I Support The NRA

@lov2smile:

[quote]Even the suicide attackers wouldn't have gone as far if people could protect themselves.[/quote]

[quote] How on earth did you come up with that. you have a different concept of the english language.[/quote]

They [b][u]WOULDN'T HAVE[/u][/b]

Well, this means they would not have. As none. As in nada. As in none.

There's nothing wrong with my English. And, your reference was general. You, and your friend, kept harassing him to answer the strwaman, er, question. Nevertheless, I provided examples of where it happened in the US. Plenty more where that came from. Here's another one: a terrorist, started a suicide attack on a US military based in Texas. Most suicide attacks in the US were committed by people, who knew the party they're attacking is well armed. Your argument is not valid.

"It was a couple years ago. It took me months to read the obamacare law."

How many months would that be? 24? Also, this is what you're taking issue with? If I were you, I would be more embarrassed about your claim, that you came up with that list on your own, when you have actually coped it from an article that's been circulating since March of 2006. It was copied Verbatim.

But, that's also like your claim that teenage pregnancy is at an all time high, when it's at its lowest since 1990. You stated that like it was a fact.

The fact, is that you fabricate stuff, or you copy it, without investigating it.

@Northwest:

Let me be clear, so as to show your folly. [b]Terrorists that walk into a theater shooting people, and then blowing themselves up....kills not only the people they shoot but everyone close to them when the bomb explodes.[/b]

In other words, as soon as the shooting starts, someone is shooting back, thereby, the attacker.....[b]IF [/b]he is lucky enough to be alive pulls the cord and he explodes along with the people around him.

Northwest, you seem like an intelligent person, what I don't understand is, why an explanation (above) is so difficult for you to understand.

Is it because you cannot debate the merits of the subject?
Is it because you would rather diminish the credibility of the author?
Is it because you want me to go away and you think by attempting to embarrassing me that will stop me from trying to educate the unwashed?

In a previous post:
I said it was a couple years ago, that I read the bill...you misinterpreted that to mean...it took two years to read it...two different things, but then again, that does appear to be your modus operandi.

Nothing for me to be embarrassed about...that's the way the bill was written two years ago. There may have been some changes, but for the most part it's in tact.
The e-mail that you claim to have seen...it must have been right.

Ha, the opening paragraph... maybe it deserves a separate post, if there are other liberals out there that don't understand.

Thanks for the idea.

@lov2smile:
[quote]Let me be clear, so as to show your folly. Terrorists that walk into a theater shooting people, and then blowing themselves up....kills not only the people they shoot but everyone close to them when the bomb explodes.

In other words, as soon as the shooting starts, someone is shooting back, thereby, the attacker.....IF he is lucky enough to be alive pulls the cord and he explodes along with the people around him.
[/quote]

I have no idea how you're showing "my folly". I don't know what all of this means, and how it related to your claim [quote]Even the suicide attackers wouldn't have gone as far if people could protect themselves.[/quote]

You're parroting the NRA: if people have guns, then no attacks would occur, and then you add to that even suicide attacks would be prevented. Speaking of "folly", do you know how out of touch with reality that statement of yours is? It's a suicide attack. It does not matter if it's in America, or anywhere else. It's a suicide attack. Repeat that one more time. How is an armed civilian, going to scare off someone who already made the decision to die, and take as many as they can with them?

[quote]Northwest, you seem like an intelligent person, what I don't understand is, why an explanation (above) is so difficult for you to understand. [/quote]

Because what you're saying makes no sense, and I don't need to be intelligent to realize that.

As to the rest of your post... You were the one who claimed that you researched the ACA, two years ago, and spent several months doing so. Yes, perhaps I misstated 2 years and several months (and how many months was that?), but the real point, is that you claimed to be an expert, and then you came back with a canned answer, picked from tea party propaganda. Not a single point of original input (as you promised). It was VERBATIM from the tea party. It was propaganda, and none of it was factual, including and up to the so-called death panels.

If you want to be treated with politeness, then you should start that way. You don't respond to my original post, with things like "naive". When you open up with that, don't expect to be taken seriously, or be treated politely. You also continue that trend, with every single post.

I said that you should embarrassed, and you completely skirt the issue that you posted unfounded propaganda, in fact proven to be false. It's like your claim that the New Yorker, posting something it did not. Instead, you think that the only thing that matters, is whether you spent 2 years, or several months reading the ACA.

This is like the Usher at the Ford Theater: "Well, Mrs. Lincoln, other than that one thing, how was the play?"

If you want to be treated with respect, then treat others with respect, especially when you post opinions, and propaganda. The reason people respond to it, is NOT because they're naive, it's because, well it's propaganda.

I was in an attempted airjacking once, on a flight from Tel Aviv to Cairo. I was hoping that we would land back in Tel Aviv, because I did not want the Egyptians to handle it, like they did the previous time (almost all the hostages dead). Guns in the wrong hands, can be deadlier than the attackers themselves.

@Kimnray:

LOL your comment was funny though...

[i]"recognize the pic of your mom"[/i] I spit my tea all over my desk!!

@lov2smile: I know you were looking for an honest debate. It's actually fun to hear someone state a differing opinion, when it's well thought out and intelligent. I hate when people make it personal. He then has the audacity to imply anyone who doesn't agree with him must be stupid.

@Kimnray:

Some people get so upset, it's kind of fun when they get hysterical and call me names. But I really don't care to have foul language all over my post.

I'm not a prude, I've heard it all before, but sometime it just gets abusive and that's what that was.

As I said, you post was well placed.

bikinigirl,

[i]I'm going to copy and paste what I just said to twotailz,[/i] above.

I understand where you are coming from and I respect that.

Think of it this way....How many terrorist attacks would have happened, if the terrorists knew that their targets were capable of fighting back?

I have to admit, I feel a lot safer going out with a guy who is "Licensed" to carry a concealed weapon.

If the government simply enforced the laws already on the book, there would be a lot less loony tunes on the street. No one with a criminal record should be allowed to own a gun

twotailz,

I understand where you are coming from and I respect that.

Think of it this way....How many terrorist attacks would have happened, if the terrorists knew that their targets were capable of fighting back?

I have to admit, I feel a lot safer going out with a guy who is "Licensed" to carry a concealed weapon.

If the government simply enforced the laws already on the book, there would be a lot less loony tunes on the street. No one with a criminal record should be allowed to own a gun.

OWTFWN,

You have a right to free speech. I have a right not to listen/read it

I simply wanted to warn you that if you continued with your abusive language, I would block you....Then who would you attack and call names? LOL

The choice is yours.

[b]Majority of Democrats Support Criminalizing Free Speech[/b]

[i]A new poll shows that a majority of Democrats want to limit free speech with laws that would prohibit so-called “hate speech.”[/i]