Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on April 30, 2013, 08:16:32 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/daughter-newtown-victim-confronts-gop-senator-voting-against-012821787.html
video in the link.
"During a town hall event in Warren, N.H. on Tuesday, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung went after Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) for voting against expanding background checks on all firearms sales.
"You had mentioned that day the burden on owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would cause," Erica Lafferty said during the town hall. "I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn't more important than that."
Obviously she is grief stricken b/c no rational person would bring up sandy hook in an attempt to push background checks...OH WAIT!!!!!!!
"Erica, certainly let me just say that I'm obviously so sorry, and as everyone here no matter what our views are, for what you have been through," Ayotte replied, later adding that she wants to prevent that kind of mass shooting from ever occurring again.
The GOP senator went on to say that the Sandy Hook tragedy didn't happen because of a flawed "background check system." She stressed the importance of addressing mental health concerns moving forward.
Ayotte also offered to speak additionally with Lafferty and said she respected her differing viewpoint on background checks.
Lafferty ultimately stormed out of the room after the interaction, according to NBC News, because she "had had enough."
She didnt like the answer of addressing the actual root problem so she stormed out
-
sad how brainwashed these people are
-
pretty fucking pathetic to refer to the daughter of the principal that was gunned down at Sandy Hook as "fundie liberal"
-
pretty fucking pathetic to refer to the daughter of the principal that was gunned down at Sandy Hook as "fundie liberal"
Not at all. She acted like a petulant child. People die every day. Why is her mother's death so important? Because people like you and her want to politicize it, that's why.
Funny that you act like you have a moral compass now. Twat.
-
Not at all. She acted like a petulant child. People die every day. Why is her mother's death so important?
Funny that you act like you have a moral compass now. Twat.
About as funny as you re-'branding' yourself as Getbig's Bill Kristol.
-
About as funny as you re-'branding' yourself as Getbig's Bill Kristol.
Re-branding myself? Ha, that's funny.
I fail to see how I'm a neo-con considering I advocate withdrawing completely from the UN and giving a giant middle finger to all foreign recipients of my taxpayer largess. Kristol is also anti-Ron Paul while I voted libertarian (albeit for Gary Johnson) in the election.
Conclusion reached: You're a moron. Ironic that I used to have the opposite opinion of you. Oh well. Certainly won't lose any sleep over it.
-
Not at all. She acted like a petulant child. People die every day. Why is her mother's death so important? Because people like you and her want to politicize it, that's why.
Funny that you act like you have a moral compass now. Twat.
Stalking me again Fairy
Was I talking to you?
If you looked at the video you would see she acted NOTHING like a petulant child. It seems you don't even know what that term means
Now, why do you get back to your deep fry station and let Tony answer the question
-
Not at all. She acted like a petulant child. People die every day.
Definitely pathetic. Just highlights McTones' strange habit of latching onto a word and repeating it into the ground with no consideration of the word's actual meaning.
Why is her mother's death so important? Because people like you and her want to politicize it, that's why.Funny that you act like you have a moral compass now. Twat.
People aren't slaughtered in schoolhouse massacres everyday. Twat.
-
Definitely pathetic. Just highlights McTones' strange habit of latching onto a word and repeating it into the ground with no consideration of the word's actual meaning.
People aren't slaughtered in schoolhouse massacres everyday. Twat.
that's exactly what I was wondering
somehow he understands that "fundie" is commonly used as a pejorative so he just decided to tack it on to the word liberal
-
No law would have prevented Sandy Hook shooting other than a total ban, which is not going to happen.
This woman is brainwashed in thinking her loved one would be alive but for the absence of a law.
-
Re-branding myself? Ha, that's funny.
I fail to see how I'm a neo-con considering I advocate withdrawing completely from the UN and giving a giant middle finger to all foreign recipients of my taxpayer largess. Kristol is also anti-Ron Paul while I voted libertarian (albeit for Gary Johnson) in the election.
Conclusion reached: You're a moron. Ironic that I used to have the opposite opinion of you. Oh well. Certainly won't lose any sleep over it.
Be a mensch. And edit yourself for length.
-
that's exactly what I was wondering
somehow he understands that "fundie" is commonly used as a pejorative so he just decided to tack it on to the word liberal
He's been using this term for a while and each time makes less and less sense. If she is testifying based on a personal experience, how is she a "fundie"? That's essentially the opposite of fundie.
-
No law would have prevented Sandy Hook shooting other than a total ban, which is not going to happen.
This woman is brainwashed in thinking her loved one would be alive but for the absence of a law.
I was wondering how soon someone would bring up that irrelevant point
In fact there could be laws that could have mitigated the damage and death toll (ban on high capacity magazines for example or even much more stringent requirements) but that not the point of background checks. Background checks are a starting point and to suggest that the starting point would not have prevented this tragedy therefore we should do nothing is an argument that only works on morons
-
I was wondering how soon someone would bring up that irrelevant point
In fact there could be laws that could have mitigated the damage and death toll (ban on high capacity magazines for example or even much more stringent requirements) but that not the point of background checks. Background checks are a starting point and to suggest that the starting point would not have prevented this tragedy therefore we should do nothing is an argument that only works on morons
so why propose laws that would not have done anything about the reason for the proposal in the first place?
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-at-least-8-wounded-in-separate-shootings-on-the-south-north-side-20130430,0,4341847.story
dduuhhooooo!!!!!
17 shot last night in Chicago - PASS MORE LAWS!!!
-
so why propose laws that would not have done anything about the reason for the proposal in the first place?
you're too dumb to try to engage in conversation on this topic
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-at-least-8-wounded-in-separate-shootings-on-the-south-north-side-20130430,0,4341847.story
dduuhhooooo!!!!!
17 shot last night in Chicago - PASS MORE LAWS!!!
obviously the existing gun laws aren't preventing gun violence so what's the point of having any law at all
right
-
obviously the existing gun laws aren't preventing gun violence so what's the point of having any law at all
right
So tell me what law Chicago can pass to prevent this?
-
so why propose laws that would not have done anything about the reason for the proposal in the first place?
How can you read his response, ask this question and then post the article you posted, but still somehow manage not to put those three things together? Even if you don't agree, how can you be so dissociative with three consecutive posts?
-
So tell me what law Chicago can pass to prevent this?
we've been over this many time
I don't have time this morning to entertain your willful (or actual) stupidity
btw - don't even bother responding back with some version of the false argument that if we can't prevent 100% of the problem then we shouldn't bother to do anything
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/July-2012/Where-Do-Chicagos-Guns-Come-From/
-
How can you read his response, ask this question and then post the article you posted, but still somehow manage not to put those three things together? Even if you don't agree, how can you be so dissociative with three consecutive posts?
Not all of us agree that there is a problem requiring a new law on top of the tens of thousands in existence now.
-
Be a mensch. And edit yourself for length.
Great rebuttal from one of Getbig's self-styled "intellectuals". Whatever would we do without genius quips like that one above?
Stalking me again Fairy
Was I talking to you?
If you looked at the video you would see she acted NOTHING like a petulant child. It seems you don't even know what that term means
Now, why do you get back to your deep fry station and let Tony answer the question
If you're looking for a response from a specific person then feel free to PM them.
Stick to sniffing 333's ass, stalker.
-
we've been over this many time
I don't have time this morning to entertain your willful (or actual) stupidity
btw - don't even bother responding back with some version of the false argument that if we can't prevent 100% of the problem then we shouldn't bother to do anything
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/July-2012/Where-Do-Chicagos-Guns-Come-From/
So why are there not more crimes in those areas as well?
-
obviously the existing gun laws aren't preventing gun violence so what's the point of having any law at all
right
Outlawing narcotics sure has done a lot to cut down on their use. ::)
-
Great rebuttal from one of Getbig's self-styled "intellectuals". Whatever would we do without genius quips like that one above?
Maybe take oneself less seriously? It will come. In your case, age will bring it.
-
Maybe take oneself less seriously? It will come. In your case, age will bring it.
I don't take myself very seriously at all on here. All I stated was that I fail to see how I'm similar to Bill Kristol when I don't share many of his viewpoints.
-
I don't take myself very seriously at all on here. All I stated was that I fail to see how I'm similar to Bill Kristol when I don't share many of his viewpoints.
Anger. Self-righteousness. Lack of compassion. 'Fury.'
-
Great rebuttal from one of Getbig's self-styled "intellectuals". Whatever would we do without genius quips like that one above?
If you're looking for a response from a specific person then feel free to PM them.
Stick to sniffing 333's ass, stalker.
Why do you keep stalking me Fairy
I ask Tony a question and you show up like a gay stalker
btw - what's with your obsessive jealousy with 333
It seems like you get angry and jeolous whenever I engage him in a conversation
-
Why do you keep stalking me Fairy
I ask Tony a question and you show up like a gay stalker
btw - what's with your obsessive jealousy with 333
It seems like you get angry and jeolous whenever I engage him in a conversation
How about we get back to gun control huh?
-
How about we get back to gun control huh?
tell it to your jealous fanboy
Fairy's MO seems to be to logon and look for any post where I talk to you and then have a jealous fit
maybe you should explain to him that you're only into twinks
-
tell it to your jealous fanboy
Fairy's MO seems to be to logon and look for any post where I talk to you and then have a jealous fit
maybe you should explain to him that you're only into twinks
Im a big boobs big booty and curves on a chick guy - sorry - no twinks for me
-
Im a big boobs big booty and curves on a chick guy - sorry - no twinks for me
if you say so
bad news for Fairy
-
if you say so
bad news for Fairy
It stuns me that you can devote hour-after-hour and day-after-day of your life to stalking him on here. Not only does it ruin the board but I can't believe that you have nothing better going on in your life at 46.
I pity you. :D
-
It stuns me that you can devote hour-after-hour and day-after-day of your life to stalking him on here. Not only does it ruin the board but I can't believe that you have nothing better going on in your life at 46.
I pity you. :D
I'll explain it to you Fairy and maybe you will stop stalking me
I sit with 3 computers in front of me most of the time and can easily make a post now and then while working
I understand why that might confuse you since you're most likely employed in the food service industry and have to punch a time clock
-
I'll explain it to you Fairy and maybe you will stop stalking me
I sit with 3 computers in front of me most of the time and can easily make a post now and then while working
I understand why that might confuse you since you're most likely employed in the food service industry and have to punch a time clock
Sitting at a desk with 2 monitors in front of me right now, although I use these for work. I'm impressed that you have 3 monitors to surf the internet all day, though. Bravo.
-
Sitting at a desk with 2 monitors in front of me right now, although I use these for work. I'm impressed that you have 3 monitors to surf the internet all day, though. Bravo.
Ban monitors!
-
Outlawing narcotics sure has done a lot to cut down on their use. ::)
You have to legalize pot because making it illegal hasn't curbed use--only caused otherwise law-abiding citizens to become criminals by using.
You have to make guns illegal because it will curb their use--not just end up causing otherwise law-abiding citizens to become criminals for the guns they own.
-
Sitting at a desk with 2 monitors in front of me right now, although I use these for work. I'm impressed that you have 3 monitors to surf the internet all day, though. Bravo.
congratulations on your promotion to the drive thru window
-
congratulations on your promotion to the drive thru window
Is abiding by the rules so hard for you?
-
Re-branding myself? Ha, that's funny.
I fail to see how I'm a neo-con considering I advocate withdrawing completely from the UN and giving a giant middle finger to all foreign recipients of my taxpayer largess. Kristol is also anti-Ron Paul while I voted libertarian (albeit for Gary Johnson) in the election.
Conclusion reached: You're a moron. Ironic that I used to have the opposite opinion of you. Oh well. Certainly won't lose any sleep over it.
You dont pay taxes stop lying.
-
pretty fucking pathetic to refer to the daughter of the principal that was gunned down at Sandy Hook as "fundie liberal"
If she was using the death of her mother to further action that would have actually prevented her mothers death that would be fine.
Instead she was asking why the senator voted against a background check bill that wouldnt have stopped the shooting while using the shooting as her basis for support...
FUNDY LIBTARD
-
If she was using the death of her mother to further action that would have actually prevented her mothers death that would be fine.
Instead she was asking why the senator voted against a background check bill that wouldnt have stopped the shooting while using the shooting as her basis for support...
FUNDY LIBTARD
I've already addressed your false argument on page 1
how about you tell us what a fundy liberal is
did you make that word up yourself ?
I don't recall seeing it before
-
I was wondering how soon someone would bring up that irrelevant point
In fact there could be laws that could have mitigated the damage and death toll (ban on high capacity magazines for example or even much more stringent requirements) but that not the point of background checks. Background checks are a starting point and to suggest that the starting point would not have prevented this tragedy therefore we should do nothing is an argument that only works on morons
let me get this straight, this women is using the death of her mother to push a law that wouldnt have prevented the death of her mother and bringing that up is irrelevant?
LMFAO the lengths to which you will go to deflect and justify your viewpoints are endless.
-
tell me this straw, why should I not be able to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine?
-
I've already addressed your false argument on page 1
how about you tell us what a fundy liberal is
did you make that word up yourself ?
I don't recall seeing it before
you didnt address shit, you deflected the point with ignorance.
-
let me get this straight, this women is using the death of her mother to push a law that wouldnt have prevented the death of her mother and bringing that up is irrelevant?
LMFAO the lengths to which you will go to deflect and justify your viewpoints are endless.
yes, it's a false argument but I don't doubt for a second that you'll understand it or stop doing it
now what exactly is a fundy liberal
I was wondering how soon someone would bring up that irrelevant point
In fact there could be laws that could have mitigated the damage and death toll (ban on high capacity magazines for example or even much more stringent requirements) but that not the point of background checks. Background checks are a starting point and to suggest that the starting point would not have prevented this tragedy therefore we should do nothing is an argument that only works on morons
-
tell me this straw, why should I not be able to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine?
you personally should not even be allowed to own a computer much less a gun
-
yes, it's a false argument but I don't doubt for a second that you'll understand it or stop doing it
now what exactly is a fundy liberal
ahhhh this woman wasnt arguing for many laws she was arguing for one specific law, a background check law and was using her mothers death to push it...which we all know wouldnt have prevented her mothers death
nowhere in the senators comments did she say she was against imposing new laws, but laws that actually addressed the root problem which is mental health.
your "rebuttle" is as irrelevant as the fundy liberals in the video.
-
you personally should not even be allowed to own a computer much less a gun
ok, why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed then?
-
ahhhh this woman wasnt arguing for many laws she was arguing for one specific law, a background check law and was using her mothers death to push it...which we all know wouldnt have prevented her mothers death
nowhere in the senators comments did she say she was against imposing new laws, but laws that actually addressed the root problem which is mental health.
your "rebuttle" is as irrelevant as the fundy liberals in the video.
the "root problem as mental health" is your claim
where has this been absolutely identified as the "root problem" for the gun violence in this country
did I miss your explanation of fundy liberal?
-
the "root problem as mental health" is your claim
where has this been absolutely identified as the "root problem" for the gun violence in this country
did I miss your explanation of fundy liberal?
ahhh, so now your argument is about all gun violence then? not just the mass shootings?
how is background checks going to prevent those, the majority of which are drug related?
-
ahhh, so now your argument is about all gun violence then? not just the mass shootings?
how is background checks going to prevent those, the majority of which are drug related?
when did I ever say the argument was only about mass shootings
when did I say a background check alone would prevent the majority of anything?
btw - what exactly is the problem a background check anyway
why shouldn't we check the background of ANYONE and EVERYONE
we should not only have them for all transactions we should have the annually or semi annually
Did you happen to notice the terms "WELL REGULATED" in the 2nd amendment
sounds like the founders were all for a lot of regulation or at least left the door wide open for it
-
when did I ever say the argument was only about mass shootings
when did I say a background check alone would prevent the majority of anything?
btw - what exactly is the problem a background check anyway
why shouldn't we check the background of ANYONE and EVERYONE
we should not only have them for all transactions we should have the annually or semi annually
Did you happen to notice the terms "WELL REGULATED" in the 2nd amendment
sounds like the founders were all for a lot of regulation or at least left the door wide open for it
b/c the govt will undoubtedly keep records of who owns the guns. I like 48% of america I believe that the govt could use that list to help confiscate guns in the future.
what % of guns used in violent crimes are obtained legally without a background check?
-
why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine?
-
b/c the govt will undoubtedly keep records of who owns the guns. I like 48% of america I believe that the govt could use that list to help confiscate guns in the future.
what % of guns used in violent crimes are obtained legally without a background check?
I know that's one of the arguments people like to make that it will lead...down the road to "records" but I say so what
I would hope they have records otherwise what's the point and what exactly is the problem with having a record of who owns a specific firearm. That seems like a good thing for LE to know when trying to solve a crime
we keep records of who owns cars, medical devices and all kinds of other shit so why shouldn't we keep records of who owns deadly weapons
-
I know that's one of the arguments people like to make that it will lead...down the road to "records" but I say so what
I would hope they have records otherwise what's the point and what exactly is the problem with having a record of who owns a specific firearm. That seems like a good thing for LE to know when trying to solve a crime
we keep records of who owns cars, medical devices and all kinds of other shit so why shouldn't we keep records of who owns deadly weapons
thats an argument that more americans believe in than dont believe in.......
the so what is that while we all know that you dont care if they confiscate all guns, MANY ppl do and those that do dont want to give anybody any help in doing so.
how many violent gun acts are perpetrated with guns obtained legally without background checks straw?
-
why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine?
no answer?
-
btw - what exactly is the problem a background check anyway
Yeah, but they didn't go for a simple background check in the bill.
They tried to penalize States that didn't provide information in accordance with Administration standards.
They wanted the AG to develop the eligibility requirements.
They wanted to spend 400 million to enact changes.
They wanted to nail people for a federal offense if they didn't report a gun lost or stolen within 24 hrs.
and on.
You get the point. If they would have stuck to something more basic, I think it may have passed.
-
no answer?
no rational one
-
Yeah, but they didn't go for a simple background check in the bill.
They tried to penalize States that didn't provide information in accordance with Administration standards.
They wanted the AG to develop the eligibility requirements.
They wanted to spend 400 million to enact changes.
They wanted to nail people for a federal offense if they didn't report a gun lost or stolen within 24 hrs.
and on.
You get the point. If they would have stuck to something more basic, I think it may have passed.
you got a source or link for any of those claims?
-
why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine?
-
you got a source or link for any of those claims?
You can read the bill yourself and see what was in it.
I think this is the latest version.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s374#overview
The part about it being the reason for not passing is just my opinion. BTW, it's not completely dead.
-
You can read the bill yourself and see what was in it.
I think this is the latest version.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s374#overview
The part about it being the reason for not passing is just my opinion. BTW, it's not completely dead.
Thanks, I will check it out
The reason I asked is because there seemed to be a lot of misinformation about what was in the legislation so I'm not assuming anything about it is accurate without proof
Below is just one example
Manchin also criticized the NRA, who had given him an A rating, for distorting the substance of his amendment.
“I was surprised when the latest alerts from the NRA were filled with so much misinformation about the firearms background check legislation,” he said.
Manchin said the gun-owners-rights’ group told members the bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms.
“I don’t know how to put the words any plainer than this: that is a lie,” he said.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases#ixzz2S5d5DPMF
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
-
why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine?
-
what's a fundy liberal ?
-
what's a fundy liberal ?
to paint with a broad brush anyone who shares your viewpoints....but then again its probably the same as your definition of fundie.
seeing as you use that word all the time as well...
now why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine?
-
what's a fundy liberal ?
It's short for Fundamentalist Liberal [retarded] Douchebags.
First coined by McTones on GetBig to describe a group of incredibly moronic people for which rational, reasonable, and critical thought is absent, whilst their strict adherence to fundamental libtard principles remains in tact, the term is now widely understood to include most liberals and 'progressives'.
-
to paint with a broad brush anyone who shares your viewpoints....but then again its probably the same as your definition of fundie.
seeing as you use that word all the time as well...
now why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine?
so whats the difference between a liberal and a fundie liberal
The standard definition of a "fundie" is a fundamentalist christian (you know the kind that thinks the earth if 6000 year old, and all the other nonsense). It has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat so I'm not seeing how you're applying the word fundie to the word liberal unless you're suggesting that the certain liberals are also fundamentalist christians
-
It's short for Fundamentalist Liberal [retarded] Douchebags.
First coined by McTones on GetBig to describe a group of incredibly moronic people for which rational, reasonable, and critical thought is absent, whilst their strict adherence to fundamental libtard principles remains in tact, the term is now widely understood to include most liberals and 'progressives'.
LOL like I said anybody who shares the same views as strawman
-
so whats the difference between a liberal and a fundie liberal
The standard definition of a "fundie" is a fundamentalist christian (you know the kind that thinks the earth if 6000 year old, and all the other nonsense). It has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat so I'm not seeing how you're applying the word fundie to the word liberal unless you're suggesting that the certain liberals are also fundamentalist christians
standard definition? according to whom?
so whats the difference between a fundie and a christian?
as for your question the difference between a fundy liberal and a liberal is that for liberals the ends dont justify the means. They still use logic in their thinking, someone trying to use an event to push legislation that wouldnt have prevented that event ISNT USING LOGIC
-
standard definition? according to whom?
so whats the difference between a fundie and a christian?
as for your question the difference between a fundy liberal and a liberal is that for liberals the ends dont justify the means. They still use logic in their thinking, someone trying to use an event to push legislation that wouldnt have prevented that event ISNT USING LOGIC
fundamentalist christian is not a term that I made up (I assume you know this)
you can find many different places on the web that will provide you with a definition of a fundamentalist christian and explain the difference between fundamentalist as compared to many different sects of christians
Since you actually appear to have coined the term "fundy liberal" it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to explain your own creation
so far your explanation makes no sense at all
-
fundamentalist christian is not a term that I made up (I assume you know this)
you can find many different places on the web that will provide you with a definition of a fundamentalist christian and explain the difference between fundamentalist as compared to many different sects of christians
Since you actually appear to have coined the term "fundy liberal" it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to explain your own creation
so far your explanation makes no sense at all
I never said you made it up, you said fundie is standard definition for fundamentalist christian....again according to whom?
Actually you can google and do the same for fundie liberal as well...many explanitions...
so, why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine
-
I never said you made it up, you said fundie is standard definition for fundamentalist christian....again according to whom?
Actually you can google and do the same for fundie liberal as well...many explanitions...
so, why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine
it's a colloquialism and I'm sure most everyone who sees or hears it used knows that it refers to a fundamentalist christian though I think it could be used to refer to a fundamentalist type in any religion though the reference to certain type christian is most common
why am I not surprised that you don't know this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
-
it's a colloquialism and I'm sure most everyone who sees or hears it used knows that it refers to a fundamentalist christian though I think it could be used to refer to a fundamentalist type in any religion though the reference to certain type christian is most common
why am I not surprised that you don't know this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
now take that understanding of the word fundamentalism and apply it to a liberal political ideology....LMFAO i didnt think it was that hard to understand but I guess it is......
-
now take that understanding of the word fundamentalism and apply it to a liberal political ideology....LMFAO i didnt think it was that hard to understand but I guess it is......
go right ahead
it's your word
you created it
all I asked it that you explain the definition
I have no idea what the difference is between a fundy liberal and just a liberal
obviously you must have had some distinction in mind when you coined the term
It couldn't just be that you thought "fundie = bad so I'll just attach it to the work liberal"
so tell us the difference
be as explicit as you possibly can so that we have a clear understanding of the difference
-
go right ahead
it's your word
you created it
all I asked it that you explain the definition
I have no idea what the difference is between a fundy liberal and just a liberal
obviously you must have had some distinction in mind when you coined the term
It couldn't just be that you thought "fundie = bad so I'll just attach it to the work liberal"
so tell us the difference
be as explicit as you possibly can so that we have a clear understanding of the difference
I didnt create shit, Im guessing you didnt google it our you would have seen multiple links from years ago............
SOOOOOOOO, http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=477053.0 wanna answer the question?(he asked knowing, it would be side stepped yet again)
-
I didnt create shit, Im guessing you didnt google it our you would have seen multiple links from years ago............
SOOOOOOOO, http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=477053.0 wanna answer the question?(he asked knowing, it would be side stepped yet again)
I thought you did create and Skip offered up the same guess
It's short for Fundamentalist Liberal [retarded] Douchebags.
First coined by McTones on GetBig to describe a group of incredibly moronic people for which rational, reasonable, and critical thought is absent, whilst their strict adherence to fundamental libtard principles remains in tact, the term is now widely understood to include most liberals and 'progressives'.
I don't recall seeing anyone else use it so if you didn't create it then that's fine
I assume we can both agree you're the who typed it in the title of this thread
I didn't see it used anywhere in the story that you included in your first post on this thread
I read the story and didn't even see Erica Lafferty referred to as a liberal
So again, I assume we can both agree that you're the one who chose to refer to Erica Lafferty as a "Fundy Liberal"
Still just trying to understand exactly what you meant by that word
-
I thought you did create and Skip offered up the same guess
I don't recall seeing anyone else use it so if you didn't create it then that's fine
I assume we can both agree you're the who typed it in the title of this thread
I didn't see it used anywhere in the story that you included in your first post on this thread
I read the story and didn't even see Erica Lafferty referred to as a liberal
So again, I assume we can both agree that you're the one who chose to refer to Erica Lafferty as a "Fundy Liberal"
Still just trying to understand exactly what you meant by that word
oh sweet goodness, piss off already you moron...I have never seen someone argue over minutiae the way you do, all the while deflecting and side stepping points and questions.
-
oh sweet goodness, piss off already you moron...I have never seen someone argue over minutiae the way you do, all the while deflecting and side stepping points and questions.
All I did was ask you want you meant by a word that you used that I've never heard before
I assumed you actually knew what it meant since you're the one that chose to refer to this woman as a fundy liberal
-
why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to own an "assault rifle" and a "high capacity" magazine?
Crickets chirping
-
I was wondering how soon someone would bring up that irrelevant point
In fact there could be laws that could have mitigated the damage and death toll (ban on high capacity magazines for example or even much more stringent requirements)
Have you ever changed a magazine on an AR15?
It takes seconds. Slightly longer than it takes to blink your eye. All you have to do is hit the magazine release and your current mag falls on the floor. Grab another mag from you belt, vest, or pocket and pop it in. Pull the charging handle back to chamber a round and you are good to go. Seconds. If no one is shooting back at you you could kill exactly the same amount of people with three 10 rounds magazines as you could with one 30 rounder. The proposed "high capacity" ban is an enormous waste of time.
What the .gov needs to do is enforce the laws that are already on the books. Also, stop giving probation and infinite second chances to violent criminals. Stop making felons into the victims because of their race. Start protecting the real victims of violent crime. When murdering rapist criminals get caught in the USA illegally, deport them. Also, If a criminal tries to purchase a firearm and the existing background check catches it, FOLLOW UP!
That will never happen. We already have thousands of gun laws. The .gov doesn't enforce them so it will appear that the laws aren't working and we need, you guessed it, more laws. It's a cycle of bullshit and I can only hope that the few Americans left that have half a brain start to point that out to the Erica Laffertys of the world.
-
LOL!!! Worth repeating.
Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it.
-
Have you ever changed a magazine on an AR15?
It takes seconds. Slightly longer than it takes to blink your eye. All you have to do is hit the magazine release and your current mag falls on the floor. Grab another mag from you belt, vest, or pocket and pop it in. Pull the charging handle back to chamber a round and you are good to go. Seconds. If no one is shooting back at you you could kill exactly the same amount of people with three 10 rounds magazines as you could with one 30 rounder. The proposed "high capacity" ban is an enormous waste of time.
What the .gov needs to do is enforce the laws that are already on the books. Also, stop giving probation and infinite second chances to violent criminals. Stop making felons into the victims because of their race. Start protecting the real victims of violent crime. When murdering rapist criminals get caught in the USA illegally, deport them. Also, If a criminal tries to purchase a firearm and the existing background check catches it, FOLLOW UP!
That will never happen. We already have thousands of gun laws. The .gov doesn't enforce them so it will appear that the laws aren't working and we need, you guessed it, more laws. It's a cycle of bullshit and I can only hope that the few Americans left that have half a brain start to point that out to the Erica Laffertys of the world.
Charging handle automatically locks on the last round fired...after clip is inserted all you have to do is hit the bolt release...FYI
-
Have you ever changed a magazine on an AR15?
It takes seconds. Slightly longer than it takes to blink your eye. All you have to do is hit the magazine release and your current mag falls on the floor. Grab another mag from you belt, vest, or pocket and pop it in. Pull the charging handle back to chamber a round and you are good to go. Seconds. If no one is shooting back at you you could kill exactly the same amount of people with three 10 rounds magazines as you could with one 30 rounder. The proposed "high capacity" ban is an enormous waste of time.
What the .gov needs to do is enforce the laws that are already on the books. Also, stop giving probation and infinite second chances to violent criminals. Stop making felons into the victims because of their race. Start protecting the real victims of violent crime. When murdering rapist criminals get caught in the USA illegally, deport them. Also, If a criminal tries to purchase a firearm and the existing background check catches it, FOLLOW UP!
That will never happen. We already have thousands of gun laws. The .gov doesn't enforce them so it will appear that the laws aren't working and we need, you guessed it, more laws. It's a cycle of bullshit and I can only hope that the few Americans left that have half a brain start to point that out to the Erica Laffertys of the world.
I'll take the few extra seconds when it's happening while a nutbag is mowing down unarmed people. I'd rather give that advantage to the potential victims any day of the week. And although you may be able to practice doing it in seconds when you're under no stress when you put it in the hands of a deranged person with no experience in the middle of a very stressful situation and it might just take a bit longer than a few seconds. Again, I'll take moving that slight advantage over to the unarmed crowd of potential victims than our sympathetic potential shooter.
If I recall correctly the shooter in Arizona was only stopped because he dropped his magazine when trying to reload (after having emptied 33 round magazine).
If he had to stop after 9 or 10 rounds there would be a lot less dead people
period
-
Charging handle automatically locks on the last round fired...after clip is inserted all you have to do is hit the bolt release...FYI
How does that advance the discussion? The bottom line is that it takes seconds. It's a very uncomplicated process that even a retard could do quickly. Bolt release or otherwise.
-
How does that advance the discussion? The bottom line is that it takes seconds. It's a very uncomplicated process that even a retard could do quickly. Bolt release or otherwise.
most of these liberal beta-twinks have never fired an AR so they have no clue whatsoever.
-
How does that advance the discussion? The bottom line is that it takes seconds. It's a very uncomplicated process that even a retard could do quickly. Bolt release or otherwise.
I was just correcting the weapons function description....I could care less about the discussion. If semi-autos become "illegal", I'll still own them! Weapons possession or dead......hmmmmmm.
-
I was just correcting the weapons function description....I could care less about the discussion. If semi-autos become "illegal", I'll still own them! Weapons possession or dead......hmmmmmm.
I respect your attention to detail. I wouldn't want these liberal pussies to think that they could just pop another mag in and start shooting without chambering a round. When the economy takes a shit(any day now) they will realize that learning to shoot is valuable.
-
I respect your attention to detail. I wouldn't want these liberal pussies to think that they could just pop another mag in and start shooting without chambering a round. When the economy takes a shit(any day now) they will realize that learning to shoot is valuable.
If all hell breaks loose I'll be visiting all the local libs....they don't have guns, I DO!
I'll eat good...they....no so much.