quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
1. BamaD started that threat in a subtle attempt to pre-emptively assault any threads that might ask the next most logical question: If firearms were used, would the devastation had been the say or far greater? Except most non-'gun nut' types can see straight through the bullshit for what it is: pushing his political agenda secretly.

I have told you repeatedly that you were wrong and now you run to another thread
to spread this inaccurate information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
1. BamaD started that threat in a subtle attempt to pre-emptively assault any threads that might ask the next most logical question: If firearms were used, would the devastation had been the say or far greater? Except most non-'gun nut' types can see straight through the bullshit for what it is: pushing his political agenda secretly.

I have told you repeatedly that you were wrong and now you run to another thread
to spread this inaccurate information.

What I stated was the TRUTH. An you cant handle it. You can try to bullshit it all you want, but the facts are the facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
1. BamaD started that threat in a subtle attempt to pre-emptively assault...

I have told you repeatedly that you were wrong

What I stated was the TRUTH. An you cant handle it. You can try to bullshit it all you want, but the facts are the facts.

The man says he did not start the thread with that intention. So what the fuck, you can read minds?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
1. BamaD started that threat in a subtle attempt to pre-emptively assault...

I have told you repeatedly that you were wrong

What I stated was the TRUTH. An you cant handle it. You can try to bullshit it all you want, but the facts are the facts.

The man says he did not start the thread with that intention. So what the fuck, you can read minds?

He can state whatever bullshit he wants. Only the idiots and fools on here will accept that as truth. BamaD has *ALWAYS* come to the defense of firearms, regardless of how silly or irrelevant the current argument was or stated. So when he brought the issue up, it was NOT:

A ) Because X number died and Y number were injured. He hates the Affordable Care Act that is helping millions of Americans and wishes it remove (thereby forcing millions to suffer). Why would he give a shit about 33 dead Chinese and another 133+ injured?
B ) That FEAR DOESNT sells like lemonade on a hot afternoon for most conservatives in the USA. Go look on any of a number of conservative websites. What is the one common trait in all those news headlines? FEAR. In one form or another. Hell, the 'top stories' for the Drudge Report is often fear-laced BS.
C ) saying it couldn't happen here and with firearms (given how easy they are to obtain in most states).

I and may others have observed this in BamaD. He did not post the articles to inform anyone. He was giving the underlying message that it could easy take place here in the states. An THEREFORE (i.e. cause and effect) we citizens should have full access to all firearms, gear, bullets, and other accessories....just in case (walking around like fully armed and armored Adeptus Astartes).

quote:

So not only did I call him out on it, I set up a compromise to be pro-active. That we study this item scientifically to understand if one to three individuals, not acting together, could defend thirty some odd individuals from a well coordinated, well trained, squad of firearm wielding individuals in close quarters combat. An actually test that subtle argument he was making with the thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
1. BamaD started that threat in a subtle attempt to pre-emptively assault...

I have told you repeatedly that you were wrong

What I stated was the TRUTH. An you cant handle it. You can try to bullshit it all you want, but the facts are the facts.

The man says he did not start the thread with that intention. So what the fuck, you can read minds?

He can state whatever bullshit he wants. Only the idiots and fools on here will accept that as truth. BamaD has *ALWAYS* come to the defense of firearms, regardless of how silly or irrelevant the current argument was or stated. So when he brought the issue up, it was NOT:

A ) Because X number died and Y number were injured. He hates the Affordable Care Act that is helping millions of Americans and wishes it remove (thereby forcing millions to suffer). Why would he give a shit about 33 dead Chinese and another 133+ injured?
B ) That FEAR DOESNT sells like lemonade on a hot afternoon for most conservatives in the USA. Go look on any of a number of conservative websites. What is the one common trait in all those news headlines? FEAR. In one form or another. Hell, the 'top stories' for the Drudge Report is often fear-laced BS.
C ) saying it couldn't happen here and with firearms (given how easy they are to obtain in most states).

I and may others have observed this in BamaD. He did not post the articles to inform anyone. He was giving the underlying message that it could easy take place here in the states. An THEREFORE (i.e. cause and effect) we citizens should have full access to all firearms, gear, bullets, and other accessories....just in case (walking around like fully armed and armored Adeptus Astartes).

No, because it is a Constitutional right. Remember, the 1st and 2nd amendments need each other to ensure their guarantee.

quote:

So not only did I call him out on it, I set up a compromise to be pro-active. That we study this item scientifically to understand if one to three individuals, not acting together, could defend thirty some odd individuals from a well coordinated, well trained, squad of firearm wielding individuals in close quarters combat. An actually test that subtle argument he was making with the thread.

Well, yes, they can.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12854492

http://www.artofmanliness.com/trunk/687/gorkha-soldier-saves-girl-from-rape-and-takes-on-40-train-robbers-with-only-a-khukuri/

Yeah, I used Sikh in an earlier post and I meant Gurkha.

But, yes, one can, especially depending on the one.