follow Dan8267 following
follow Dan8267 2017 Oct 4, 8:54am
641 views 74 comments
« First « Previous Comments 35 - 74 of 74 Last »
Perhaps, but that isnt the correct search. The chart does not measure the scale of the individual shootings. It measures the NUMBER OF MASS SHOOTINGS. I'm sure you are smart enough to know the difference.
and no I dont have time to go through all of it and figure out why. Neither does anyone else here with a life.
Next you will deny raping goats
You always know when you win an argument with Dan when he goes to the gutter with his reply.
An uninformed opinion deserves no respect
You are suggesting that someone needs to find, read, and organize every article on a shooting to have an informed opinion?
Dan8267 saysAn uninformed opinion deserves no respectYou are suggesting that someone needs to find, read, and organize every article on a shooting to have an informed opinion?
Your logical thinking is yet again, terrible.
If you are
Making Dan a moderator of anything is a fucking joke.
Anonymous posts should not be allowed.
Dan, you should really consider growing up and stop acting like a spoiled, crybaby second grader. Your immature rants and name calling get you ZERO respect here. Wonder why your love of goats thread has -7 Upvotes? Go look in the mirror!
Anonymous posts have to be approved by Patrick before they get submitted to the forum.
See, even Patrick thinks you're a flaming asshole, since he lets those posts in.
You have created dozens of alts.
are the only two idiots ever to be banned and to have their accounts deleted.
If Patrick were policing every single anonymous post, he would not have let many of them through.
Nice try, it sucks that Patrick thinks you're an asshole
If Patrick says he thinks I'm an asshole,
Nice try, it sucks that Patrick thinks you're an asshole (and lets those Anon posts in) and only "uses" you for coding help,
deepcgi saysI’m not a gun guy, but I am an insatiable advocate of individual rights and personal liberty.Why would the freedom to possess machines that fling mass projectiles be any more an individual right or personal liberty than the freedom to possess machines that split Uranium atoms or machines that invade human cells and alter their DNA in lethal ways? We certainly do not allow the latter two, so why the former?
I’m not a gun guy, but I am an insatiable advocate of individual rights and personal liberty.
Cowardice has never been sexy.
Agree to this bet. If Patrick says he thinks I'm an asshole, I'll immediately leave PatNet and never come back. If Patrick says he does not think I'm an asshole, you will immediately leave PatNet and never come back. No alts. No posts. Nothing.
Your reasoning is flawed by years of corrupt programming and self induced Taylor Swifting.
Don't be daft.Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual. They have been safely used for such purposes by the overwhelming majority of civilian owners since their invention. A responsible user can safely deploy these weapons without threatening the safety of others.The uranium splitting machines are not practical for recreational or self defense use by individuals. They cannot safely be used for recreational or self defense purposes on the continental United States without threatening the safety of others.Your reasoning is flawed by years of corrupt programming and self induced Taylor Swifting.
Devices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual.
Dan has a lot of personal experience in not being sexy,
Jesus christ dan. Grow the fuck up.
Quote of the year. You summed up Dan perfectly in this one sentence.
you fling insults as often as I do,
Your wife begs to differ.
Wow, you are really a pussy.
but you really are a coward
You are a coward, a liar, an imbecile, and a loser.
The fact that CBOEtrader is one of his buddies says all you need to know about that fool as well.
We all know you really are into bestiality.
Learn to use a library, dumb ass.
Next you will deny raping goats.
you cannot make an intelligible counter-argument to the original post and must resort to ad hom attacks instead.
You want to talk about the second amendment? Are you for it? Why do you hold this position? Do you think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? Is that why your panties are in a bunch? If you want to have a conversation you need to actually present some dialog not just more daft questions.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."So it depends on your definition of arms.
Don't you see that as a unfair advantage?
Exactly, the definition of arms.When the 2nd was written, the Militia had the same "arms" as the government. Does the Militia have access to the same "arms" the government has now?Don't you see that as a unfair advantage?
PeopleUnited saysDevices that hurl projectiles have recreational and self defense purposes when possessed by an individual. Pot has recreational purposes. That does not make it a right.Ok, and your point is? As for self-defense, guns are worthless against the government, and fighting the government was the SOLE purpose of the Second Amendment. You need nukes to fight a nuclear power. So your entire analysis is wrong.You are saying that the whole point of the second amendment was that people have the right to fight the government? You are crazy and dangerous. You should be on some kind of watch list. You are advocating treason. Furthermore, every person is safer in a society that has few or no guns than in a society that is well-armed. This has been proved by the Australian example and by western Europe.No, these "examples" are irrelevant to your argument that the purpose of the second amendment was to give citizens the weapons to wage war on the government. You said so yourself. And now you want to argue a different point. You don't even have a coherent discussion.Finally, you still haven't addressed all the other arms that individuals are not allowed to possess like land mines, grenades, flame throwers, etc., all of which can be used for home defense.
PeopleUnited saysYou want to talk about the second amendment? Are you for it? Why do you hold this position? Do you think it means the people have the right to bear nuclear arms? Is that why your panties are in a bunch? If you want to have a conversation you need to actually present some dialog not just more daft questions.Do I want to talk about it? Yes, I think it's relevant to the discussion.Am I for it? Not really important. So in other words you are unwilling to answer your own question.Pretty lame.
So in other words you are unwilling to answer your own question.Pretty lame.
Either you're for the 2nd Amendment or not. Which is it?
So, my question is how you can you NOT believe that people have the right to bear them?Is that why your panties are in a bunch? No idea what you are talking about here.
« First « Previous Comments 35 - 74 of 74 Last »