Support NeoGAF

[Seeds]

Reply to post about 0 mass shootings with article of a 0 death mass needle stabbing -> Accuse other of not reading an article.

I wonder if he knows what he's doing is incredibly annoying, or if he actually thinks it's a good strategy.

You can only answer questions by asking your own irrelevant questions for so long before you start being ignored.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Reply to post about 0 mass shootings with article of a 0 death mass needle stabbing -> Accuse other of not reading an article.

Did you read the article?

 

[HyperionX]

No shit. I never said my position was unique. I know it's not. Neither is yours. Why even bring that up when it's a given on both sides of this debate. What, I'm not suppose to take a position I agree with because it happens to cross a line on the political spectrum? What a narrow minded thing to think, lol. Do you tow the "Liberal" line across the board "just because" without actually asking yourself if you agree or disagree? This isn't about liberal or conservative to me. Drop the labels.

I choose not too. Because for a liberal you are basically choosing to be someone on the level of a tea party member here. Either you've been badly misinformed in life or that really is how you think about the world.

Oh stop. I didn't say that. My point is law abiding gun owners aren't the reason why criminals are picking up weapons and using them. We can address a huge myriad of reasons why crime is what it is and deal with it and poverty together as a society without insisting that people give up their 2nd Amendment Rights.

Not to get into a semantics war, but yes you did. You've raised the 2nd amendment to a level that all other ideas must be tried before we even attempt gun control. Furthermore, you've conveniently absolved gun owners of any blame on the matter.

But is that's what your argument is really about? I assume by "affect" you essentially mean "disarm", correct? That's what you're dancing around here, right? In your mind legal, law following gun owners should give up their right to self defense for the "greater good"? Right? Just so we're clear?

You have no need for self-defense. It's the crazy, paranoid thinking among gun owners that lead people to think this. Meanwhile, thousands of people are dying every year to feed this fear.

My position is that I have a fundamental right to protect myself and my family. Period. I'm not picking up my shotgun and going on a killing spree so why am I being put on the spot as if my ownership of my gun somehow is making some douchebag pick up a fucking sawed off and kill a store clerk? Why the default association? Because we both own guns and without them he wouldn't rob and steal? Because it'd make robbing and stealing a bit harder? Because then he couldn't kill people via any other means? No. I'll never ever agree ever that a decent, mentally stable, responsible person should be forced to completely give up their 2A rights. Ever.

You have never, ever used a gun to defend yourself or your family. And likely never will. There are far more effective and realistic ways of defending your family from harm. Again, this is the right-wing craziness that feed this mentality to convincing them to buy millions of guns. While you have never shot someone, by having a society that has so many with so few restrictions, you've enabled criminals to do a lot harm than they normally would.

As far as the thread topic specifically. If your point were valid then non of those school shooting would have happened since they were just about ALL gun free zones. Didn't seem to work, did it? Maybe someone with a gun would have kept the body count far lower. Maybe not. But we'll never know.

I agree. If someone commits a murder you don't make murder MORE fucking illegal? Do you? You find the murderer and deal with them. But that seems to be what people want to do with the Gun laws on the books. Criminals ignore gun rules? ADD MORE GUN RULES!!!!!

Why can't guys like you at least admit gun laws are actually very lax. If you start out with the assumption that we have too many then we're not going to get anywhere.

 

[HyperionX]

When we address:

-Poverty
-The disparity in earning capability in the middle and lower income class
-Gender inequality in the workforce
-Absent father not raising their kids
-The drug war that keeps a system full of young no violent drug offenders and turns em vicious bitter people with no hope of meaningful employment

I'll be more than willing to sit down and discuss the role of firearm ownership in that utopia.

This is what I was trying to get at before. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be for society to solve all of those problems? Gun regulation would be a far more straightforward and effective way to reduce the murder rate. At least put the issue of excessive gun ownership on that list so we tackle all of the above at once.

 

[pigeon]

This is what I was trying to get at before. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be for society to solve all of those problems? Gun regulation would be a far more straightforward and effective way to reduce the murder rate. At least put the issue of excessive gun ownership on that list so we tackle all of the above at once.

This is bizarrely shortsighted thinking. Social justice is a real problem that affects every part of American society, including, yes, urban violence. Focusing on gun ownership is simply blinding yourself to the real issues that cause violence and disenfranchisement. It strikes me as a rather privileged viewpoint. If the problems are due to social issues, then removing guns won't solve them, it'll just make them take new form.

When I lived in Santa Cruz, I remember reading an editorial about the increasing Latino gang activity in the area, that insisted the right thing to do would be to RICO them and throw the whole gang in jail. Sure, if you're a white guy living in Santa Cruz. But the reason there's more Latinos in gangs isn't because they're not getting arrested enough, it's because they can't get out of Beach Hill because Santa Cruz is aggressively segregated and has lousy job opportunities. Those are the problems to address. This strikes me as exactly the same style of response.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You need a gun to protect you from the poor, women, people raised fatherless , and convicted drug offenders?

You're being intentionally obtuse. Don't.

Don't pretend you don't understand the point I'm trying to make that poverty leads to crime and if we address the poverty that leads to crime that will have FAR more of a better impact on reducing things such as robbery, burglary...etc that saying "Criminals are doing bad things with guns, quick! Take away all the guns from law abiding citizens so they can't protect themselves! Obviously the criminals will follow along too!"

I keep a gun because it's my right to where I live and I chose to utilize that right. I will protect my family until death. Period. I'm not going to sit tight and "hope" the police arrive in time.

Police don't prevent crime. They react to it.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

This is bizarrely shortsighted thinking. Social justice is a real problem that affects every part of American society, including, yes, urban violence. Focusing on gun ownership is simply blinding yourself to the real issues that cause violence and disenfranchisement. It strikes me as a rather privileged viewpoint. If the problems are due to social issues, then removing guns won't solve them, it'll just make them take new form.

When I lived in Santa Cruz, I remember reading an editorial about the increasing Latino gang activity in the area, that insisted the right thing to do would be to RICO them and throw the whole gang in jail. Sure, if you're a white guy living in Santa Cruz. But the reason there's more Latinos in gangs isn't because they're not getting arrested enough, it's because they can't get out of Beach Hill because Santa Cruz is aggressively segregated and has lousy job opportunities. Those are the problems to address. This strikes me as exactly the same style of response.

This is very true along with population densisty because if it was guns and laws alone, then Vermont, one of the most liberal states in the nation, should be a charnel house.
Vermont Gun Laws

That is what is infuraiting about "Gun Control" Advocates is that it treats a complex issue as a simple one. If you don't want STDs or unwanted pregenacy, only preach abstenice and nothing else.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

This is what I was trying to get at before. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be for society to solve all of those problems? Gun regulation would be a far more straightforward and effective way to reduce the murder rate. At least put the issue of excessive gun ownership on that list so we tackle all of the above at once.

The problems are complex. But the "Feel Good" reaction to "ban all the bad things from everyone because guns are all bad in all situations and have no capacity for good ever!" isn't a realistic solution.

Actually, could you define "excessive" for me?

-Is owning a gun excessive?
-Is open carry of a handgun excessive?
-Is conceal carry of a handgun excessive?
-Is carrying a weapon in places where it's not legally prohibited excessive?
-Is robbing a person with a weapon because you can't find a job and your kid needs meds excessive?
-Is defending yourself with a firearm excessive?

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

You use it to present and make false allusions about homicide rates in the two countries

Not unlike using land area states to present and make false allusions about gun store prevalence. That bastard...

You're absolutely right we should address and treat the factors that prompt an individual to walk into a school with the intent to hurt others. That's undeniable and - dare I say it in a Manos thread - obvious. You'll get no argument from me. What we want to do is remove the conveniences that make mowing down handfuls of people in a public place as easy as holding a trigger. Wanna know how many people James Holmes can wound with a gun? 71 Wanna hedge bets at how many he could have hurt with a knife? 5? 6 if the skinny guy was lucky? How many of those were likely to die. We'll never know, but I'd bet the house it would be a damn-sight shorter than 12

THIS.

How many schools are their in the United States?
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

Public Schools 98,706
Postsecondary Title IV institutions 6,632

So on average 5.5 school shooting incididents occured in 5.5 schools out of the 105,338 schools in the US. Yes that's pretty low.

You're hand-waving child massacres now? Fringe cases of questionable prison detainment in Japan (where nobody dies) are horrendous affronts to human dignity and rights, but child massacres IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY are okay??? Can you BE any more disingenuous, Manos?

Holy fuck.

That was going to be my initial response too.

You don't know? Really you didn't bother to look up anything about the gun? A 30-06 hunting rifle is powerful and you can buy that in the Parkling lot in Canda.

Why would I? It's irrelevant to my argument. And could you provide proof about the 30-06 hunting rifle being sold in Canadian parking lots?

Also how many crimes have been committed in the US using a .50 Caliber Rifle? How many?

I don't give a shit. All I know is that gun-related homicides are 6X higher than in Canada and 60X higher than in the UK. But keep harping senselessly about this one particular model...

Because you're being exposed.

<< checks zipper >> Oh, shit...

They cannot easily get them from legal means as the Statistics showsed. They can also legally not get them in the first place.

Wait... what? Which statistics show them not getting them via legal means?

I was right on all counts.

You're so pretty.

No, I did not know this. Did you know that you can do the same in the US?
Right so how can you claim there is something wrong unless you think guns and gun crime in Canada is a rampant problem. How many rifles were used in homoicides in Canada?

6X less than in the US.

It doesn't matter. Criminals don't get guns from legal means

The Today Show video that I linked to shows otherwise. I'm conflicted. Who do I believe? Manos? Or recorded video?

No, it shows they can't in anymore than 10% of the time legally get guns. It proofs the overwhelming source of guns for criminals are illegal.

Wait a min... What... the... FUCK. So now you've moved the goalposts AGAIN??? Are you for real? First you said that criminals can't buy guns. After that was debunked, you revised it and said that criminals can't buy guns legally. After THAT was debunked, you have now revised it AGAIN so that your stance is that criminals can't buy guns legally 90% of the time. No wonder you're never wrong! You keep moving the goalposts each successive time that you are proven wrong! In the SAME POST, you said that criminals cannot legally get guns, and then a couple of sentences later, you then said that criminals cannot legally get guns 90% of the time. You ACTUALLY MOVED THE GOALPOSTS IN THE SAME POST. Are you TROLLING, Manos? HOLY SHIT.

You've never hard of target guns or shotguns designed for clay shooting? I don't think those are designed to maim or kill/

And how many of these guns are used by criminals?

It shows you fixated on GUNS, and not CRIME. It exposes you as someone who doesn't care about the real issue and only on your fear of a tool.

Yes, you can tell from all of my posts that I am clearly someone who doesn't care. Thanks to this thread, you've given me one more tool to fear...

So perhaps the problem is the US needs to abloish laws on imported Semi-automatic rifles and barrel lengths?

Did I STUTTER? I don't know what the US needs to do to get them to stop slaughtering each other.

No I didn't, they are the main critics of John Lott's More Guns Less Crime Thesis. So stop ducking and answer the question.

Honestly, your question is gibberish. When you try to talk like an adult by using big words, it comes out as incomprehensible. It all comes back to your problem with reading comprehension. Moving the goalposts is a massive problem as well. Seriously, Manos. SERIOUSLY, just re-phrase the question. It's all moot anyway because I'm just going to copy and paste what other people have said anyway. THAT'S MY ANSWER. Or am I supposed to say something different than them?

Stop ducking and answer the questions, we're just getting started.

Okay, now I'm thinking that this is more trolling. I answered ALL of your questions and you reply with this shit.


Notice how Manos, upon realizing that I've got him cornered with my line of questioning, suddenly decided to ignore my STEP 3 question and decided to move the goalposts AGAIN in order to save face. Absolutely disgusting. Disingenuous is not a harsh enough word...

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

How about stabbings..from just this June.
Nottinghamshire police investigates claims that teenager stabbed at least 20 fellow pupils with medical needle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/15/boy-arrested-school-needle-stabbings

Oh, pleeeeease. And how many stabbings were done using plastic picnic knives?

Reply to post about 0 mass shootings with article of a 0 death mass needle stabbing -> Accuse other of not reading an article.

Manos would make a GREAT meme!

 

[Dude Abides]

This is bizarrely shortsighted thinking. Social justice is a real problem that affects every part of American society, including, yes, urban violence. Focusing on gun ownership is simply blinding yourself to the real issues that cause violence and disenfranchisement. It strikes me as a rather privileged viewpoint. If the problems are due to social issues, then removing guns won't solve them, it'll just make them take new form.

When I lived in Santa Cruz, I remember reading an editorial about the increasing Latino gang activity in the area, that insisted the right thing to do would be to RICO them and throw the whole gang in jail. Sure, if you're a white guy living in Santa Cruz. But the reason there's more Latinos in gangs isn't because they're not getting arrested enough, it's because they can't get out of Beach Hill because Santa Cruz is aggressively segregated and has lousy job opportunities. Those are the problems to address. This strikes me as exactly the same style of response.

This is the nirvana fallacy. Either gun control would reduce the rate of unlawful gun violence or it wouldn't. Restrictions on guns stand or fall on their its own merits without reference to whether some jobs program or other policy would also reduce gun violence.

Regarding the source of guns, don't most criminals who use a gun get them from a friend or family member? Why are so many gun owners so cavalier about who they'll lend their gun to?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Not unlike using land area states to present and make false allusions about gun store prevalence. That bastard...

THIS.

You're hand-waving child massacres now? Fringe cases of questionable prison detainment in Japan (where nobody dies) are horrendous affronts to human dignity and rights, but child massacres IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY are okay??? Can you BE any more disingenuous, Manos?

That was going to be my initial response too.

Why would I? It's irrelevant to my argument. And could you provide proof about the 30-06 hunting rifle being sold in Canadian parking lots?

I don't give a shit. All I know is that gun-related homicides are 6X higher than in Canada and 60X higher than in the UK. But keep harping senselessly about this one particular model...

<< checks zipper >> Oh, shit...

Wait... what? Which statistics show them not getting them via legal means?

You're so pretty.

6X less than in the US.

The Today Show video that I linked to shows otherwise. I'm conflicted. Who do I believe? Manos? Or recorded video?

Wait a min... What... the... FUCK. So now you've moved the goalposts AGAIN??? Are you for real? First you said that criminals can't buy guns. After that was debunked, you revised it and said that criminals can't buy guns legally. After THAT was debunked, you have now revised it AGAIN so that your stance is that criminals can't buy guns legally 90% of the time. No wonder you're never wrong! You keep moving the goalposts each successive time that you are proven wrong! In the SAME POST, you said that criminals cannot legally get guns, and then a couple of sentences later, you then said that criminals cannot legally get guns 90% of the time. You ACTUALLY MOVED THE GOALPOSTS IN THE SAME POST. Are you TROLLING, Manos? HOLY SHIT.

And how many of these guns are used by criminals?

Yes, you can tell from all of my posts that I am clearly someone who doesn't care. Thanks to this thread, you've given me one more tool to fear...

Did I STUTTER? I don't know what the US needs to do to get them to stop slaughtering each other.

Honestly, your question is gibberish. When you try to talk like an adult by using big words, it comes out as incomprehensible. It all comes back to your problem with reading comprehension. Moving the goalposts is a massive problem as well. Seriously, Manos. SERIOUSLY, just re-phrase the question. It's all moot anyway because I'm just going to copy and paste what other people have said anyway. THAT'S MY ANSWER. Or am I supposed to say something different than them?

Okay, now I'm thinking that this is more trolling. I answered ALL of your questions and you reply with this shit.


Notice how Manos, upon realizing that I've got him cornered with my line of questioning, suddenly decided to ignore my STEP 3 question and decided to move the goalposts AGAIN in order to save face. Absolutely disgusting. Disingenuous is not a harsh enough word...

Oh look more non answers and evasions. Why am I not surprised? I wish you would quit lying about my past answers and what I said and trying to spin my correct answers as if they were wrong when they were correct.

Maybe you should spend some time trying to learn more about the things you want to ban and maybe people will take you a little bit more seriously. You may also want to tone down bolding and underlining so much of your writing. Comes off like ranting and raving.

 

[HyperionX]

The problems are complex. But the "Feel Good" reaction to "ban all the bad things from everyone because guns are all bad in all situations and have no capacity for good ever!" isn't a realistic solution.

There is no "feel good" part about gun control. The only people with that kind of emotion are those with love affairs with their guns. And please stop stereotyping gun control advocate. You're turning into Eastwood with all that imaginary gun control people.

Actually, could you define "excessive" for me?

-Is owning a gun excessive?

A conditional statement. If a relative small number of people wanted to own guns with the level of restrictions and responsibility seen in numerous European states, that would not be excessive. Gun ownership on the level of the US is wholly unjustifiable.

-Is open carry of a handgun excessive?
-Is conceal carry of a handgun excessive?

Unless you are a cop or in real danger of being attacked, than yes.

-Is carrying a weapon in places where it's not legally prohibited excessive?

Depends on where that place is. If it is a school where the NRA has duped the state to legally carry guns, I'd say that's crazy. If you mean someplace where guns are actually justified, like a shooting range, that does not seem like a big deal.

-Is robbing a person with a weapon because you can't find a job and your kid needs meds excessive?

This could never be justified.

-Is defending yourself with a firearm excessive?

If it actually came down to that, no. However, we're not living in a warzone and we're not the police, so it is not a rational justification for owning a gun for most people.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Oh, hey, look! Here's the crib sheet that Manos keeps by his computer to help him with "debating":

Diabetic pen stabbing massacres are the stuff of nightmares. Columbine? Doesn't happen very often.
Only 4X more homicides in US? Pfft. Let's talk when it gets up to 45X.
Utilize distraction and misdirection techniques constantly.
Comprehension when reading is not important.
Hope that people don't notice when trying to delete embarrassing posts.
Even when somebody answers all of my questions, accuse them of not answering any of my questions.
Background checks keep guns out of criminals' hands... unless a background check is not necessary where they buy them.
All citations that link to pro gun control websites are immediately null and void. These stats are bogus by association.
Guns cannot be obtained by criminals... legally... 90% of the time.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

I wish you would quit lying about my past answers and what I said and trying to spin my correct answers as if they were wrong when they were correct.

Here are you past answers along with quotes from other posters for context. It's in chronological order:

If you lose a lighter or a pen or some other common household item, how hard do you think it would be for you to find one from somewhere else? I'm talking anywhere, be it a friend's house, a shop, a shady hideout, anywhere. Not that hard. And it's not because they're legal or illegal, but because they're so common.

That's the same thing with guns. Anyone can obtain one in America rather easily. It's much harder to obtain a car license than it is to obtain a gun permit, and most states have "shall issue" laws which make the process more streamlined and accessible than the DMV. Not to mention, in most states, private transfers of guns that are not going to be carried are completely unregulated.

Let's just say I was a convicted felon, and I have gone back into a life of crime. Because I have a record, I can not buy a firearm from a licensed dealer. In Minnesota, someone I know can go into a store and buy a gun for me, though. It doesn't have to be registered, and no permit or registration of the individual is necessary, either. Nor is any record of who bought what gun. Even pawn shops can buy and sell firearms. In private, the person who buys the gun sells me the gun. This may technically be illegal because I'm not supposed to own a gun, but it is done in private, so you're protected by the 4th amendment from having it found out. And depending on the wording of the laws about selling guns (for intance, if they discuss the transactions in general or the rules regulating licensed distributors, that could affect the applicability), that person may not have even committed a crime by selling it to me. Regardless, they're protected from having it found out by the system.

I now have a gun. Obviously, I'm not going to try to get a carry permit since I'm a felon and I wouldn't be able to get one, and I'd likely incriminate myself. But what's going to stop me from concealing and carrying it anyways? Again, I'm protected by the 4th amendment. You can't find out i'm carrying a gun illegally if I don't make it known or get caught doing something else.

So now that I have a gun, I begin using it during my robberies to ensure compliance by other people.

Eventually I get caught during a robbery, and this gets written off as a "bad guy" using guns, so the system is fine. After all, I'm not a good guy, and that invalidates any criticisms about how society helped enable me to become equipped thorugh lax gun control. Especially since I broke the law anyways by becoming equipped.

Do you see why "It doesn't matter if you outlaw guns, because then only the criminals will have them!" is a stupid idea?

Under current laws, you just need to know someone who can own a gun, someone who doesn't keep their guns locked up, somewhere a gun is stored, and you can obtian a gun, regardless of whether or not you should have one. And it's quite easy to find one. And you can hide the fact that you have a gun.

If there were stricter regulations on gun ownership, registration, transfers, distribution, it would reduce gun crime.

Oh give me a break most of what he posted was lies and inaccuracies. The fact you accept it so willingly is hillarious, Mr Peer Review. You cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person. Of course you aren't interested in the truth so I guess it's not an issue for you.

Manos: In your own EXACT words, YOU said "You cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person."

A little bit later, you reiterated your statement so that everybody was clear about your position on the matter:

I did, once again you are lying, I stated that you cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person. A really blatant and obvious. You accepted it with no need for any proof. You need to stop lying.

Manos: In YOUR OWN EXACT WORDS, YOU said, a SECOND TIME, that "you cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person."

A little bit later, I posted some links that showed that you CAN sell guns to a prohibited person. This was your response:

Was aired in 1995. Nice try with that 17 year old data. lol

You sourced something based on a Michael Bloomberg investigation LOL

Oh man I can't believe you would source from something that was paid for by the head of MAIG.

So sorry to tell you but I know a lot about the laws in this country, you know very little though about proper sourcing of your information and who to get you info from and US Gun Laws.

You cannot knowingly sell to a prohibited person...Gamieguy was wrong.

Oh man the 50 cal that can shot down a helicopter bullshit. lol

Better luck next time!

Manos: Notice how you've stealthily slipped in the word "knowingly" all of a sudden? You thought, or rather hoped, that nobody would notice, didn't you? You CLEARLY felt the need to add this extra stipulation after seeing that video and realizing that you CAN sell guns to criminals. Sneaky. This is the first time that you moved the goalposts in order to conform to your agenda.

A little later, another GAF poster can see where things are heading:

I'm drinking beers and enjoying watching Manos educate.. Please by all means, continue.

A little bit later, I called you out for using the desperate tactic of moving the goalposts:

Did you even WATCH the video? This was not a study. This was reality. It happened. It was recorded on video. You can see it with your own eyes. Hidden cameras caught several transactions where the seller sold guns to the buyer. The buyer even told the seller that he would not pass the screening process. The buyer sold the guns anyway. KNOWINGLY sold. And it's LEGAL. YOU ARE WRONG.

Guy with a camera. Recorded for everybody to see. How do you deny that?

Keep moving those goalposts. I like how we've gone from "you can't sell guns to a prohibited person" to "you can't knowingly sell guns to a prohibited" since you were proven wrong. Slimy and weaselly bullshit at its very best...

Manos: You used the disgusting, underhanded tactic of moving the goalposts after you found out that your statement was incorrect. I called out your bullshit. You changed the conditions of the argument so that it was now "knowingly sold" Even though this was a slimey and douchey move on your part, I graciously decided to include this stipulation. I did this because that same video CLEARLY shows the sellers KNOWINGLY selling their guns to people who are making it known to the seller that they are prohibited individuals. This is the SECOND time that your statement was proven WRONG. The first time, we proved that your very first statement was WRONG. You then revised your statement. Subsequently, I proved version two of your statement to be WRONG as well.

Let's see what you did next:

Yeah snd he BROKE the law if that is what occured. Though anything coming from bloomberg is suspect. Its like BreitBer and his Obama tape. LOL But the BATFE should investigate the person for violating Federal Laws. I dont see what the issue is

Do you really think a .50 cal can shoot down a helicopter like its a Manpad? I guess those Hawkens are really bad since theu were .54 cal...and you can get them in the mail with no 4473 and background check!

You know that according to the DOJ less thsn 1% of felons acquired guns from gun shows. 8% from retail stores. Thats it, the rest were stolen or illegaly acquired from people who shouldn't have given or sold the gun along with the black market.

Manos: In a truly bizarre twist, that is by far the greatest example ever of your poor reading comprehension skills, you posted the above. I've bolded the important part, which reveals that 1% of felons acquired guns from gun shows and 8% from retail stores. You know what? I'm feeling generous again. Let's just forget about the 8% figure. Let's just focus on the 1% of guns from gun shows. Therefore, YOUR stats show that 1% of felons acquired guns from gun shows, which is LEGAL.

Later on, you posted more stats which would ultimately, and ironically, become your undoing:

http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt

It was already less than 8.5 percent in 1997 and gun shows less than .7

Looks like most criminals get their guns from illegal sources or friends and family who shouldn't have given them a gun in the first place but not straw purchases.

Manos: By posting these stats, YOU yourself have admitted that 0.7% of criminals obtained guns LEGALLY from gun shows and 40% of criminals obtained guns LEGALLY as gifts from friends and family.

I then saw the following on YouTube and posted it:

Is this really legal?

Guns for Cash! No Background Check, no ID, AND IT'S ALL LEGAL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q&feature=related

Manos: This YouTube video shows several instances of sellers at a gun show KNOWINGLY and LEGALLY selling guns to buyers who are making it known to the sellers that they are prohibited individuals. In response to my question as to whether this practice was legal or not, you flippantly replied with some gibberish, but you didn't confirm or deny whether or not it WAS legal. Later, I asked you the same question again.

This was your response after I had to ask you a SECOND time whether or not the situations shown in the gun show video were legal or not. Judging by your response below, this is obviously the point at which a warm wetness spread over the crotch of your pants and down your left pant leg:

They cannot easily get them from legal means as the Statistics showsed. They can also legally not get them in the first place.

It doesn't matter. Criminals don't get guns from legal means

No, it shows they can't in anymore than 10% of the time legally get guns. It proofs the overwhelming source of guns for criminals are illegal.

Manos: HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system. Do you SEE what you've typed in this ONE POST? This is what you posted: "Criminals cannot easily get guns from legal means. No... wait! I mean... They can't legally get guns in the first place. Yeah, that's the ticket. No no no! Wait... What I REALLY meant to say is that criminals CAN get guns from legal means, but only 10% of the time!" YOU SEEM CONFUSED. This is now the SECOND TIME that you have moved the goalposts. You have now revised your statement AGAIN to include the term "legally". PATHETIC, not to mention DISTURBING that you would stoop to using these revisionist tactics.

Here is my reply to your complete and utter meltdown in logic:

Wait a min... What... the... FUCK. So now you've moved the goalposts AGAIN??? Are you for real? First you said that criminals can't buy guns. After that was debunked, you revised it and said that criminals can't buy guns legally. After THAT was debunked, you have now revised it AGAIN so that your stance is that criminals can't buy guns legally 90% of the time. No wonder you're never wrong! You keep moving the goalposts each successive time that you are proven wrong! In the SAME POST, you said that criminals cannot legally get guns, and then a couple of sentences later, you then said that criminals cannot legally get guns 90% of the time. You ACTUALLY MOVED THE GOALPOSTS IN THE SAME POST. Are you TROLLING, Manos? HOLY SHIT.

Manos: YOUR OWN POST above, shows that you are FUCKING CONFUSED. You contradicted yourself TWICE within ONE POST. I've also pointed out at this point that you've also managed to move the goalposts a THIRD TIME by revising your statement to include the term "10% of the time". It is PLAIN AS DAY that you made this COWARDLY revision AFTER you realized that you were WRONG about criminals not being able to acquire guns legally. In order to save face, you attempted to fool everybody here by saying that criminals CAN get guns legally, but only 10% of the time. SHENANIGANS.

And after you were called out on your BULLSHIT, this was your predictably pathetic response:

Oh look more non answers and evasions. Why am I not surprised? I wish you would quit lying about my past answers and what I said and trying to spin my correct answers as if they were wrong when they were correct.

Maybe you should spend some time trying to learn more about the things you want to ban and maybe people will take you a little bit more seriously. You may also want to tone down bolding and underlining so much of your writing. Comes off like ranting and raving.

The posters here in this thread are SMART, Manos. They know BULLSHIT when they SEE bullshit, no matter how much you deny it.


THE BOTTOM LINE: YOU originally said that criminals cannot acquire guns and that GaimeGuy was straight-up lying when he said that criminals CAN acquire guns. Via your usual repulsive revisionist tactics with each subsequent disproving of your claim, your statement mysteriously changed multiple times:

Original statement: Criminals cannot obtain guns.
First revised statement: Sellers cannot knowingly sell guns to criminals.
Second revised statement: Sellers cannot knowingly and legally sell guns to criminals.
Third revised statement: Criminals can legally obtain guns 10% of the time.

Using YOUR stipulations, Manos, and going by YOUR final revised statement, YOU have ADMITTED that GaimeGuy WAS RIGHT when he said that criminals can acquire guns. You have also CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. Way at the top of this post, YOU said that criminals cannot obtain guns. By the end of it, after slogging through all of your bullshit, YOU came to the conclusion that criminals CAN acquire guns (10% of the time). Therefore, YOU WERE WRONG.


Manos: YOU WERE WRONG. YOU IMPLICATED YOURSELF NO LESS. YOU LIED. GAIMEGUY WAS RIGHT. You have failed SPECTACULARLY.


P.S. - We haven't even TOUCHED on the topic of the video from the Today Show which shows how sellers exploit a legal loophole whereby guns can legally be sold through websites without any background checks to ANYbody. This is ANOTHER example that COMPLETELY DISPROVES the Manos claim that criminals cannot acquire guns.

 

[Panipal2009]

This really works both ways though. Both sides of the argument are motivated by fear of what other people might do. Manos worries about not being able to protect himself, yet he has never used his gun before in this manner. We worry about shooting sprees resulting in mass murders which happen far too frequently. It's paranoia on both sides of the argument.

Ah, the false equivalence fallacy. No, it doesn&#8217;t work both ways, since carrying guns for defence doesn&#8217;t make you any more paranoid than if you kept a fire extinguisher in the event of a house fire. &#8216;Paranoia&#8217; is what gun ban nuts say because they like to insult gun owners, and no matter how much they use it, it doesn&#8217;t make it true.

You have no need for self-defense. It's the crazy, paranoid thinking among gun owners that lead people to think this. Meanwhile, thousands of people are dying every year to feed this fear.

Um, what? You have no need of self-defence what? Did my last post (you know, where I in essense invited you to defend victim disarmament in ethical terms - which you might have realised an inability to do) bring on this crazed statement?

How does &#8216;you have no need for self-defence&#8217; even make sense? Do you actually believe the authorities can guarantee 100% perfect safety, and this is why people &#8216;have no need for self-defence&#8217;? Please do explain, if you can avoid going off the deep end again.

Also (for a new page!) you could also try answering the following additional points:-

Whose decision should that be? Theirs, or yours (or whoever imposes these laws you desire)?

Yes, gangbangers contribute nothing to this. It&#8217;s 100% the fault of lawful gun owners. Nice ploy, that, where you blame A for what B gets up to, because playing fair by A won&#8217;t get you what you want.

No sorry, there&#8217;s no getting around the fact that the gun control movement is driven by fear and panic of what you imagine other people might do. Like when your ilk promises wild West shootouts in the streets every day (that don&#8217;t happen) which is nothing more than (trying to whip up) fear and hysteria. Like when your ilk flings around accusations of &#8216;paranoia&#8217; so often that it becomes plain you&#8217;re simply projection your own feelings of fear, that motivate you, to avoid having to face them.

Whereas you care deeply about the negative effects of gun control/victim disarmament beyond your own personal need to feel (rather than be) safe, right? And that's why you're just full of ideas about how to mitigate the downside of victim disarmament, like the equivalent of gun owners promoting safe gun handling, right?

Or you could, y'know, not bother, and prove me right about gun ban nuts being thoroughly and utterly selfish, to the extent of willingness to trample on others for their own sake, and uninterested in anything that doesn't gain them or victim disarmament any benefits.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Holy shit

Clap clap clap clap

 

[HyperionX]

Um, what? You have no need of self-defence what? Did my last post (you know, where I in essense invited you to defend victim disarmament in ethical terms - which you might have realised an inability to do) bring on this crazed statement?

How does &#8216;you have no need for self-defence&#8217; even make sense? Do you actually believe the authorities can guarantee 100% perfect safety, and this is why people &#8216;have no need for self-defence&#8217;? Please do explain, if you can avoid going off the deep end again.

Also (for a new page!) you could also try answering the following additional points:-


Or you could, y'know, not bother, and prove me right about gun ban nuts being thoroughly and utterly selfish, to the extent of willingness to trample on others for their own sake, and uninterested in anything that doesn't gain them or victim disarmament any benefits.

These are utter strawmen positions. It is on par with me accusing you of intentionally arming felons, or accusing you of blaming 100% of murders on gun control advocates. These are not real positions anyone holds. Seriously, "victim disarmament"? That's about the most loaded phase imaginable.

I have a much better idea. Come up with real arguments. Otherwise, there is no point in discussing with you.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Manos: YOU WERE WRONG. YOU IMPLICATED YOURSELF NO LESS. YOU LIED. GAIMEGUY WAS RIGHT. You have failed SPECTACULARLY.

No I didn't, now will you kindly answer the questions at hand and stop with the non-answers and evasiveness.

The posters here in this thread are SMART, Manos. They know BULLSHIT when they SEE bullshit

Which is why you keep getting called out time and time again.

 

[Amir0x]

this shit has grown more and more entertaining. PeteZaTheHutt is now literally just using Manos words to show exactly how he is contradicting himself and moving the goal posts time and time again and Manos, who clearly exists in some alternate dimension where everyone in this topic isn't eviscerating him into bloody little ribbons of intestines and guts, just continues to deflect.

this is some of the most impressive bubble blowing I've ever seen. I almost have to admire Manos; this requires some level of stubbornness i'm not even sure I'm capable of.

 

[Delusibeta]

No I didn't, now will you kindly answer the questions at hand and stop with the non-answers and evasiveness.

Which is why you keep getting called out time and time again.

Can we ban this clown from making any more damn threads about guns, please. All he's interested in is encouraging flaming by throwing bullshit arguments, moving the goalposts and never admitting he might possibly be wrong. Or, in other words, trolling.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

this shit has grown more and more entertaining. PeteZaTheHutt is now literally just using Manos words to show exactly how he is contradicting himself and moving the goal posts time and time again and Manos, who clearly exists in some alternate dimension where everyone in this topic isn't eviscerating him into bloody little ribbons of intestines and guts, just continues to deflect.

this is some of the most impressive bubble blowing I've ever seen. I almost have to admire Manos; this requires some level of stubbornness i'm not even sure I'm capable of.

He hasn't done any such thing. lol He just constantly lies in every post so its like arguing with Paul Ryan.

I ask you again does you view on guns come from being a prohibited person or not?

Can we ban this clown from making any more damn threads about guns, please. All he's interested in is encouraging flaming by throwing bullshit arguments, moving the goalposts and never admitting he might possibly be wrong.

Why would I admit I'm wrong when I'm not?

 

[Delusibeta]

Why would I admit I'm wrong when I'm not?

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Amir0x]

He hasn't done any such thing. lol He just constantly lies in every post so its like arguing with Paul Ryan.

Manos, how is using your exact words without any editing 'lying'? I am genuinely curious. Help me see through your eyes. Source his work, show -precisely- where he is changing the meaning or intent of your posts (even when he is underlining the exact phrases where you moved the goalposts) so that you can help us understand where you're coming from. I cannot imagine where you're getting this perspective from, but I would surely be fascinated by the answers. I haven't seen an adequate post from you illustrating where he is going wrong with his interpretation.

I ask you again does you view on guns come from being a prohibited person or not?

You mean his view? I'm not a prohibited person.

 

[Messypandas]

Oh, hey, look! Here's the crib sheet that Manos keeps by his computer to help him with "debating":

Diabetic pen stabbing massacres are the stuff of nightmares. Columbine? Doesn't happen very often.
Only 4X more homicides in US? Pfft. Let's talk when it gets up to 45X.

Manos would make a GREAT meme!

I agree

 

[Jackpot]

I knew Manos would respond to Pete's great effort with a one liner that avoided addressing anything.

this shit has grown more and more entertaining. PeteZaTheHutt is now literally just using Manos words to show exactly how he is contradicting himself and moving the goal posts time and time again and Manos, who clearly exists in some alternate dimension where everyone in this topic isn't eviscerating him into bloody little ribbons of intestines and guts, just continues to deflect.

this is some of the most impressive bubble blowing I've ever seen. I almost have to admire Manos; this requires some level of stubbornness i'm not even sure I'm capable of.

nuh-uh, Manos is ripping our arguments apart as crowds cheer on and we're all cowering in fear!

 

[ghst]

Here are you past answers along with quotes from other posters for context. It's in chronological order:





Manos: In your own EXACT words, YOU said "You cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person."

A little bit later, you reiterated your statement so that everybody was clear about your position on the matter:



Manos: In YOUR OWN EXACT WORDS, YOU said, a SECOND TIME, that "you cannot sell a gun to a prohibited person."

A little bit later, I posted some links that showed that you CAN sell guns to a prohibited person. This was your response:



Manos: Notice how you've stealthily slipped in the word "knowingly" all of a sudden? You thought, or rather hoped, that nobody would notice, didn't you? You CLEARLY felt the need to add this extra stipulation after seeing that video and realizing that you CAN sell guns to criminals. Sneaky. This is the first time that you moved the goalposts in order to conform to your agenda.

A little later, another GAF poster can see where things are heading:



A little bit later, I called you out for using the desperate tactic of moving the goalposts:



Manos: You used the disgusting, underhanded tactic of moving the goalposts after you found out that your statement was incorrect. I called out your bullshit. You changed the conditions of the argument so that it was now "knowingly sold" Even though this was a slimey and douchey move on your part, I graciously decided to include this stipulation. I did this because that same video CLEARLY shows the sellers KNOWINGLY selling their guns to people who are making it known to the seller that they are prohibited individuals. This is the SECOND time that your statement was proven WRONG. The first time, we proved that your very first statement was WRONG. You then revised your statement. Subsequently, I proved version two of your statement to be WRONG as well.

Let's see what you did next:



Manos: In a truly bizarre twist, that is by far the greatest example ever of your poor reading comprehension skills, you posted the above. I've bolded the important part, which reveals that 1% of felons acquired guns from gun shows and 8% from retail stores. You know what? I'm feeling generous again. Let's just forget about the 8% figure. Let's just focus on the 1% of guns from gun shows. Therefore, YOUR stats show that 1% of felons acquired guns from gun shows, which is LEGAL.

Later on, you posted more stats which would ultimately, and ironically, become your undoing:



Manos: By posting these stats, YOU yourself have admitted that 0.7% of criminals obtained guns LEGALLY from gun shows and 40% of criminals obtained guns LEGALLY as gifts from friends and family.

I then saw the following on YouTube and posted it:



Manos: This YouTube video shows several instances of sellers at a gun show KNOWINGLY and LEGALLY selling guns to buyers who are making it known to the sellers that they are prohibited individuals. In response to my question as to whether this practice was legal or not, you flippantly replied with some gibberish, but you didn't confirm or deny whether or not it WAS legal. Later, I asked you the same question again.

This was your response after I had to ask you a SECOND time whether or not the situations shown in the gun show video were legal or not. Judging by your response below, this is obviously the point at which a warm wetness spread over the crotch of your pants and down your left pant leg:



Manos: HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Sorry, I just had to get that out of my system. Do you SEE what you've typed in this ONE POST? This is what you posted: "Criminals cannot easily get guns from legal means. No... wait! I mean... They can't legally get guns in the first place. Yeah, that's the ticket. No no no! Wait... What I REALLY meant to say is that criminals CAN get guns from legal means, but only 10% of the time!" YOU SEEM CONFUSED. This is now the SECOND TIME that you have moved the goalposts. You have now revised your statement AGAIN to include the term "legally". PATHETIC, not to mention DISTURBING that you would stoop to using these revisionist tactics.

Here is my reply to your complete and utter meltdown in logic:



Manos: YOUR OWN POST above, shows that you are FUCKING CONFUSED. You contradicted yourself TWICE within ONE POST. I've also pointed out at this point that you've also managed to move the goalposts a THIRD TIME by revising your statement to include the term "10% of the time". It is PLAIN AS DAY that you made this COWARDLY revision AFTER you realized that you were WRONG about criminals not being able to acquire guns legally. In order to save face, you attempted to fool everybody here by saying that criminals CAN get guns legally, but only 10% of the time. SHENANIGANS.

And after you were called out on your BULLSHIT, this was your predictably pathetic response:



The posters here in this thread are SMART, Manos. They know BULLSHIT when they SEE bullshit, no matter how much you deny it.


THE BOTTOM LINE: YOU originally said that criminals cannot acquire guns and that GaimeGuy was straight-up lying when he said that criminals CAN acquire guns. Via your usual repulsive revisionist tactics with each subsequent disproving of your claim, your statement mysteriously changed multiple times:

Original statement: Criminals cannot obtain guns.
First revised statement: Sellers cannot knowingly sell guns to criminals.
Second revised statement: Sellers cannot knowingly and legally sell guns to criminals.
Third revised statement: Criminals can legally obtain guns 10% of the time.

Using YOUR stipulations, Manos, and going by YOUR final revised statement, YOU have ADMITTED that GaimeGuy WAS RIGHT when he said that criminals can acquire guns. You have also CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. Way at the top of this post, YOU said that criminals cannot obtain guns. By the end of it, after slogging through all of your bullshit, YOU came to the conclusion that criminals CAN acquire guns (10% of the time). Therefore, YOU WERE WRONG.


Manos: YOU WERE WRONG. YOU IMPLICATED YOURSELF NO LESS. YOU LIED. GAIMEGUY WAS RIGHT. You have failed SPECTACULARLY.


P.S. - We haven't even TOUCHED on the topic of the video from the Today Show which shows how sellers exploit a legal loophole whereby guns can legally be sold through websites without any background checks to ANYbody. This is ANOTHER example that COMPLETELY DISPROVES the Manos claim that criminals cannot acquire guns.

nothing but dust remains. this post needs to be strung up on the town gates with a sign around in.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You mean his view? I'm not a prohibited person.

Yes you are due to your drug use.

nothing but dust remains. this post needs to be strung up on the town gates with a sign around in.

As what that Pete is a bit off his rocker his underlining and holding? Yeah, I agree with you there.

 

[Jackpot]

Manos, how is using your exact words without any editing 'lying'? I am genuinely curious. Help me see through your eyes. Source his work, show -precisely- where he is changing the meaning or intent of your posts (even when he is underlining the exact phrases where you moved the goalposts) so that you can help us understand where you're coming from. I cannot imagine where you're getting this perspective from, but I would surely be fascinated by the answers. I haven't seen an adequate post from you illustrating where he is going wrong with his interpretation.

.

Quit dodging the questions like you usually do.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

.

Quit dodging the questions like you usually do.

No, that's what Pete's been doing especially over the 50 cal rifle fuckup he made and got caught on.

 

[trineo_feo]

I agree

hahaha

 

[Jackpot]

No, that's what Pete's been doing especially over the 50 cal rifle fuckup he made and got caught on.

So you're dodging Amirox's question. If Pete lies so much it should be easy to take his post apart. Unless of course he isn't.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So you're dodging Amirox's question. If Pete lies so much it should be easy to take his post apart. .

Because I'm going to see Dredd soon and then take my daughter to a park with my wife, so in short, I've got far better things to do than arguing with a liar. One who already proved that he avoids answer questions and has no knowledge over the subject. The 50 cal fuckup and his attempts to twist my comments about Gamieguys lies.

 

[Messypandas]

Because I'm going to see Dredd soon and then take my daughter to a park with my wife, so in short, I've got far better things to do than arguing with a liar. One who already proved that he avoids answer questions and has no knowledge over the subject. The 50 cal fuckup and his attempts to twist my comments about Gamieguys lies.

So basically you got nothing. Classic denial, not of course unexpected

 

[Amir0x]

Yes you are due to your drug use.

I own a gun - an STI Tactical 4.15. As far as the government is concerned, I've never used a drug in my life. My record is squeaky clean on the matter. You see, these 'laws' are not particularly enforceable without any real way to police it, ya know? I didn't get drug tested when I purchased my gun. Nor did I get one when I got my carry permit. All I needed was a photo id, an application and a fee.

If you didn't know, I also work for the government - the U.S. Army, in fact - and hold a supervisory position. Mouth agape yet?

As what that Pete is a bit off his rocker his underlining and holding? Yeah, I agree with you there.

May I say for a moment "holy shit"?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So basically you got nothing. Classic denial, not of course unexpected

No, not in the least, you should try reading my old posts. Like the ones where you get clowned for trying to pass off the Good Friday Disarmament Accords as normal legislative acts.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I own a gun - an STI Tactical 4.15. As far as the government is concerned, I've never used a drug in my life. My record is squeaky clean on the matter. You see, these 'laws' are not particularly enforceable without any real way to police it, ya know? I didn't get drug tested when I purchased my gun. Nor did I get one when I got my carry permit. All I needed was a photo id, an application and a fee.

So you are admitting to possessing a weapon as a prohibited person and lying on a form 4473 and the PA LTCF in regards to your drug use? So you are admitting to numerous felons on this board right now?

If you didn't know, I also work for the government - the U.S. Army, in fact - and hold a supervisory position.

Yes, you've mentioned how you know when the drug tests are done so you can cheat them.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

I agree

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!! OMG!!! I'm laughing SO hard right now! Can you post a blank of that image with no text? Please please please please please please?

 

[Messypandas]

No, not in the least, you should try reading my old posts. Like the ones where you get clowned for trying to pass off the Good Friday Disarmament Accords as normal legislative acts.

Realistically yes, i've given you a model where it did work. Do you have evidence or an example to back up the fact it wouldn't? In the u.k people over-turned everything up to rocket launchers.

http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=15452

That's part of the Good Friday Agreement and not the same so it doesnt apply.. Though Handguns are still legal in NI.

Yeah you mean these posts right? Which if you actually read the link you'd see had nothing to do with the good friday agreement. This should have been a hint:

Deputy Chief Constable Alan Green from Greater Manchester Police, chair of the ACPO group on Criminal Use of Firearms, said it had been a "very encouraging start".

And I used it as an example of gun amnesties, which have been held routinely in Britain since Dunblaine

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!! OMG!!! I'm laughing SO hard right now! Can you post a blank of that image with no text? Please please please please please please?

 

[Amir0x]

So you are admitting to possessing a weapon and lying on a form 4473 and the PA LTCF in regards to your drug use? So you are admitting to numerous felons on this board right now?

Of course not, the law specifically states that you cannot be a user, it doesn't say you cannot have EVER been a user. And more specifically, the application only asks if you have ever been convicted of a crime related to drug use - and I have not. It only asks if you're addicted to any of these drugs, and I am not (addendum: was not at the time).

Edit: Found the exact questioning:

ARE YOU AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A HABITUAL DRUNKARD, OR WHO IS ADDICTED TO OR AN UNLAWFUL USER OF MARIJUANA OR A
STIMULANT, DEPRESSANT, OR NARCOTIC DRUG?

All that has to be is true when you make the application, and you're golden. Since everyone on the planet has at some point used marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug, including alcohol, it's a poor standard indeed.

So, I lied about nothing. HAD they tested me in the time I purchased the gun, I would have come out clean. That's the way the system works. It's a laughable system, but that's the one you want.

And unlike you, I don't ever intend to use it in some fit of paranoia or self-defense illusion; I just enjoy going to the shooting range with a few friends.

Yes, you've mentioned how you know when the drug tests are done so you can cheat them.

I've only ever got a drug test once when I was hired; they never drug test supervisors anyway unless there is a suspicion.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yeah you mean these posts right? Which if you actually read the link you'd see had nothing to do with the good friday agreement. This should have been a hint:



And I used it as an example of gun amnesties, which have been held routinely in Britain since Dunblaine

Oh yeah you're telling me a rocket launcher wasn't connected to the IRA? lol

 

[Messypandas]

Oh yeah you're telling me a rocket launcher wasn't connected to the IRA? lol

Which was handed in the west midlands? You know where that is right.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I've only ever got a drug test once when I was hired; they never drug test supervisors anyway unless there is a suspicion.

You don't say.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Which was handed in the west midlands? You know where that is right.

Once again why would someone in the UK have a rocket launcher?

 

[Amir0x]

You don't say.

'Tis the case. I have an exemplary record, and the only thing I ever was convicted of as a teenage was removed from my record so.

You'd agree the laws in the USA need to be stricter and more enforceable then, no?

Because I'm going to see Dredd soon and then take my daughter to a park with my wife, so in short, I've got far better things to do than arguing with a liar. One who already proved that he avoids answer questions and has no knowledge over the subject. The 50 cal fuckup and his attempts to twist my comments about Gamieguys lies.

Plus, I thought you were leaving for Dredd soon and you had no time to argue with him, but it seems you're still going strong?

It's pretty slimy to try to smear someone's record by calling them a "liar", and then claiming you don't have the time to show HOW he is a liar by claiming you have other business, and then proceeding to show you still had plenty of time by making more posts unrelated to the matter at hand.

You really are being transparent here, painfully so.

 

[Jackpot]

Oh yeah you're telling me a rocket launcher wasn't connected to the IRA? lol

Do you not know anything about the UK? Lots of Falkland soldiers brought home "souvenirs" that have ended up in the amnesties. You think the IRA had a monopoly on weapons?

Oh, right you don't, because you've never been outside the US.

And you don't have time to point out how a blatent liar is lying about you but you do have time to make many posts and a new thread? Pretty sleazy.

 

[Messypandas]

Once again why would someone in the UK have a rocket launcher?

Thats not what you asked though. You said the legislation was connected to the Good Friday Agreement which it isn't. Gun amnesties have been routinely held in Britain since Dunblaine

BA in Government and Law and History, MA in Poli Sci and a JD, and a member of the NY Bar.

I'm calling bullshit on all of this, you are not an educated man

You should probably head off for the park now Manos. Don't forget your gun

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

'Tis the case. I have an exemplary record, and the only thing I ever was convicted of as a teenage was removed from my record so.

Yes, but if you we're actually randomly drug test, do you think you'd pass?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I'm calling bullshit on all of this, you are not an educated man

Your problem not mine lol

 

[Amir0x]

Yes, but if you we're actually randomly drug test, do you think you'd pass?

It depends on the time in my life you caught me. Sometimes I would be clean, sometimes I would not be clean. The thing I use the most anymore is painkillers, and even that is isolated the two weekends a month and leaves your system extremely fast. I smoke weed occasionally, but not enough to always fail a test were it to come up. Right now I'd be right on the edge of failing, not sure, it's been a few weeks... unless they do hair follicle testing, then yeah I'd fail.

Edit: Oh and of course if I did fail a marijuana drug test, I would not be fired. They'd just make me go to rehab, it's in the contract.