A challenge to the anti-gun crowd here. - part deux

countryboy said:
You certainly didn't show him up. He got his issued talking points in, regurgitated like a good little drone. And you never countered. He won, you lost.
Click to expand...

I have the personal pleasure in knowing that I scared him so bad, that he surrendered and how do you know it's over. :D
 
archives said:
Now we got this one with his lame ass challenges, I'm not driving to Mississippi or whatever backward State you reside in to take away your toys, you kidding, considering the the possibilities of anyone getting shot by a gun go up astronomically by just having a gun present I hope you have all the toys your underdeveloped libido requires.
Click to expand...

No, we have a another excuse by a fucking coward that says people shouldn't own something yet refuses to personally do anything about it. No one expected you to try. All talk and no action.
 
UH - Stone!!

I noticed you made several posts today; but why are you avoiding this thread and clarifying your stance??

Could it actually be that you're scared that I have information that will destroy your side of this discussion?? :dunno:

:D
 
countryboy said:
It could also be resolved faster if you would just say what you're getting at. Trying to trap these gun-grabbers isn't going to accomplish anything. Just go ahead and educate him already.
Click to expand...

Anyone that fears an inanimate object can't be educated.
 
StoneByStone said:
Yes, the Beretta M9 model should be changed to only hold ten rounds. However, it fires at a standard speed.
And there is no reason to get triggered, we're just talking.
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
But for some reason you didn't include this "disclaimer", when you suggested it.

Why is that?

Maybe you didn't realize that it held 15 rounds and just FELT that it sounded good!! :dunno:

But how would changing the size of the magazine, make it "safer'??
Click to expand...

StoneByStone said:
You're being ridiculous now. :laugh:

Changing the size of the magazine would make it harder to kill more people on a shooting spree.
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
I have something to show you, that proves you to be in error; but I would rather see how you FEEL it would make it harder.
Click to expand...

StoneByStone said:
Isn't it obvious?

Do you really FEEL I need to go into details?
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
You may think it's obvious; but please, go into detail why you think it's going to make it harder.

Unless you're not confident to defend your assertion(s).
Click to expand...

StoneByStone said:
Bullets are needed to kill people. A gun with less bullets can kill less people. Having to reload will literally save lives.

By the way, your signature really undercuts your argument.
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
Now that you've expressed your opinion, may I prove you to be in error or will you just deny it and make excuses; because I have information that will refute your conclusion?
Click to expand...

StoneByStone said:
You have information that disproves the theory that bullets are used to kill people? Or that reload times are real?
Click to expand...

USFREEDOM911 said:
The bullet "theory" is something that I never address.

This was about you saying that restricting guns to 10 round magazines, will cause less people to die.

Are you willing to stay on tangent or do you now intend to move the discussion; because I have irrefutable information that will show you're in error, regarding magazine size.
Click to expand...

Since you're now on; are you willing to watch a video that will refute your claim and then admit you were in error or will just continue to refuse to acknowledge fact(s)??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I know you're getting the "Quote" notice(s) and are just ignoring them, so it's either you're a coward or you have realized that your assertion is BS; which would still make you a coward, for not defending your comment(s).
Click to expand...

Do you not know how this site works? It only lists the last few quotes you get. I don't get to see all of them.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Since you're now on; are you willing to watch a video that will refute your claim and then admit you were in error or will just continue to refuse to acknowledge fact(s)??
Click to expand...

I'm not going to watch a video right now, but you can explain your theory here if you can.
 
StoneByStone said:
I'm not going to watch a video right now, but you can explain your theory here if you can.
Click to expand...

It's not a "theory" and the video completely destroys your assertion, regarding smaller magazines.

Now I know it's around 14 minutes in length; but that's a small price to pay, for seeing FACTS instead of assumptions. :D

 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So you're scared to watch a video, that is going to destroy your entire stance.
Click to expand...

No, I just don't care to watch a video that I know is going to be super cringe. But I'm willing to listen to your counter-point.
Go on, explain why shorter magazines won't cause people to have to reload more.
 
StoneByStone said:
No, I just don't care to watch a video that I know is going to be super cringe. But I'm willing to listen to your counter-point.
Go on, explain why shorter magazines won't cause people to have to reload more.
Click to expand...

My "counter point" is that you're wrong and that you're such a chicken shit that you're scared of the truth. :laugh:

Now you're going on the "reload" road, when you first said it would save lives. :palm:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
My "counter point" is that you're wrong and that you're such a chicken shit that you're scared of the truth. :laugh:

Now you're going on the "reload" road, when you first said it would save lives. :palm:
Click to expand...

Yes, I said shorter magazines would force the shooter to reload more times, thus giving people extra time to escape. You have yet to argue against this point, because you can't.
 
StoneByStone said:
Yes, I said shorter magazines would force the shooter to reload more times, thus giving people extra time to escape. You have yet to argue against this point, because you can't.
Click to expand...

My argument is that you're wrong,

I can prove it; but you don't have the ability to comprehend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top