SANDY HOOK FATHER OWNS CONGRESS

[Pudfark]

Well, Buzz....for sure you know how Slick operates.

He's all about his personal feelings and opinions.
No experience, no training, no service and he's an expert.
Just ask him...

He likes to come here...to get beat up by the facts.
I beginning to think, he likes ropes, ball gags and spankings.....
Which is probably the "bond" he shares with R_D.

[Buzz]

I was surprised he turned to insults when he got owned.

Yes, slick. You got owned along with your imaginary gun friends.

Stick to subjects you know something about, because guns isn't one of them.


I eagerly await your next insult. Ask your buddy HH if you get stuck for new insults.

[callmeslick]

So, now i'm stupid, and a liar.

apparently....either you are too stupid to read the words I've written a few dozen times, or willing to lie about my intentions. Your pick?
Why do you insist on tying assault weapons ban to the goal of 'ending all mass murders'? No one suggsted that, least of all me.

[Buzz]

Why do you think they're trying to ban them?

[Buzz]

So, now i'm stupid, and a liar.

apparently....either you are too stupid to read the words I've written a few dozen times, or willing to lie about my intentions. Your pick?
Why do you insist on tying assault weapons ban to the goal of 'ending all mass murders'? No one suggsted that, least of all me.

Least of all you? Are these not your words?

The idea here is making mass killing of innocents more difficult. Not impossible, not 'unheard of', not even rare. Simply removing the most common tools for mass shootings: high capacity magazines, and assault-style weapons. "

[callmeslick]

I was surprised he turned to insults when he got owned.

what is hilarious, and now you seem to have caught the disease from Pud, is claiming 'ownage' or declaring victory after having been completely refuted by simple facts. And, that's all that has happened. You two come up with bizarre hypothetical scenarios, they get mocked because those scenarios are utterly ridiculous, and then declare victory. You ignore the assertion that an assault weapon ban likely will make it difficult for some who would commit mass murder to do so in the future, and declare that you own someone who would dare to suggest that such a scenario is likely, even commonsense reasoning. You run around spouting a bunch of crap that is unsupported by reality, and then declare that you are the true experts. I guess, for you two, self-delusion is comforting....what is comforting to me is that a LOT of your fellow citizens don't engage in that delusion any more.

By the way, neither of you EVER came up with any examples of AR-15 or similar being used for personal defense by a civilian in this nation, nor did you come up with a scenario where one would be absolutely necessary to do so.
Neither of you ever denied that SOME mass murders would be prevented, you merely deflected to the fact that other weapons COULD be used. Hell, a box of rocks could get the job done, and likely that same box would have greater intellect than you two have shown here.

So, continue on your merry way and suck each other's dicks with self-congratuation. You are wrong, most people with half a brain see you are wrong, anyone who actually gives a shit about the society KNOWS you are wrong. But, you and Pud have yourselves a fine old time, ya hear?

[callmeslick]

So, now i'm stupid, and a liar.

apparently....either you are too stupid to read the words I've written a few dozen times, or willing to lie about my intentions. Your pick?
Why do you insist on tying assault weapons ban to the goal of 'ending all mass murders'? No one suggsted that, least of all me.

Least of all you? Are these not your words?

The idea here is making mass killing of innocents more difficult. Not impossible, not 'unheard of', not even rare. Simply removing the most common tools for mass shootings: high capacity magazines, and assault-style weapons. "

can you read the words I wrote,compare them to your assertions and comprehend that I am specifically stating that this ban wouldn't end all killings? What is your problem, Buzz, you are smarter than that?

[callmeslick]

Why do you think they're trying to ban them?

for the 60th time, to make a high powered killing weapon, which is not in any way necessary for civilian use of any kind, unavailable. The goal is to make it a little less likely that a potential psychopathic killer gets his or her hands on one. Very simple, and why you keep failing to grasp that eludes me. Like I said above, you always struck me as smarter than that......

[Buzz]

I'll tell you where we disagree not so slick.

You seem to think that a ban on assault rifles will affect mass murders in any way. You seem to think it will have some affect on deterring the nuts from committing the murders they have planned.

I don't agree with that at all, because I live in the real world. I mentioned the shotgun as an example of another weapon that can be used. There's many more on the list.

The ban will accomplish NOTHING!! You can't see that. I'm not a liar about your intentions. I know what they are. I don't agree with you in any way, and i'm trying to show you how wrong you are.

Let me repeat so there's no misunderstandings. You think a ban on assault rifles will deter a mass murderer. I say it won't in any way, and the ban will lead to more bans. There are people in Washington that would like to see the US gunless. This ban is the start of it. Keep your head in the sand, and don't believe it.

As for your question on an assault rifle being used in home protection? It has nothing to do with this conversation, and doesn't deserve an answer. The question isn't why people buy assault rifles. The topic is...do they have the right to buy them?

[callmeslick]

I'll tell you where we disagree not so slick.

oh, boy, we start out with some half-witted putdown. Good out of the gate.....

You seem to think that a ban on assault rifles will affect mass murders in any way. You seem to think it will have some affect on deterring the nuts from committing the murders they have planned.

yes, you are correct, I do think that will have that exact effect.

I don't agree with that at all, because I live in the real world. I mentioned the shotgun as an example of another weapon that can be used. There's many more on the list.

and yet, shotguns, for example, have never been used to murder dozens of people. High capacity handgus, yes, in a couple cases, but not shotguns. Buzz, you aren't the only one living in the real world. It's just that a lot of us use that experience to think about bettering it. You, apparently couldn't care less.

The ban will accomplish NOTHING!! You can't see that. I'm not a liar about your intentions. I know what they are. I don't agree with you in any way, and i'm trying to show you how wrong you are.

sorry, I disagree, and Res made a valid point when he stated that you have no basis to make that claim until after the ban goes into effect for a few years.

Let me repeat so there's no misunderstandings. You think a ban on assault rifles will deter a mass murderer. I say it won't in any way, and the ban will lead to more bans. There are people in Washington that would like to see the US gunless. This ban is the start of it. Keep your head in the sand, and don't believe it.

care to cite examples of people in power who espouse banning all gun ownership in the US.....which would, as we both know, entail repeal of the 2nd Amendment? Hell, find me one prominent, influence-maker that suggests such a thing...your view is nothing short of paranoid lunacy, which I understand to a great extent is fueled by the NRA/gun loon movement. Too bad you fell for it.

As for your question on an assault rifle being used in home protection? It has nothing to do with this conversation, and doesn't deserve an answer. The question isn't why people buy assault rifles. The topic is...do they have the right to buy them?

geez, if that isn't pertinent, I couldn't imagine what is. The whole point IS EXACTLY that the 2nd amendment doesn't preclude restrictions and regulations on the type of gun available. And, hell, there is 250 years of legal precedent to demonstrate that fact. And what isn't demonstrated by you, or anyone else here, is that ownership of that class of weapons serves more positive purpose than negative for the naton as a whole. You know, the nation governed by a Constitution which mandates the government to act on behalf of the General Welfare of the nation.