Liberal Forum

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:01 pm

The facts that you used ST on are as follows. 65 people shot in 2 shootings and no scary looking rifle was used.

That is quite relevant to those who are the opinion that if you ban weapons with scary parts you are going to make a difference.

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:01 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:00 pm

You can do it.

Sorry, those are facts.  You don't like FACTS that go against YOUR talking points. The unfortunate FACT is the amount of RIFLE ONLY shootings account for 13% of mass shootings.  And that is all rifles.  Not just the scary looking one you are afraid of.

Your rules about words, Tiny..



 

 

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:02 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:01 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:01 pm

The facts that you used ST on are as follows. 65 people shot in 2 shootings and no scary looking rifle was used.

That is quite relevant to those who are the opinion that if you ban weapons with scary parts you are going to make a difference.

I'm not gonna repeat myself.
 

 

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:03 pm

There you go about rules again.

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:03 pm

There you go about rules again.

You persist in lying about them.



 

 

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm

And I am not going to repeat you on demand. But will repeat the facts you are averting your eyes from:

The facts that you used ST on are as follows. 65 people shot in 2 shootings and no scary looking rifle was used.

That is quite relevant to those who are the opinion that if you ban weapons with scary parts you are going to make a difference.

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm

I have not lied about any rule.  ANd remember, the more you make demands, the funnier it gets.

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm

And I am not going to repeat you on demand. But will repeat the facts you are averting your eyes from:

The facts that you used ST on are as follows. 65 people shot in 2 shootings and no scary looking rifle was used.

That is quite relevant to those who are the opinion that if you ban weapons with scary parts you are going to make a difference.

Don't repeat at all.


 

 

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:05 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:04 pm

I have not lied about any rule.  ANd remember, the more you make demands, the funnier it gets.

Constantly, Sheilagh....

You've got them for every occasion.

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:08 pm

It is safe to guess that your opinion is if you remove the rifles with the scary parts on them you think shootings will go down.  Or, you just hate the majority of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who legally own one for personal use because you stereotype them.

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:10 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:08 pm

It is safe to guess that your opinion is if you remove the rifles with the scary parts on them you think shootings will go down.  Or, you just hate the majority of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who legally own one for personal use because you stereotype them.

It is safe to refer to my actual words.

I won't oblige you to dig up the whole thread.....that's your rule.

 

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:11 pm

You are running from your stance.  Doesn't matter.  You are on record as saying you want the 1994 Ban to come back.  You can't around that.

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:12 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:11 pm

You are running from your stance.  Doesn't matter.  You are on record as saying you want the 1994 Ban to come back.  You can't around that.

Not if I'm inviting you to post it.

 

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:15 pm

Not if I am rejecting the invitation to post something I have reposted numerous times.  You shouldn't claim you did not post that. 

You are running from your stance.  Doesn't matter.  You are on record as saying you want the 1994 Ban to come back.  You can't around that.

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:17 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:15 pm

Not if I am rejecting the invitation to post something I have reposted numerous times.  You shouldn't claim you did not post that. 

You are running from your stance.  Doesn't matter.  You are on record as saying you want the 1994 Ban to come back.  You can't around that.

That's not your call.


Unless you want to post a rule and your stipulation. 
 

 

Blackvegetable » 03 Jul 2022, 3:36 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jul 2022, 3:36 pm

Huey » 03 Jul 2022, 2:13 pm » wrote: ↑

03 Jul 2022, 2:13 pm

Do you want the 1994 assault weapon ban reinstated?

Yes.

Now read the question again, and answer it.

I answered your questions without rules.  I haven’t spoken about rules in ages.   Answer the question coward.

Were you dishonorably discharged for demonstrating a pathological lack of integrity?

 

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:23 pm

Game.  Set.  Match. Rethink your stance on integrity.

Xavier_Onassis » 19 Jul 2022, 8:27 am » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 8:27 am

In the New Testament, Jesus referred to Samaritan, because Samaritans were viewed by  other Jews as heretics who were believed to be disobeying the tenets of the Jewish religion. They were a despised outcasts.

The guy who took out the shooter was NOT like a Samaritan. He was a rather ordinary common guy who put himself in danger of being shot by the mass murderer. He acted heroically.

The Good Samaritan in the Bible found a poor soul beaten up and near death who was not a fellow Samaritan, yet he took him in and cured him.  He did what Jesus' audience believed was NOT what any Samaritan would do. But he did the right thing.

Those who call him a Good Samaritan do not understand the parable in the New Testament.

Sure, he was a hero, and perhaps the only Good Guy With A Gun that we have seen in recent days. He was a hero and deserves praise.

But a Good Samaritan?, no, he does not fit the parable.

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:48 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 12:23 pm

Game.  Set.  Match. Rethink your stance on integrity.

That, to me, is a "good start"...

But I would go further....as I have made clear.

 

 

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 1:10 pm

It will not solve the problem.

Blackvegetable » 19 Jul 2022, 1:21 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 1:21 pm

Huey » 19 Jul 2022, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Jul 2022, 1:10 pm

It will not solve the problem.

Please don't, Tiny...