Wat's Guns-N-Stuff Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Excellent news because someone as unstable as you should not be allowed to own firearms.
No. Quite the opposite.
I’m a fact based person. I laid out just yesterday the dangers of owning a gun in one’s home. I love my family. I have no unwarranted fear of my neighbors or feelings that my government is coming to get me by means of knocking on my door.
 
You're a liberal so of course you have no solid convictions, no liberal ever does.
Haha. The question related to felony convictions. I’m not going to rail on you over making this mistake. It’s really kind of funny.

You, of all people, should know that I have very strong convictions and lay them out constantly.
 
I love self deprecating humor.
I don’t think that’s what I did to myself, but sure, if it allows you and wat to rib me for an oblivious self own - have at it.
You guys deserve a laugh since you’re terrible at generating on your own. Yuk it up. I’ll just be over here waiting, sitting in a corner asking again if wat has a restraining order against him. It’s kind of important and an indicator of a person’s mental stability and temperament.
 
Haha. The question related to felony convictions. I’m not going to rail on you over making this mistake. It’s really kind of funny.

You, of all people, should know that I have very strong convictions and lay them out constantly.
I knew exactly what I meant when i posted that. Convictions has 2 meanings and I meant the one about having strong beliefs. I believe you believe what you are told to believe and nothing more.
 
I knew exactly what I meant when i posted that. Convictions has 2 meanings and I meant the one about having strong beliefs. I believe you believe what you are told to believe and nothing more.
You think that I come here and spout rhetoric that is ingrained in me from what type of indoctrination? That I’m repeating stuff from a script? Wow! Ok.
Then, if my source material is old and tired and readily available to all - it should be very, very easy for you to shoot down (haha, I crack myself up), poke holes in and dispute.
 
So go ahead.
I’ve already tipped my hand on why I think it’s important for wat to explain if he has a restraining order against him and why he doesn’t feel comfortable returning to his place of work.

Dispute my scripted assertion.

I’ll wait.
 
Still waiting.
But while I'm here, lemme take the time to humiliate wat some more.
How sad you are. How pathetic. You started this thread, constantly take up the mantle of fearless defender and leader, but can't answer simple questions.
It's all false bravado. Look at you, having TH come to your aid, give you a reacharound and try his best to attach fake balls to your eunuch ass.
 
Haha. A nutless eunuch!

Ya know, sometimes even I think, "Bn2f? C'mon! Didya havta say that? That was too much. Girl, you went too far."
But then, sometimes, I think, "Nah, bitch, you read that fool right!"
Just silly thoughts I have while I sit here waiting.
 
No. Quite the opposite.
I’m a fact based person. I laid out just yesterday the dangers of owning a gun in one’s home. I love my family. I have no unwarranted fear of my neighbors or feelings that my government is coming to get me by means of knocking on my door.
Why would your neighbors be out to get you? Or the government for that matter? People that own guns for self defense own them against home invaders, tweekers, and the like. Not for some stupid neighbor dispute.
 
It's not surprising that the above post would come from Rory.

First of all it was posted as if we in the firearm community were ignorant of the ruling, we aren't.

As a matter of fact the ruling was expected and, actually, celebrated. It sets up a case that the Supreme Court is going to hear, and rule on. Meaning that the 'fat lady' hasn't sung yet. As usual, Rory ejaculates prematurely.

If anyone bothers to read the judge's ruling you'll find a fatal flaw. He concluded that AR's are "unusual and dangerous." While all of us can concede that ALL firearms are dangerous, the notion that a design that is in the hands of millions of people is unusual is ludicrous. Further, the judge concludes that AR's are 'weapons of war.' A finding that is conflict with US v Miller (1939) in which the court found that a weapon not suitable for war is not covered by the 2nd.
 
It's not surprising that the above post would come from Rory.

First of all it was posted as if we in the firearm community were ignorant of the ruling, we aren't.

As a matter of fact the ruling was expected and, actually, celebrated. It sets up a case that the Supreme Court is going to hear, and rule on. Meaning that the 'fat lady' hasn't sung yet. As usual, Rory ejaculates prematurely.

If anyone bothers to read the judge's ruling you'll find a fatal flaw. He concluded that AR's are "unusual and dangerous." While all of us can concede that ALL firearms are dangerous, the notion that a design that is in the hands of millions of people is unusual is ludicrous. Further, the judge concludes that AR's are 'weapons of war.' A finding that is conflict with US v Miller (1939) in which the court found that a weapon not suitable for war is not covered by the 2nd.
There are only an estimated 44 million of them in the US, so yeah, America’s most popular rifle is “unusual.” How could SCOTUS possibly find they fit the common use threshold?
 
There are only an estimated 44 million of them in the US, so yeah, America’s most popular rifle is “unusual.” How could SCOTUS possibly find they fit the common use threshold?
Myopia comes to mind. :rolleyes:

They're flailing and anyone with sense knows it. The second amendment doesn't include the phrase, "Technological advancements may invalidate this amendment." Which is another argument the good judge put forth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top