Sarah Palin??

Originally posted by Robtard
Another senseless thought, no surprise. It's not a matter of the "world ending", it's a matter of personal freedom, having the right to protect yourself, sporting/hunting and the fact that the vast majority of noncriminals (criminals would own a gun regardless of the law, since they're criminals) who own guns, do not use them to kill people, another fact, which you'll disagree with and probably rant that your average American gun-owner randomly shoots people.

Wait, now you're okay with people owning guns; just as long as they use them for nonviolent activities? Guess what, the vast majority of gun-owners already do that, you moron. Funny, you just proved yourself and your previous idiotic rants to be just that, idiotic, good job.

ur retarted. try and UNDERSTAND what words mean before posting replies, either that or ur intentionally trying to misunderstand what i say.

ok so it isnt about magnitude of the consequences to you, its about personal FREEDOM{burn this sentence in your head now and hold the thought, so you dont start going around in circles again}. ok, so AGAIN, if the possible consequences of owning a gun{which i think are too severe} arent a problem for you and only personal FREEDOM to do so is a factor in owning guns, then why oh WHY do you have a problem with people owning nukes{since you already neglected the severity of consequences, so u have no right to point to them here} since it isnt about "world ending stuff" but about PERSONAL FREEDOM. and looking at that aspect alone, a guy shud have just as much right to own a lethal handgun, as a nuclear weapon.

im not ok with PEOPLE owning guns. didnt you READ what i wrote. as long as guns dont LEAVE the shooting ranges, theyr ok. meaning, you cant carry em around with you or keep em in your house or place of work etc, nowhere other than the shooting ranges, if your trigger finger really does itch uncontrollably. so really, whose the idiot?

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm affraid I can't comprehend your logic. Many police use non-lethal weapons when confronting a crowd of protestors. But to say that a tazer will suffice in hunting is kind of out there. It's hard to skin and eat a deer that is waking up from a good tazering.

no i meant to use tazers and other non lethal weapons for self DEFENCE. im not saying you shud hunt with tazers. ive made my stance on hunting clear elsewhere. the RIGHT to hunt isnt greater than the right of the public to feal safe in their own country.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no they are personal oppinions LACKING any facts to back em up.

yes and if ud READ what i wrote before, ud know that i said the even BARRING any moral issues reguarding hunting, the simple FREEDOM that people feal they ought to have in regards of hunting what they want isnt justification enough to own guns as doing so tramples on the much BIGGER right of the population in general to feal safe in their country{which gun ownership seriously threatens}.

fact: tasers have more stopping power than 9 mm, until you can learn to accept this fact, theres no point in continuing the debate. and its more than enough for DEFENCE.

you havent given me any known fact, infact you deny known facts and go in circles while chasing your own tail.

There's no use continuing this, you do this each and every time you rant about your feelings and how they should translate onto others, simply because you personally feel that way. Many a poster has experienced this from you.

You make idiotic and unfounded analogies and false claims, all the while ignoring the fact-based arguments against your little feeble points; it just goes around in circles.

To sum up what you said:

A) 'People will want the right to own a nuclear weapon is they're allowed a gun!' Fact: There is logical reasons for a private citizen owning a gun (eg hunting sporting, home defense), while there isn't for owning nukes or bombs.

B) 'Hunting is immoral and people shouldn't have to be fearful of others owning hunting rifles!' Fact: Your morals are irrelevant and hunting is a necessity in certain areas.

C) 'A taser is good enough for self-defense!" Fact: A 9mm or shotgun is better for home defense. A taser generally has one shot and if you're facing a gun-wielding criminal(s) intent on doing you harm, you'll most likely lose with your little taser.

Now considering your three rants and the three known facts I brought up as a counter, you are once again an illogical ranter, you moron.

Edit: My apologies to others for taking several pages of this thread off-topic, but someone has to debunk this whiny idiot.

There's no use continuing this, you do this each and every time you rant about your feelings and how they should translate onto others, simply because you personally feel that way. [u]Many a poster has experienced this from you.

lets see you prove that. oh wait, i asked u earlier and u didnt either. tut tut.

You make idiotic and unfounded analogies and false claims, all the while ignoring the fact-based arguments against your little feeble points; it just goes around in circles.

evidence? oh i see, so its another biased oppinion.

To sum up what you said:

you have terrible comprehensive and summary skills.

A) 'People will want the right to own a nuclear weapon is they're allowed a gun!' Fact: There is logical reasons for a private citizen owning a gun, while there isn't for owning nukes or bombs.

already dealt with, there are no logical reasons when no lethal alternatives of equal or greater effectiveness are available. ur posting wrong oppinions as fact

B) 'Hunting is immoral and wrong!' Fact: Your morals are irrelevant and hunting is a necessity in certain areas.

so you forgot to read the entire part where i wasnt talking about anything based in morality concerning hunting. you intentionally trying to argue fallaciously

C) 'A taser is good enough for self-defense!" Fact: A 9mm or shotgun is better, a taser generally has one shot and if you're facing a gun-wielding criminal intent on doing you harm, you'll most likely lose with your little taser.

lie. FACT: tazers have more stopping power than 9mm handguns. {no1 is talking about shotguns, handguns are already excessive when it comes to self defence} , and self DEFENCE doesnt require drawn out gunfights. and if your worried about nto having multiple shots then buy a rubber/pepper bullet gun.

Now considering your three rants and the three known facts I brought up as a counter, you are once again an illogical ranter, you moron.

u mean the three lies based in nuthing factual........

So sensible gun/weapons regulations don't exist (A)? Hunting isn't ever necessary(B)? Tasers and air rifles are more effective at protection yourself from a criminal armed with a gun(C)?

You have yet to counter anything, all you do is retort with "guns should be banned because people shouldn't feel threatened by others who have guns", which is nothing more than your personal feelings, ie idiocy.

Edit: Oh, that bit about this being a common thing with you, Bardock42 has personally felt this same type of nonsense from you in other threads, where you make a stupid claim and then ignore the facts that used to counter it while continueing that same stupid claim (as you are now). He isn't the only one either.

Originally posted by Robtard
So sensible gun/weapons regulations don't exist (A)? Hunting isn't ever necessary(B)? Tasers and air rifles are more effective at protection yourself from a criminal armed with a gun(C)?

You have yet to counter anything, all you do is retort with "guns should be banned because people shouldn't feel threatened by others who have guns", which is nothing more than your personal feelings, ie idiocy.

Edit: Oh, that bit about this being a common thing with you, Bardock42 has personally felt this same type of nonsense from you in other threads, where you make a stupid claim and then ignore the facts that used to counter it while continueing that same stupid claim (as you are now). He isn't the only one either.

yep {only hunting maybe SUMTIMES necessary, although that alone isnt justification enough to let people own guns}

it isnt a personal fealing, people have a right to feal safe as far as their life and those of their loved ones go inside their country. nice try

bardock and you are similar so i dont see the problem.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yep {only hunting maybe SUMTIMES necessary, although that alone isnt justification enough to let people own guns}

it isnt a personal fealing, people have a right to feal safe as far as their life and those of their loved ones go inside their country. nice try

bardock and you are similar so i dont see the problem.

There is a serious lack of natural predators in America, mainly because they were killed off. Hunting keeps populations of prey-animals in control so ducks, deer etc. don't over-populate and become a serious problem. Of course you'll ignore this fact. Also, people have a right to hunt for food and sport (I dont agree here, but that's not a reason to deny others), of course your feelings about hunting trump the freedom of others.

People already do feel safe in America and America has more guns than people, whoa. Of course you'll ignore this and you'll also ignore the fact the the vast majority of gun owners never use their guns to shoot people.

So, what would you do with a taser if a couple of armed criminals entered your home with the intent of harming you, taser-boy?

Yeah, we bring up points that are backed up by facts, while you rant idiocy.

Originally posted by Robtard
There is a serious lack of natural predators in America, mainly because they were killed off. Hunting keeps populations of prey-animals in control so ducks, deer etc. don't over-populate and become a serious problem. Of course you'll ignore this fact. Also, people have a right to hunt for food and sport (I dont agree here, but that's not a reason to deny others), of course your feelings about hunting trump the freedom of others.

People already do feel safe in America and America has more guns than people, whoa. Of course you'll ignore this and you'll also ignore the fact the the vast majority of gun owners never use their guns to shoot people.

So, what would you do with a taser if a couple of armed criminals entered your home with the intent of harming you, taser-boy?

Yeah, we bring up points that are backed up by facts, while you rant idiocy.

again, the problem is manmade with better solution then hunting

lmoa, newsflash, they dont. or they wudnt want to keep GUNS.

taze one and imrovise with the other. odds are itll be as effective as a handgun in general. whatll you do if you had a shotgun, its a more important question?

no you dont, your an amalgamation of pure cynicism, pleasing urself by putting people down, inexcused rudeness and not giving a damn. thats fine usually, until the time it starst affecting ur mental capacities.

I do find it interesting that when people talk about gun laws the subject of hunting always comes up. You don't often here of people getting shot by deer rifles or hunting guns. I don't think that they are the fire arms that are being used in the crimes people are most often concerned about...yet they're always brought into the argument.

I could care less if my neighbour owns a winchester 3030 lever action rifle. It'd concern the hell out of me if he had a collection of automatic rifles or assault weapons though.

^thats because supporters of the second ammendment will bring in anything to help them win the argument, reguardless of any significance to the problem of guns in question.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I do find it interesting that when people talk about gun laws the subject of hunting always comes up. You don't often here of people getting shot by deer rifles or hunting guns. I don't think that they are the fire arms that are being used in the crimes people are most often concerned about...yet they're always brought into the argument.

I could care less if my neighbour owns a winchester 3030 lever action rifle. It'd concern the hell out of me if he had a collection of automatic rifles or assault weapons though.

Exactly, that's reasonable gun regulations. Allowing citizens a 9mm for home defense/target practice and a rifle for hunting is logical. There's no reason why a private citizen needs a full-auto MP5 or .50 caliber sniper rifle though.

Outlawing guns completely like the clown-shoe insist, isn't reasonable.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^thats because supporters of the second ammendment will bring in anything to help them win the argument, reguardless of any significance to the problem of guns in question.

You do realize that his viewpoint doesn't support your "no guns!" rant, right?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
again, the problem is manmade with better solution then hunting

lmoa, newsflash, they dont. or they wudnt want to keep GUNS.

taze one and imrovise with the other. odds are itll be as effective as a handgun in general. whatll you do if you had a shotgun, its a more important question?

no you dont, your an amalgamation of pure cynicism, pleasing urself by putting people down, inexcused rudeness and not giving a damn. thats fine usually, until the time it starst affecting ur mental capacities.

Like what, birth control for the animals?

Not all people keep guns because they have a desperate fear of being killed. In fact, I'd wager that those that own a gun for home-protection aren't scared on a daily basis, they have it for a "just in case I ever need it" reasoning.

"taze one and imrovise with the other". Hahahahahahah, what a moron you are. Face it, you'd end up getting shot.

First of all, you started the insults by calling me "retarted(sic)", you bold-faced liar. Secondly, my points to counter yours are logical, you just rant.

Originally posted by Robtard
Like what, birth control for the animals?

Not all people keep guns because they have a desperate fear of being killed. In fact, I'd wager that those that own a gun for home-protection aren't scared on a daily basis, they have it for a "just in case I ever need it" reasoning.

"taze one and imrovise with the other". Hahahahahahah, what a moron you are. Face it, you'd end up getting shot.

First of all, you started the insults by calling me "retarted(sic)", you bold-faced liar. Secondly, my points to counter yours are logical, you just rant.

nuthing which ur one track mind can comprehend im sure

fact is, among civilised countries, america is one of the most unsafe in the world with an etremely high crime rate. which is all that was bing discussed

and what would you do assuming you had a handgun? besides, instances with multiple robbers are rarer than single burglars. agains, the problem of having the weapon available at arms length at the exact time and then going on to shoot and kill all the robbers before they kill u or ur family{which they definately will after u start shooting em}, still remains, so it doesnt count towards SAFETY. besides, i cud just use a gun with pepper/rubber bullets if im worried about ammo.

first of all, no, u poked ur nose in, regurgitating insults and mockery on how i was the guy who said suicide wasnt a choice etc etc and calling me stupid blah blah blah. its a habit of urs, and personally i dont give an F, as long as u dont start playing the retarted victim. and again, care to proce those personal attacks with a shred of evidence or is it ur ass talking as usual?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the retarted victim

😆
That's funny.

Wouldn't have been half as funny with the "d" though.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
fact is, among civilised countries, america is one of the most unsafe in the world with an etremely high crime rate. which is all that was bing discussed

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and what would you do assuming you had a handgun?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
besides, instances with multiple robbers are rarer than single burglars.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
agains, the problem of having the weapon available at arms length at the exact time and then going on to shoot and kill all the robbers before they kill u or ur family{which they definately will after u start shooting em}, still remains, so it doesnt count towards SAFETY. besides, i cud just use a gun with pepper/rubber bullets if im worried about ammo.

Originally posted by Robtard
Like what, birth control for the animals?

Yeah. We should do it Jurassic Park style; make all the deer and gamefoul female.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
😆
That's funny.

Wouldn't have been half as funny with the "d" though.

What the hell do teachers do now adays?

Meh, I think most people would agree that leon just claims to have logically proven something. I don't see any fact in those claims though.

He makes some points that obviously have to be considered, then Robtard makes points that have to be considered. Then leon pretends that those points don't have to be considered cause he is the master of the universe and therefore in charge of weighing arguments.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Besides, I thought the pen is mightier than the sword.

Yeah, you probably should look into that whole "famous sayings not necessarily truths" thing.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nuthing which ur one track mind can comprehend im sure

fact is, among civilised countries, america is one of the most unsafe in the world with an etremely high crime rate. which is all that was bing discussed

and what would you do assuming you had a handgun? besides, instances with multiple robbers are rarer than single burglars. agains, the problem of having the weapon available at arms length at the exact time and then going on to shoot and kill all the robbers before they kill u or ur family{which they definately will after u start shooting em}, still remains, so it doesnt count towards SAFETY. besides, i cud just use a gun with pepper/rubber bullets if im worried about ammo.

first of all, no, u poked ur nose in, regurgitating insults and mockery on how i was the guy who said suicide wasnt a choice etc etc and calling me stupid blah blah blah. its a habit of urs, and personally i dont give an F, as long as u dont start playing the retarted victim. and again, care to proce those personal attacks with a shred of evidence or is it ur ass talking as usual?

Hahaha, I see, you don't have an answer to back up your whimsical spouting, nothign new.

Oh, now it's "civilized countries", considering what you said is true, the 'America is unsafe with a high crime rate' bit, banning guns won't stop the use of guns in crimes, as criminals break the law regardless.

What would I do if an armed criminal(s) broke into my house and I was armed? I would use the gun as a deterrent and as self-defense if necessary, which a 9mm is far more effective than a one-shot taser. Hearing a gun go off is more threatening than aiming a taser at someone else armed with a gun, another fact.

You pathetic little liar, you insulted me first by calling me "retarted(sic)", because I said your "points failed" in regards to banning guns. Someone else brought up your other failed points on suicide.

Seriously, it's one thing to misspell a word, but to keep on doing it even after you know it is misspelled, that pretty much says you are in fact, retarDed.