Most liberal states = least free states

USFREEDOM911 said:
C'mon sissie; What did I tell you folks....he can't admit he misspelled a word. Stubborn pride of the willfully ignorant in full bloom. just admit that your article had nothing at all in it, about any percentage of what you were professing.
Just be a man abouit it, for once in your life.
Click to expand...

Pity this man, ladies and gentlemen.....I give him information that he ignores, and then he lies about what has transpired. What the poor fool refuses to acknowledge is that people can click back to the original post and read the truth. Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Most liberal states = least free states
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Pity this man, ladies and gentlemen.....I give him information that he ignores, and then he lies about what has transpired. What the poor fool refuses to acknowledge is that people can click back to the original post and read the truth. Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Most liberal states = least free states
Click to expand...

What your tiny brain fails to see; is that your original link gives no percetange, which is what was questioned, and then your second link gives some reference to a single group.

C'mon sissie; just use your spine to stand up straight, for once in your life, and act like a man.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Yeah, it was called racial discrimination.....not banning a specific (or ALL) weapons from the GENERAL population. Eventually, that was corrected.



Hmmm, let's get specific about your example here......the ban wasn't against the weapons getting to the public in general , but aimed at a specific group of people not to have them....big difference.

Try as you might, you just can't get past my points dispelling STY statement.
Click to expand...

The bans were put in place because the South felt threatened by people who it had persecuted having access to guns. This is also the reason why there is a plethera of military bases in that region compared with the rest of the country, and is subsequently the starting point of the tradition of military service in that hateful hellhole.

The fact remains that infringement on gun rights serves no other purpose than to allow the federal government more control over, and less to fear from, the people. That was the sole purpose of those gun bans. Racism is merely what put those people in an inferior position to begin with.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
What your tiny brain fails to see; is that your original link gives no percetange, which is what was questioned, and then your second link gives some reference to a single group.

C'mon sissie; (insipid stubborness....seems to be this joker's forte) just use your spine to stand up straight, for once in your life, and act like a man.
Click to expand...

Notice folks, that the second link I give is from the ATF, which gives a statistical break down regarding tracing of weapons used in crimes to owners. That is what our insipidly stubborn character here is trying to deny. He wanted percentages, I gave him percentages from the ATF, and now he's saying that's not enough. In short, he'll just keep changing his story rather than be an adult and admit that his assertions and contentions were just proven wrong....so much more to pity him. Well, I've exposed him for the childish liar and disingenuous poster on these boards. I'll just ignore the rest of his nonsense on this particular thread...for I detest liars.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Notice folks, that the second link I give is from the ATF, which gives a statistical break down regarding tracing of weapons used in crimes to owners. That is what our insipidly stubborn character here is trying to deny. He wanted percentages, I gave him percentages from the ATF, and now he's saying that's not enough. In short, he'll just keep changing his story rather than be an adult and admit that his assertions and contentions were just proven wrong....so much more to pity him. Well, I've exposed him for the childish liar and disingenuous poster on these boards. I'll just ignore the rest of his nonsense on this particular thread...for I detest liars.
Click to expand...

OH-NO, NOT THE DREADED IA!! :shock:

WOE IS ME, WHAT EVER SHALL I DO?? :crybaby:

I guess this leaves me no option, but to say.....:gives:
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, it was called racial discrimination.....not banning a specific (or ALL) weapons from the GENERAL population. Eventually, that was corrected.



Hmmm, let's get specific about your example here......the ban wasn't against the weapons getting to the public in general , but aimed at a specific group of people not to have them....big difference.

Try as you might, you just can't get past my points dispelling STY statement.

Threedee said:
The bans were put in place because the South felt threatened by people who it had persecuted having access to guns. This is also the reason why there is a plethera of military bases in that region compared with the rest of the country, and is subsequently the starting point of the tradition of military service in that hateful hellhole. A moot point that DOES NOT change what I stated previously....a BIG Difference between banning ALL guns from ALL citizens and Discriminating Against One Particular Section of the population.

The fact remains that infringement on gun rights serves no other purpose than to allow the federal government more control over, and less to fear from, the people. That was the sole purpose of those gun bans. Racism is merely what put those people in an inferior position to begin with.
Click to expand...

Actually the FACT remains that you are trying to prove a point by any means necessary....and failing. You are drawing the most tenuous comparisons and then adding convoluted analogy in order to validate what is a general statement by Smarter-than-You that HISTORY itself contradicts (as I demonstrated) to some degree. You are welcome to hold onto your opinion, but repeating it in various forms won't make it any more valid than before, or erradicate the points I put forth. So unless you've got something else to add, I'd say we're done on this point.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It isn't the first time and it won't be the last.
I do feel guilty though; because he is just way to easy.
Click to expand...
Don't. The fact that you've got him to engage in a semblance of debate is commendable. All I've gotten him to do is rant, spew Democrat talking points and insinuate racism.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
What your tiny brain fails to see; is that your original link gives no percetange, which is what was questioned, and then your second link gives some reference to a single group.

See, this is why I am convinced that this man is either just some asshole who gets off on saying anything to get a response or is truly not too bright:

His original quote: Do you have statistics that show the percentage of "owners" that the Police needed to track them down?? Notice there is no specific request for national statistics...he just wanted "statistics". He repeated this same exact request

And the SECOND site offered by me that he rejected: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/2006/cy2006-newyork-rev.pdf

So there you have it folks....either he's stupid, a liar, or just some asshole with an inexplicable axe to grind.

C'mon sissie (s-i-s-s-y); [just use your spine to stand up straight, for once in your life, and act like a man.
Click to expand...

Also note the childish stubborn pride in not admiting he spelled a word wrong by continually using it....and the childish taunting that follows. The man is pathetic, folks...pathetic. Small wonder why I and most others don't respond to him most of the time
 
Taichiliberal said:
Also note the childish stubborn pride in not admiting he spelled a word wrong by continually using it....and the childish taunting that follows. The man is pathetic, folks...pathetic. Small wonder why I and most others don't respond to him most of the time
Click to expand...

YOU ARE JUST A BIG LIAR AND A POOPIE HEAD AND I HAVE PROOF.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, it was called racial discrimination.....not banning a specific (or ALL) weapons from the GENERAL population. Eventually, that was corrected.



Hmmm, let's get specific about your example here......the ban wasn't against the weapons getting to the public in general , but aimed at a specific group of people not to have them....big difference.

Try as you might, you just can't get past my points dispelling STY statement.



Actually the FACT remains that you are trying to prove a point by any means necessary....and failing. You are drawing the most tenuous comparisons and then adding convoluted analogy in order to validate what is a general statement by Smarter-than-You that HISTORY itself contradicts (as I demonstrated) to some degree. You are welcome to hold onto your opinion, but repeating it in various forms won't make it any more valid than before, or erradicate the points I put forth. So unless you've got something else to add, I'd say we're done on this point.
Click to expand...

Actually, you have not used any history to defend your points except one out-of-context quote from Jefferson that referred to national defense rather than the domestic defense. I have used in-context quotes from founders such as Madison (author of 2nd Amendment), and I have also cited the legal conditions of former slaves and the NYC draft riots.
 
Threedee said:
Actually, you have not used any history to defend your points except one out-of-context quote from Jefferson that referred to national defense rather than the domestic defense. Wrong as usual....the recorded posts shows that I used no more or no less source references than the people I've debated. I have used in-context quotes from founders such as Madison (author of 2nd Amendment), and I have also cited the legal conditions of former slaves and the NYC draft riots.
Click to expand...
Baloney....you used one source document, wikipedia (a dubious source of accuracy) and then you just generalized references. I responded in kind, and gave logical deduction as to why your contentions do not work in light of a comprehensive review of the references you used. All you're demonstrating now is an insipid stubborness...which is not unexpected. And since you've got nothing new, we're done on this subject.
 
Last edited:
You got me wrong, I didn't post any links from Wiki - must have been SM or someone else. It is truly disturbing that you are so anxious to remove the individual right to keep and bare arms from the people. You are willing to ignore basic grammar and English, as well as the beliefs, ideas, and people upon which the American Experiment is based in order to advocate for a silly and authoritarian objective. The people are not the property of the government, nor are they its children.

And furthermore, don't lie - you have said nothing logical at any time during this debate. You have utilized circular logic and appeals to ignorance. Clearly you have no grasp of American liberty or the body of philosophy upon which it is based. You have only proven that it is not possible to argue against the 2nd Amendment and look good at the same time.

I wager that you would agree with the quote from Midcan in my signiture line.
 
Threedee said:
You got me wrong, I didn't post any links from Wiki - must have been SM or someone else. It is truly disturbing that you are so anxious to remove the individual right to keep and bare arms from the people. You are willing to ignore basic grammar and English, as well as the beliefs, ideas, and people upon which the American Experiment is based in order to advocate for a silly and authoritarian objective. The people are not the property of the government, nor are they its children.

And furthermore, don't lie - you have said nothing logical at any time during this debate. You have utilized circular logic and appeals to ignorance. Clearly you have no grasp of American liberty or the body of philosophy upon which it is based. You have only proven that it is not possible to argue against the 2nd Amendment and look good at the same time.

I wager that you would agree with the quote from Midcan in my signiture line.
Click to expand...

Nope, it was you, and here's the link to prove it. Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Most liberal states = least free states So either you're just knee jerk anti-anything I'm posting and don't know what you're doing from one day to the next, or you're lying. Either way, I've already disproven the BS of the original article that started this thread, and disproven all the NRA dupe mantras, propaganda and outright ignorant BS that you've thrown out. So like I said, you can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but we've done this dance....and your done. Adios.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Nope, it was you, and here's the link to prove it. Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Most liberal states = least free states So either you're just knee jerk anti-anything I'm posting and don't know what you're doing from one day to the next, or you're lying. Either way, I've already disproven the BS of the original article that started this thread, and disproven all the NRA dupe mantras, propaganda and outright ignorant BS that you've thrown out. So like I said, you can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but we've done this dance....and your done. Adios.
Click to expand...

You have not disproven the existence of the English language, nor of its conventions, nor of its meanings, and until you succeed in this endeavor, you will never defeat the 2nd Amendment. You also cannot account for the historical meaning and significance of the militia in America, which, although made irrelevant by the second clause of the 2nd Amendment, is still an important part of history and of the philosophy of American liberty.

Furthermore, I posted a link to a logical fallacy on Wiki - not to historical or political facts. One, ironically, in which you just applied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top