Discussion:
Question for wrongtards
(too old to reply)
ocean
2021-03-10 09:15:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case. That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.  A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
As far as your gun laws, I'm glad you're happy with them. If they
work for you and you're willing to accept the risks of leaving
yourself less able to defend yourself is certainly your choice.
However, don't think you should try to force others to accept your
conditions for their own communities.
It is a trade off but I don't need to carry because of the
proliferation of an effective and efficient killing tool.
Personally I find that historically a lack of the means to
defend yourself, only endangers yourself, your family, your neighbors
and your nation as you reduce your ability to fight back against
those that would deprive you of what is yours including but not
limited to your welfare, lives and even your freedoms.
What do you base this belief on?
You can't leave your home or travel more than five miles without a note
from mommy under your COVID restrictions.

Here the politicos are waking up to the fact that numbers don't support
their restrictive bullshit and they are afraid of being sanctioned by fast
moving lead.
Justin
2021-03-10 11:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission to
buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society. The
willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously limits
your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your neighbors
and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a rouge
government you are more gullible than I thought.
I have a .308 "popgun" airgun that will take a human out at 150
meters.

Less than two hundred armed men stood off Obama's BLM thugs.

Nancy Pelosi is shitting her panties off over unarmed people
invading the nation's capital.

Biden is so scared he's hiding in his basement half the time.

Don't tell me governments don't fear armed citizens. Your
government was so scared they disarmed you pussies.
Scout
2021-03-10 14:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ocean
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case. That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part. A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.

A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
Dechucka
2021-03-10 19:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.  That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.  A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
Justin
2021-03-11 09:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.  That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.  A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun. An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Scout
2021-03-11 14:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:29:58 +1100, Dechucka
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case. That's
why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.Ã, A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun. An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Apparently that is something that DeDumbAss always fails to realize. Weapons
and that which can be used or made into weapons are all around us, all the
time. The only thing that keeps us from creating or using such weapons is
our peaceful nature.

If someone wants to hurt or kill someone they can always obtain the means to
do so......even in prison, one of the most restrictive environments that
exists.
Dechucka
2021-03-11 19:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:29:58 +1100, Dechucka >>>>>>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted
and
Post by Scout
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and >>>
efficient
Post by Scout
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself,
your
Post by Scout
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.Â
That's >> why
Post by Scout
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.Ã,  A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun.  An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Apparently that is something that DeDumbAss always fails to realize.
Weapons and that which can be used or made into weapons are all around
us, all the time. The only thing that keeps us from creating or using
such weapons is our peaceful nature.
If someone wants to hurt or kill someone they can always obtain the
means to do so......even in prison, one of the most restrictive
environments that exists.
However a gun is both effective and efficient which is why cops and the
military aren't equipped with cricket bats
Scout
2021-03-12 15:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Justin
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:29:58 +1100, Dechucka >>>>>>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted
and
Post by Scout
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and >>>
efficient
Post by Scout
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself,
your
Post by Scout
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.Â
That's >> why
Post by Scout
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.Ã, A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun. An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Apparently that is something that DeDumbAss always fails to realize.
Weapons and that which can be used or made into weapons are all around
us, all the time. The only thing that keeps us from creating or using
such weapons is our peaceful nature.
If someone wants to hurt or kill someone they can always obtain the means
to do so......even in prison, one of the most restrictive environments
that exists.
However a gun is both effective and efficient which is why cops and the
military aren't equipped with cricket bats
Yep, and exactly why they also work so well for self defense. Indeed using a
gun in self defense is, statistically, going to keep you alive about 11
times as often, and cut your risk of serious injury in half.

Instead you will only allow criminals to have guns.
Dechucka
2021-03-12 19:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:29:58 +1100, Dechucka >>>>>>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted
and
Post by Scout
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about
your
Post by Scout
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each
other
Post by Scout
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and >>>
efficient
Post by Scout
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself,
your
Post by Scout
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant
chance >>> of
Post by Scout
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.Â
That's >> why
Post by Scout
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized
society, >>>> while
Post by Scout
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.Ã,  A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with
weapons. >>>> A
Post by Scout
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who
loses >>> it
Post by Scout
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun.  An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Apparently that is something that DeDumbAss always fails to realize.
Weapons and that which can be used or made into weapons are all
around us, all the time. The only thing that keeps us from creating
or using such weapons is our peaceful nature.
If someone wants to hurt or kill someone they can always obtain the
means to do so......even in prison, one of the most restrictive
environments that exists.
However a gun is both effective and efficient which is why cops and
the military aren't equipped with cricket bats
Yep, and exactly why they also work so well for self defense. Indeed
using a gun in self defense is, statistically, going to keep you alive
about 11 times as often, and cut your risk of serious injury in half.
Statistically you hate stats and science but I'd love to see these stats
Post by Scout
Instead you will only allow criminals to have guns.
I'm not a criminal and I have guns. Next
Scout
2021-03-12 20:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Justin
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:29:58 +1100, Dechucka >>>>>>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted
and
Post by Scout
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about
your
Post by Scout
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each
other
Post by Scout
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and >>>
efficient
Post by Scout
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself,
your
Post by Scout
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant
chance >>> of
Post by Scout
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.Â
That's >> why
Post by Scout
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized
society, >>>> while
Post by Scout
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.Ã, A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with
weapons. >>>> A
Post by Scout
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who
loses >>> it
Post by Scout
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun. An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Apparently that is something that DeDumbAss always fails to realize.
Weapons and that which can be used or made into weapons are all around
us, all the time. The only thing that keeps us from creating or using
such weapons is our peaceful nature.
If someone wants to hurt or kill someone they can always obtain the
means to do so......even in prison, one of the most restrictive
environments that exists.
However a gun is both effective and efficient which is why cops and the
military aren't equipped with cricket bats
Yep, and exactly why they also work so well for self defense. Indeed
using a gun in self defense is, statistically, going to keep you alive
about 11 times as often, and cut your risk of serious injury in half.
Statistically you hate stats and science but I'd love to see these stats
I and several others have posted them for you time and time again.

Not going to do so again just because you refuse to learn.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Instead you will only allow criminals to have guns.
I'm not a criminal and I have guns. Next
I meant without getting permission.
Dechucka
2021-03-12 21:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:29:58 +1100, Dechucka >>>>>>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is
noted
and
Post by Scout
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about
your
Post by Scout
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've
dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for
permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each
other
Post by Scout
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and >>>
efficient
Post by Scout
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and
seriously
Post by Scout
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself,
your
Post by Scout
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom
does >>> involve
Post by Scout
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant
chance >>> of
Post by Scout
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion
or >>> a
Post by Scout
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.Â
That's >> why
Post by Scout
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized
society, >>>> while
Post by Scout
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most
part.Ã,  A
Post by Scout
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with
weapons. >>>> A
Post by Scout
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous
individual >>>> even
Post by Scout
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who
loses >>> it
Post by Scout
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun.  An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Apparently that is something that DeDumbAss always fails to
realize. Weapons and that which can be used or made into weapons
are all around us, all the time. The only thing that keeps us from
creating or using such weapons is our peaceful nature.
If someone wants to hurt or kill someone they can always obtain the
means to do so......even in prison, one of the most restrictive
environments that exists.
However a gun is both effective and efficient which is why cops and
the military aren't equipped with cricket bats
Yep, and exactly why they also work so well for self defense. Indeed
using a gun in self defense is, statistically, going to keep you
alive about 11 times as often, and cut your risk of serious injury in
half.
Statistically you hate stats and science but I'd love to see these stats
I and several others have posted them for you time and time again.
Not going to do so again just because you refuse to learn.
Can't oh well there goes you claim
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Instead you will only allow criminals to have guns.
I'm not a criminal and I have guns. Next
I meant without getting permission.
You sure?
Dechucka
2021-03-11 19:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.  That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.  A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun. An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Why don't they equip the military with cricket bats?
Justin
2021-03-13 06:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Justin
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.  That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.  A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun. An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Why don't they equip the military with cricket bats?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Services_cricket_team#
:~:text=The%20Australian%20Services%20XI%20was,the%20end%20of%20
the%20war.>

Walked into that one didn't you?

A military organization isn't dangerous until fools attack the
peace others are sworn to protect.

It's not personal, it's a duty.
Dechucka
2021-03-13 06:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Post by Dechucka
Post by Justin
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.  That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.  A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun. An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Why don't they equip the military with cricket bats?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Services_cricket_team#
:~:text=The%20Australian%20Services%20XI%20was,the%20end%20of%20
the%20war.>
Walked into that one didn't you?
? they use cricket bats to play cricket not as weapons. Well Lillee did
but he wasn't military
Post by Justin
A military organization isn't dangerous until fools attack the
peace others are sworn to protect.
Depends on which side you're on.
Post by Justin
It's not personal, it's a duty.
Scout
2021-03-15 15:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Justin
Post by Dechucka
Post by Justin
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by ocean
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:29:58 +1100, Dechucka
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case. That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part. A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun. An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Why don't they equip the military with cricket bats?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Services_cricket_team#
:~:text=The%20Australian%20Services%20XI%20was,the%20end%20of%20
the%20war.>
Walked into that one didn't you?
? they use cricket bats to play cricket not as weapons. Well Lillee did
but he wasn't military
Most of the time. However these people were more dangerous with a cricket
bat than I am with every gun and weapon I possess.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/06/man-was-killed-by-teenager-with-cricket-bat-court-hears
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-man-beaten-to-death-with-cricket-bat-over-tiff/articleshow/77542327.cms
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/crime/231219/vijayawada-man-kills-wife-with-cricket-bat.html
Post by Dechucka
Post by Justin
A military organization isn't dangerous until fools attack the
peace others are sworn to protect.
Depends on which side you're on.
Well, if you're trying to deprive people of their rights, then the military
should shoot you.
Justin
2021-03-18 13:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Justin
Post by Dechucka
Post by Justin
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case.  That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part.  A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
A dangerous man doesn't need a gun. An ordinary cricket bat
will suffice just fine.
Why don't they equip the military with cricket bats?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Services_cricket_team#
:~:text=The%20Australian%20Services%20XI%20was,the%20end%20of%20
the%20war.>
Walked into that one didn't you?
? they use cricket bats to play cricket not as weapons. Well Lillee did
but he wasn't military
Doesn't matter what they used them for. They were equipped with
them.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Justin
A military organization isn't dangerous until fools attack the
peace others are sworn to protect.
Depends on which side you're on.
Admission that you're a fool noted.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Justin
 
It's not personal, it's a duty.
Scout
2021-03-10 21:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by ocean
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:01:29 +1100, Dechucka
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission
to buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society.
The willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America? Not having an effective and efficient
killing tool rampant in a society helps.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously
limits your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your
neighbors and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own, one thing that freedom does involve
is the ability to go about ones life without a significant chance of
being shot. If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a
rouge government you are more gullible than I thought.
Nancy Pelosi's rogue government believes that is the case. That's why
they still have the National Guard in the capital.
See, that's your problem. You assume, falsely, that good gun laws
created and provide this comparably safe and civilized society, while
in reality it is the people themselves that chose to have it by
respecting and not harming one another, for the most part. A
peaceful man is still a peaceful man even if loaded with weapons. A
dangerous individual, however, is still a dangerous individual even
if you attempt to deny them weapons.
Makes it much easier for a dangerous person or a person who loses it
to kill.
You can't stop somebody who wants to kill.
A dangerous person without a gun is still dangerous.
A peaceful man is just as peaceful even with a gun.
till he becomes dangerous
Which won't occur because of the gun, and once he becomes dangerous whether
he has a gun or not won't change that.

Oh, by the way, this is where DeDumbAss is asserting people are too unstable
to be allowed to exercise their freedom.

His government has certainly done a good job with the brainwashing.....
Justin
2021-03-11 09:12:26 UTC
Permalink
snip
I do. I'm an American.
Another pig ignorant septic big on rhetoric but short on knowledge
Once you go American you never go back.

Live it, learn it, love it, never leave it.
Justin
2021-03-11 09:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Your inability to comprehend is a sad indictment of you
Your anger at being caught in your fabricated story is noted and
logged.
anger? I'm sitting having a coffee and a quiet smirk about your
inability to comprehend or follow a thread. What? you've dropped
claiming I raised C-14 explosives not Baxter?
Anger. Anger that your government makes you beg them for permission to
buy a BB gun.
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society. The
willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other does.
Is that your excuse for America?...
It's a fact, not an excuse.
... Not having an effective and efficient killing tool rampant in a
society helps.
In my community where "effective and efficient killing tool[s]" are
ubiquitous, crime is low and
gunshot deaths are almost unheard of. You've been shown this link before
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
and you studiously avoided acknowledging it.
And if guns were the cause as DeDumbAss asserts.....then the murders would
be much more evenly distributed and places like Chicago and LA would have
virtually none.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously limits
your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your neighbors
and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own,...
Actually, it is. Our Founders were fond of the writings of John Locke.
I wonder, what do you call someone who isn't allowed to own anything?
Isn't that typically called a slave?
Touché.
Justin
2021-03-11 09:42:31 UTC
Permalink
snip
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society. The
willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other does.
Is that your excuse for America?...
It's a fact, not an excuse.
That you have less people per capita than Aus willing to get along and
not hurt each other. How sad
Yes, it is.
... Not having an effective and efficient killing tool rampant in a society helps.
In my community where "effective and efficient killing tool[s]" are ubiquitous, crime is low and
gunshot deaths are almost unheard of. You've been shown this link before
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
and you studiously avoided acknowledging it.
Think of the big picture America is not only your backyard
In other words, paint with a broad brush and ignore the details.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously limits
your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your neighbors
and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own,...
Actually, it is. Our Founders were fond of the writings of John Locke.
Not to the majority of the people may I suggest....
Suggest all you want. You're wrong.
... My freedom is no dependent on a gun it involves a great many other issues, I feel sorry
for people who feel that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Freedom is the power to say "NO" and mean it.
... one thing that freedom does involve is the ability to go about ones life without a
significant chance of being shot....
Where did you come up with that? You want to be free of crime, of violence, of madness? No
government or group of laws can offer you that. There is evil in this world. If it comes for you,
the police will outline your body with chalk and try to determine what happened.
Unlike in the US there is minimal chance of me being shot with someone
going postal or caught in the cross of gang-bangers
True. There are fewer chances of drowning where there are no pools or dying in an auto accident
where there are no cars.
... If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a rouge
government you are more gullible than I thought.
I seriously doubt the Khmer Rouge are planning to invade America.
Oh I thought that was one of the reasons you had guns...
I doubt the Founding Fathers considered Cambodia much of a threat.
... and to fertilise the tree of liberty if Biden upsets you too much
We like to think of it as defending our rights.
You have pop-guns. We have real guns, semi- and full-auto, in 5.56x45, 7.62x51, .50BMG, in the
tens of millions. We have hunting rifles that can take down an elk or a moose at 800, 900, 1000
yards. And we have veterans in the millions who took an oath to defend the Constitution.
As I have said to Scout your government has limited your 2A rights you
should be able, as the peoples militia, have the same weapons as the
organised militia....
Then you don't really understand what militia means. We are citizen-soldiers, not citizen-armies,
the reserves to the reserves of the organized militia.
... That's why Waco failed, they were out gunned
If you mean the ATF's assault on a church group, you're right. The ATF was counting on 'shock & awe'
to impress the camera crews they brought along and Congress.
Yeah that went over like turds in the swimming pool.

Richard Rogers should have swung by the neck for his role at
Waco and Ruby.
Scout
2021-03-11 14:36:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
snip
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized society. The
willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other does.
Is that your excuse for America?...
It's a fact, not an excuse.
That you have less people per capita than Aus willing to get along and
not hurt each other. How sad
Yes, it is.
... Not having an effective and efficient killing tool rampant in a
society helps.
In my community where "effective and efficient killing tool[s]" are
ubiquitous, crime is low and
gunshot deaths are almost unheard of. You've been shown this link before
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
and you studiously avoided acknowledging it.
Think of the big picture America is not only your backyard
In other words, paint with a broad brush and ignore the details.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously limits
your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your neighbors
and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own,...
Actually, it is. Our Founders were fond of the writings of John Locke.
Not to the majority of the people may I suggest....
Suggest all you want. You're wrong.
... My freedom is no dependent on a gun it involves a great many other
issues, I feel sorry
for people who feel that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Freedom is the power to say "NO" and mean it.
... one thing that freedom does involve is the ability to go about
ones life without a
significant chance of being shot....
Where did you come up with that? You want to be free of crime, of
violence, of madness? No
government or group of laws can offer you that. There is evil in this
world. If it comes for you,
the police will outline your body with chalk and try to determine what happened.
Unlike in the US there is minimal chance of me being shot with someone
going postal or caught in the cross of gang-bangers
True. There are fewer chances of drowning where there are no pools or
dying in an auto accident
where there are no cars.
... If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a rouge
government you are more gullible than I thought.
I seriously doubt the Khmer Rouge are planning to invade America.
Oh I thought that was one of the reasons you had guns...
I doubt the Founding Fathers considered Cambodia much of a threat.
... and to fertilise the tree of liberty if Biden upsets you too much
We like to think of it as defending our rights.
You have pop-guns. We have real guns, semi- and full-auto, in 5.56x45,
7.62x51, .50BMG, in the
tens of millions. We have hunting rifles that can take down an elk or
a moose at 800, 900, 1000
yards. And we have veterans in the millions who took an oath to defend
the Constitution.
As I have said to Scout your government has limited your 2A rights you
should be able, as the peoples militia, have the same weapons as the
organised militia....
Then you don't really understand what militia means. We are
citizen-soldiers, not citizen-armies,
the reserves to the reserves of the organized militia.
... That's why Waco failed, they were out gunned
If you mean the ATF's assault on a church group, you're right. The ATF
was counting on 'shock & awe'
to impress the camera crews they brought along and Congress.
Yeah that went over like turds in the swimming pool.
Richard Rogers should have swung by the neck for his role at
Waco and Ruby.
Yep, and I wonder if next time the ATF is out of ammo, vulnerable and
exposed....they will be allowed to retreat, rearm, reequip and call up
additional support.

And for what?

A suspected but unsubstantiated claim that they owed for a $200 tax stamp?

I will note for the record that NOTHING recovered before, during or after
has supported the ATF's claims.

Oh, and the Davidians had even offered to allow two unarmed ATF agents come
in an inspect anything they wanted.....
Dechucka
2021-03-11 19:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Justin
snip
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized
society. >>>> The
willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America?...
It's a fact, not an excuse.
That you have less people per capita than Aus willing to get along and
not hurt each other. How sad
Yes, it is.
... Not having an effective and efficient killing tool rampant in
a >>> society helps.
In my community where "effective and efficient killing tool[s]"
are >> ubiquitous, crime is low and
gunshot deaths are almost unheard of. You've been shown this link before
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
and you studiously avoided acknowledging it.
Think of the big picture America is not only your backyard
In other words, paint with a broad brush and ignore the details.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously limits
your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your neighbors
and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own,...
Actually, it is. Our Founders were fond of the writings of John
Locke.
Not to the majority of the people may I suggest....
Suggest all you want. You're wrong.
... My freedom is no dependent on a gun it involves a great many
other > issues, I feel sorry
for people who feel that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Freedom is the power to say "NO" and mean it.
... one thing that freedom does involve is the ability to go
about >>> ones life without a
significant chance of being shot....
Where did you come up with that? You want to be free of crime, of
violence, of madness? No
government or group of laws can offer you that. There is evil in
this >> world. If it comes for you,
the police will outline your body with chalk and try to determine
what >> happened.
Unlike in the US there is minimal chance of me being shot with someone
going postal or caught in the cross of gang-bangers
True. There are fewer chances of drowning where there are no pools or
dying in an auto accident
where there are no cars.
...  If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a rouge
government you are more gullible than I thought.
I seriously doubt the Khmer Rouge are planning to invade America.
Oh I thought that was one of the reasons you had guns...
I doubt the Founding Fathers considered Cambodia much of a threat.
... and to fertilise the tree of liberty if Biden upsets you too much
We like to think of it as defending our rights.
You have pop-guns. We have real guns, semi- and full-auto, in
5.56x45, >> 7.62x51, .50BMG, in the
tens of millions. We have hunting rifles that can take down an elk
or >> a moose at 800, 900, 1000
yards. And we have veterans in the millions who took an oath to
defend >> the Constitution.
As I have said to Scout your government has limited your 2A rights you
should be able, as the peoples militia, have the same weapons as the
organised militia....
Then you don't really understand what militia means. We are
citizen-soldiers, not citizen-armies,
the reserves to the reserves of the organized militia.
... That's why Waco failed, they were out gunned
If you mean the ATF's assault on a church group, you're right. The
ATF was counting on 'shock & awe'
to impress the camera crews they brought along and Congress.
Yeah that went over like turds in the swimming pool.
Richard Rogers should have swung by the neck for his role at
Waco and Ruby.
Yep, and I wonder if next time the ATF is out of ammo, vulnerable and
exposed....they will be allowed to retreat, rearm, reequip and call up
additional support.
That is how military operations work
Post by Scout
And for what?
A suspected but unsubstantiated claim that they owed for a $200 tax stamp?
I will note for the record that NOTHING recovered before, during or
after has supported the ATF's claims.
Oh, and the Davidians had even offered to allow two unarmed ATF agents
come in an inspect anything they wanted.....
Shows how pathetic your pop-guns are against the military. In a real
revolution a GBU-24 would have solved Waco in a few minutes
Scout
2021-03-12 15:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Justin
snip
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized
society. >>>> The
willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America?...
It's a fact, not an excuse.
That you have less people per capita than Aus willing to get along and
not hurt each other. How sad
Yes, it is.
... Not having an effective and efficient killing tool rampant in
a >>> society helps.
In my community where "effective and efficient killing tool[s]"
are >> ubiquitous, crime is low and
gunshot deaths are almost unheard of. You've been shown this link before
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
and you studiously avoided acknowledging it.
Think of the big picture America is not only your backyard
In other words, paint with a broad brush and ignore the details.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and seriously limits
your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your neighbors
and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own,...
Actually, it is. Our Founders were fond of the writings of John
Locke.
Not to the majority of the people may I suggest....
Suggest all you want. You're wrong.
... My freedom is no dependent on a gun it involves a great many
other > issues, I feel sorry
for people who feel that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Freedom is the power to say "NO" and mean it.
... one thing that freedom does involve is the ability to go
about >>> ones life without a
significant chance of being shot....
Where did you come up with that? You want to be free of crime, of
violence, of madness? No
government or group of laws can offer you that. There is evil in
this >> world. If it comes for you,
the police will outline your body with chalk and try to determine
what >> happened.
Unlike in the US there is minimal chance of me being shot with someone
going postal or caught in the cross of gang-bangers
True. There are fewer chances of drowning where there are no pools or
dying in an auto accident
where there are no cars.
... If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a rouge
government you are more gullible than I thought.
I seriously doubt the Khmer Rouge are planning to invade America.
Oh I thought that was one of the reasons you had guns...
I doubt the Founding Fathers considered Cambodia much of a threat.
... and to fertilise the tree of liberty if Biden upsets you too much
We like to think of it as defending our rights.
You have pop-guns. We have real guns, semi- and full-auto, in
5.56x45, >> 7.62x51, .50BMG, in the
tens of millions. We have hunting rifles that can take down an elk
or >> a moose at 800, 900, 1000
yards. And we have veterans in the millions who took an oath to
defend >> the Constitution.
As I have said to Scout your government has limited your 2A rights you
should be able, as the peoples militia, have the same weapons as the
organised militia....
Then you don't really understand what militia means. We are
citizen-soldiers, not citizen-armies,
the reserves to the reserves of the organized militia.
... That's why Waco failed, they were out gunned
If you mean the ATF's assault on a church group, you're right. The ATF
was counting on 'shock & awe'
to impress the camera crews they brought along and Congress.
Yeah that went over like turds in the swimming pool.
Richard Rogers should have swung by the neck for his role at
Waco and Ruby.
Yep, and I wonder if next time the ATF is out of ammo, vulnerable and
exposed....they will be allowed to retreat, rearm, reequip and call up
additional support.
That is how military operations work
Except the ATF isn't a military organization and military operations are
prohibited on US soil.

But nice of you to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't law
enforcement and thus illegal.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
And for what?
A suspected but unsubstantiated claim that they owed for a $200 tax stamp?
I will note for the record that NOTHING recovered before, during or after
has supported the ATF's claims.
Oh, and the Davidians had even offered to allow two unarmed ATF agents
come in an inspect anything they wanted.....
Shows how pathetic your pop-guns are against the military. In a real
revolution a GBU-24 would have solved Waco in a few minutes
Until there is a general uprising. I note a bit later a similar situation
arose and people poured into the block the feds and prevent another Waco.
Dechucka
2021-03-12 19:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Justin
snip
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized
society. >>>> The
willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America?...
It's a fact, not an excuse.
That you have less people per capita than Aus willing to get
along > and
not hurt each other. How sad
Yes, it is.
... Not having an effective and efficient killing tool rampant in
a >>> society helps.
In my community where "effective and efficient killing tool[s]"
are >> ubiquitous, crime is low and
gunshot deaths are almost unheard of. You've been shown this
link >> before
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
and you studiously avoided acknowledging it.
Think of the big picture America is not only your backyard
In other words, paint with a broad brush and ignore the details.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and
seriously >>>> limits
your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your neighbors
and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own,...
Actually, it is. Our Founders were fond of the writings of John
Locke.
Not to the majority of the people may I suggest....
Suggest all you want. You're wrong.
... My freedom is no dependent on a gun it involves a great many
other > issues, I feel sorry
for people who feel that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Freedom is the power to say "NO" and mean it.
... one thing that freedom does involve is the ability to go
about >>> ones life without a
significant chance of being shot....
Where did you come up with that? You want to be free of crime,
of >> violence, of madness? No
government or group of laws can offer you that. There is evil in
this >> world. If it comes for you,
the police will outline your body with chalk and try to determine
what >> happened.
Unlike in the US there is minimal chance of me being shot with >
someone
going postal or caught in the cross of gang-bangers
True. There are fewer chances of drowning where there are no pools
or dying in an auto accident
where there are no cars.
...  If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a rouge
government you are more gullible than I thought.
I seriously doubt the Khmer Rouge are planning to invade America.
Oh I thought that was one of the reasons you had guns...
I doubt the Founding Fathers considered Cambodia much of a threat.
... and to fertilise the tree of liberty if Biden upsets you too
much
We like to think of it as defending our rights.
You have pop-guns. We have real guns, semi- and full-auto, in
5.56x45, >> 7.62x51, .50BMG, in the
tens of millions. We have hunting rifles that can take down an elk
or >> a moose at 800, 900, 1000
yards. And we have veterans in the millions who took an oath to
defend >> the Constitution.
As I have said to Scout your government has limited your 2A
rights > you
should be able, as the peoples militia, have the same weapons as the
organised militia....
Then you don't really understand what militia means. We are
citizen-soldiers, not citizen-armies,
the reserves to the reserves of the organized militia.
... That's why Waco failed, they were out gunned
If you mean the ATF's assault on a church group, you're right. The
ATF was counting on 'shock & awe'
to impress the camera crews they brought along and Congress.
Yeah that went over like turds in the swimming pool.
Richard Rogers should have swung by the neck for his role at
Waco and Ruby.
Yep, and I wonder if next time the ATF is out of ammo, vulnerable and
exposed....they will be allowed to retreat, rearm, reequip and call
up additional support.
That is how military operations work
Except the ATF isn't a military organization and military operations are
prohibited on US soil.
Shit you're in trouble if invaded. You should really read the Posse
Comitatus Act
Post by Scout
But nice of you to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't law
enforcement and thus illegal.
Seemed too be law enforcement so why was it illegal?
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
And for what?
A suspected but unsubstantiated claim that they owed for a $200 tax stamp?
I will note for the record that NOTHING recovered before, during or
after has supported the ATF's claims.
Oh, and the Davidians had even offered to allow two unarmed ATF
agents come in an inspect anything they wanted.....
Shows how pathetic your pop-guns are against the military. In a real
revolution a GBU-24 would have solved Waco in a few minutes
Until there is a general uprising. I note a bit later a similar
situation arose and people poured into the block the feds and prevent
another Waco.
Which one was this one?
Scout
2021-03-12 21:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Justin
snip
No anger we have good guns laws and thus a comparably safe and
civilised society
1) gun laws do not produce a comparable safe and civilized
society. >>>> The
willingness of the people to get along and not hurt each other
does.
Is that your excuse for America?...
It's a fact, not an excuse.
That you have less people per capita than Aus willing to get
along > and
not hurt each other. How sad
Yes, it is.
... Not having an effective and efficient killing tool rampant in
a >>> society helps.
In my community where "effective and efficient killing tool[s]"
are >> ubiquitous, crime is low and
gunshot deaths are almost unheard of. You've been shown this
link >> before
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
and you studiously avoided acknowledging it.
Think of the big picture America is not only your backyard
In other words, paint with a broad brush and ignore the details.
2) Your gun laws are, IMO, oppressive, unnecessary and
seriously >>>> limits
your freedoms and your ability to defend them, yourself, your neighbors
and your country.
Freedom is not the ability to own,...
Actually, it is. Our Founders were fond of the writings of John
Locke.
Not to the majority of the people may I suggest....
Suggest all you want. You're wrong.
... My freedom is no dependent on a gun it involves a great many
other > issues, I feel sorry
for people who feel that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Freedom is the power to say "NO" and mean it.
... one thing that freedom does involve is the ability to go
about >>> ones life without a
significant chance of being shot....
Where did you come up with that? You want to be free of crime,
of >> violence, of madness? No
government or group of laws can offer you that. There is evil in
this >> world. If it comes for you,
the police will outline your body with chalk and try to determine
what >> happened.
Unlike in the US there is minimal chance of me being shot with >
someone
going postal or caught in the cross of gang-bangers
True. There are fewer chances of drowning where there are no pools or
dying in an auto accident
where there are no cars.
... If you think your pop-guns will repel an invasion or a rouge
government you are more gullible than I thought.
I seriously doubt the Khmer Rouge are planning to invade America.
Oh I thought that was one of the reasons you had guns...
I doubt the Founding Fathers considered Cambodia much of a threat.
... and to fertilise the tree of liberty if Biden upsets you too
much
We like to think of it as defending our rights.
You have pop-guns. We have real guns, semi- and full-auto, in
5.56x45, >> 7.62x51, .50BMG, in the
tens of millions. We have hunting rifles that can take down an elk
or >> a moose at 800, 900, 1000
yards. And we have veterans in the millions who took an oath to
defend >> the Constitution.
As I have said to Scout your government has limited your 2A
rights > you
should be able, as the peoples militia, have the same weapons as the
organised militia....
Then you don't really understand what militia means. We are
citizen-soldiers, not citizen-armies,
the reserves to the reserves of the organized militia.
... That's why Waco failed, they were out gunned
If you mean the ATF's assault on a church group, you're right. The
ATF was counting on 'shock & awe'
to impress the camera crews they brought along and Congress.
Yeah that went over like turds in the swimming pool.
Richard Rogers should have swung by the neck for his role at
Waco and Ruby.
Yep, and I wonder if next time the ATF is out of ammo, vulnerable and
exposed....they will be allowed to retreat, rearm, reequip and call up
additional support.
That is how military operations work
Except the ATF isn't a military organization and military operations are
prohibited on US soil.
Shit you're in trouble if invaded.
Not really, because we wouldn't expect the ATF to do anything about that.
Post by Dechucka
You should really read the Posse Comitatus Act
You certainly should.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
But nice of you to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't law
enforcement and thus illegal.
Seemed too be law enforcement so why was it illegal?
Keyword being "seemed".....
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
And for what?
A suspected but unsubstantiated claim that they owed for a $200 tax stamp?
I will note for the record that NOTHING recovered before, during or
after has supported the ATF's claims.
Oh, and the Davidians had even offered to allow two unarmed ATF agents
come in an inspect anything they wanted.....
Shows how pathetic your pop-guns are against the military. In a real
revolution a GBU-24 would have solved Waco in a few minutes
Until there is a general uprising. I note a bit later a similar situation
arose and people poured into the block the feds and prevent another Waco.
Which one was this one?
Why do I need to tell you. After all you're the self proclaimed expert on
everything.
Dechucka
2021-03-12 22:08:42 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Except the ATF isn't a military organization and military operations
are prohibited on US soil.
Shit you're in trouble if invaded.
Not really, because we wouldn't expect the ATF to do anything about that.
I do believe the military and the national guard, which is partly under
military control, would react showing that your comment that " military
operations are prohibited on US soil." is bs
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
You should really read the Posse Comitatus Act
You certainly should.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
But nice of you to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't law
enforcement and thus illegal.
Seemed too be law enforcement so why was it illegal?
Keyword being "seemed".....
So illegal in your mind butt not in reality
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
And for what?
A suspected but unsubstantiated claim that they owed for a $200 tax stamp?
I will note for the record that NOTHING recovered before, during or
after has supported the ATF's claims.
Oh, and the Davidians had even offered to allow two unarmed ATF
agents come in an inspect anything they wanted.....
Shows how pathetic your pop-guns are against the military. In a real
revolution a GBU-24 would have solved Waco in a few minutes
Until there is a general uprising. I note a bit later a similar
situation arose and people poured into the block the feds and prevent
another Waco.
Which one was this one?
Why do I need to tell you. After all you're the self proclaimed expert
on everything.
Can't tell me so once again it seems you're posting BS
Scout
2021-03-15 15:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Except the ATF isn't a military organization and military operations
are prohibited on US soil.
Shit you're in trouble if invaded.
Not really, because we wouldn't expect the ATF to do anything about that.
I do believe the military and the national guard, which is partly under
military control, would react showing that your comment that " military
operations are prohibited on US soil." is bs
I'm not aware that either the National Guard nor the military had any
presence during the initial assault.

So I fail to see what either have to do with that.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
You should really read the Posse Comitatus Act
You certainly should.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
But nice of you to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't law
enforcement and thus illegal.
Seemed too be law enforcement so why was it illegal?
Keyword being "seemed".....
So illegal in your mind butt not in reality
No, actually, if it had ever gone to court the ATF would have had their
asses handed to them. Lying to a federal judge. Falsifying testimony.
Perjury. and the list would just keep getting longer.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
And for what?
A suspected but unsubstantiated claim that they owed for a $200 tax stamp?
I will note for the record that NOTHING recovered before, during or
after has supported the ATF's claims.
Oh, and the Davidians had even offered to allow two unarmed ATF
agents come in an inspect anything they wanted.....
Shows how pathetic your pop-guns are against the military. In a real
revolution a GBU-24 would have solved Waco in a few minutes
Until there is a general uprising. I note a bit later a similar
situation arose and people poured into the block the feds and prevent
another Waco.
Which one was this one?
Why do I need to tell you. After all you're the self proclaimed expert on
everything.
Can't tell me so once again it seems you're posting BS
I acknowledge your admission that you lied about being an expert on such
things.

So your comment as become immaterial and need not be refuted further.
Dechucka
2021-03-15 19:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Except the ATF isn't a military organization and military
operations are prohibited on US soil.
Shit you're in trouble if invaded.
Not really, because we wouldn't expect the ATF to do anything about that.
I do believe the military and the national guard, which is partly
under military control, would react showing that your comment that "
military operations are prohibited on US soil." is bs
I'm not aware that either the National Guard nor the military had any
presence during the initial assault.
So I fail to see what either have to do with that.
You claimed "organization and military operations are prohibited on US
soil. " you are wrong
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
You should really read the Posse Comitatus Act
You certainly should.
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
But nice of you to acknowledge that what they were doing wasn't law
enforcement and thus illegal.
Seemed too be law enforcement so why was it illegal?
Keyword being "seemed".....
So illegal in your mind butt not in reality
No, actually, if it had ever gone to court the ATF would have had their
asses handed to them. Lying to a federal judge. Falsifying testimony.
Perjury. and the list would just keep getting longer.
Why didn't it go to court if these heinous crimes had been committed?
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
And for what?
A suspected but unsubstantiated claim that they owed for a $200 tax stamp?
I will note for the record that NOTHING recovered before, during
or after has supported the ATF's claims.
Oh, and the Davidians had even offered to allow two unarmed ATF
agents come in an inspect anything they wanted.....
Shows how pathetic your pop-guns are against the military. In a
real revolution a GBU-24 would have solved Waco in a few minutes
Until there is a general uprising. I note a bit later a similar
situation arose and people poured into the block the feds and
prevent another Waco.
Which one was this one?
Why do I need to tell you. After all you're the self proclaimed
expert on everything.
Can't tell me so once again it seems you're posting BS
I acknowledge your admission that you lied about being an expert on such
things.
So your comment as become immaterial and need not be refuted further.
Scout
2021-03-15 21:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Except the ATF isn't a military organization and military operations
are prohibited on US soil.
Shit you're in trouble if invaded.
Not really, because we wouldn't expect the ATF to do anything about that.
I do believe the military and the national guard, which is partly under
military control, would react showing that your comment that " military
operations are prohibited on US soil." is bs
I'm not aware that either the National Guard nor the military had any
presence during the initial assault.
So I fail to see what either have to do with that.
You claimed "organization and military operations are prohibited on US
soil. " you are wrong
Yep, and neither of those assaulted the Davidian compound.

So much for your BS.
George Black
2021-03-16 19:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Except the ATF isn't a military organization and military
operations are prohibited on US soil.
Shit you're in trouble if invaded.
Not really, because we wouldn't expect the ATF to do anything about that.
I do believe the military and the national guard, which is partly
under military control, would react showing that your comment that "
military operations are prohibited on US soil." is bs
I'm not aware that either the National Guard nor the military had any
presence during the initial assault.
So I fail to see what either have to do with that.
You claimed "organization and military operations are prohibited on US
soil. " you are wrong
Yep, and neither of those assaulted the Davidian compound.
So much for your BS.
My question would be if they're forbidden to use weapons how do they
train ????
Dechucka
2021-03-16 19:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
snip
Post by Scout
Post by Dechucka
Post by Scout
Except the ATF isn't a military organization and military
operations are prohibited on US soil.
Shit you're in trouble if invaded.
Not really, because we wouldn't expect the ATF to do anything about that.
I do believe the military and the national guard, which is partly
under military control, would react showing that your comment that "
military operations are prohibited on US soil." is bs
I'm not aware that either the National Guard nor the military had any
presence during the initial assault.
So I fail to see what either have to do with that.
You claimed "organization and military operations are prohibited on US
soil. " you are wrong
Yep, and neither of those assaulted the Davidian compound.
They are able to operate on US soil or you'd be screwed when invaded
Post by Scout
So much for your BS.
Justin
2021-03-11 10:33:19 UTC
Permalink
snip
My freedom is not defined by needing a license to own a gun or to
drive my ruck on the road or anything else I need a license for.
If you need a license...then you're not really free, are you?
You're right, a country where you need a license to drive a truck on the
public roads is not really free
You said it.

<https://mylicence.sa.gov.au/my-heavy-vehicle-licence>
Justin
2021-03-13 05:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Another pig ignorant
...Australian. Who couldn't understand the Second Amendment no matter
what.
Certainly do anybody in the US should have the right to have any weapon
and system available to the organised militia
You've got that backwards. The organised militia in the US
should have the right to have any weapon and system available as
an equal right.

Equal rights don't apply to just perverts in skirts using ladies
bathrooms.
Scout
2021-03-15 15:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin
Another pig ignorant
...Australian. Who couldn't understand the Second Amendment no matter
what.
Certainly do anybody in the US should have the right to have any weapon
and system available to the organised militia
You've got that backwards. The organised militia in the US
should have the right to have any weapon and system available as
an equal right.
Equal rights don't apply to just perverts in skirts using ladies
bathrooms.
Yea, but DeDumbAss wouldn't accept us having the weapons the organized
militia does. Oh, the says he would, but he lies. Heck he's opposed to us
even having anything even remotely like what they have.
Loading...