a Camaro with racing stripes and 4 tailpipes Quote is cool, although it doesn't go any faster or handle any better? Duel exhaust DOES increase performance. ? Try reading for a change instead of inventing a new straw man to attack. I wrote TAILPIPES, not exhausts. Dual tailpipes for the last 6" on a single exhaust does NOTHING for performance. (Duelling exhausts, a novel concept). You are right!! It does nothing for performance. Funny how you walked into a trap of your own setting Ummm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #265 December 28, 2009 QuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #266 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon. No I don't. It's my OPINION based on posts you, JR, and others have made in the past.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #267 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon. No I don't. It's my OPINION based on posts you, JR, and others have made in the past. Then you need to label it as such. Also means we can stop this silly discussion since it's just your OPINION.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #268 December 28, 2009 >I asked him to explain why it made SENSE, not if there was a >precedent. If you are going to jump in, care to answer the >question ASKED? Sure. Yes, it does make sense to restrict multiple components of nuclear weapons, since it makes them much more difficult to construct if someone (say, a terrorist) has only one of those two components. Making it more difficult to assemble nuclear weapons is, overall, a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #269 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon. No I don't. It's my OPINION based on posts you, JR, and others have made in the past. Then you need to label it as such. Also means we can stop this silly discussion since it's just your OPINION. Indeed it is, based soundly on the stuff about the "scary" appearance of these weapons that you, johnrich and others have posted in previous threads. Thanks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #270 December 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUmmm NO - that is what I claimed all along. Cosmetic, not functional, appeals to the immature mindset. Now, as stated before and you keep conveniently skipping over, you just have to prove that the cosmetics is why someone bought the weapon. No I don't. It's my OPINION based on posts you, JR, and others have made in the past. Then you need to label it as such. Also means we can stop this silly discussion since it's just your OPINION. Indeed it is, based soundly on the stuff about the "scary" appearance of these weapons that you, johnrich and others have posted in previous threads. Thanks. "Scary black gun" is a phrase ridiculing the pro-ban people. That's something that's been explained to you SEVERAL times, but evidently it's beyond your capability to understand.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #271 December 28, 2009 Quote No, in this thread. Try reading them instead of thinking you already know everything. If only they were there. Quote When I say Harris and Klebold did "X".... That is a reference. You think so high of yourself? Sorry, dude, you're not an authority, and your words are exactly that - just your opinion - unless you provide proof. So when you say A did B, it will only be considered a reference if you provided a link which confirms that A indeed did B; optionally you provide further explanation why your words should be considered (for example, you personally knew A or your close friend helped him with B). Otherwise you're not different from any religious nut with "I say God exist; prove me wrong". Quote But hey.... Here is one where they posted on a website about building and testing bombs: Brooks Brown's mother, Judy, told Jefferson County authorities about Harris' Web site, where he talked about test-firing pipe bombs. A detective found Harris' arrest record, but that information never made it to the district attorney's office, which could have put the two together. So what is your point? No system is 100% proof; even presidents got shot. This does not mean the restricting laws and police are useless. And Russia is full of teenagers obsessed with violent video games as well, which contributes to school violence but not shooting (and the major difference there, as I already pointed out, is the murder count). Quote But if you had known anything about the case.... You would have already known that. Just admit that your opinions don't stand the light of day. And yet again you're trying something irrelevant to discussion. You didn't even manage to explain what exactly you're trying to prove. Quote Well you have admitted you are unwilling to learn about the things you already claim to "know"... I will learn from people who I consider worth learning from. Quote You have shown how stupid and uninformed your position is through your posts. And you have admitted you would rather stay ignorant than learn anything. I guess we really are done. Agree. Thank you for your time and your "references" (lol).* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #272 December 28, 2009 And care to answer the OTHER questions since you seem to want to answer for him?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #273 December 28, 2009 Still waiting on you to answer these John..... Now, please put up or shut up. Care to explain to the group how many crimes have been committed with a bayonet? Care to explain to the group how a flash suppressor on a semi auto makes any difference? Care to explain to the group why a grenade launcher ban seemed to make sense when Grenades are HIGHLY regulated and care to tell the class how many crimes were committed with GRENADES? Maybe you could explain how the DOJ said that even before the ban only 3-4% of crimes were committed with the types of weapons banned meant that they should be banned?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #274 December 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou keep saying that the 'gunnies' are buying just for the 'looks' factor - are you planning to ever provide any proof of this, or is this going to be like your 'straw purchase' smokescreen in the NYC shooting thread? Well, since you (among others) have claimed a number of times previously that the various ban proposals select weapons to be outlawed based on "scary" looks and not on functionality, the only logical conclusion is that these weapons only differ from acceptable guns on looks and not on functionality, and therefore that people who buy such guns do so on account of the "scary" looks and not on functionality. I bought an AR this year, not because it was "scary looking", but because it was fun to shoot. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #275 December 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou keep saying that the 'gunnies' are buying just for the 'looks' factor - are you planning to ever provide any proof of this, or is this going to be like your 'straw purchase' smokescreen in the NYC shooting thread? Well, since you (among others) have claimed a number of times previously that the various ban proposals select weapons to be outlawed based on "scary" looks and not on functionality, the only logical conclusion is that these weapons only differ from acceptable guns on looks and not on functionality, and therefore that people who buy such guns do so on account of the "scary" looks and not on functionality. I bought an AR this year, not because it was "scary looking", but because it was fun to shoot. Blues, Dave You're obviously mistaken - just re-read the post you're replying to. So has kallend spoken, so shall it be done.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
