Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm sorry you are't clever enough to trap me into taking a position you agree with - but then, no one is.Rubbish.The questoin was a false dichotomy - it allowed for only two valid responses when more exist.The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….
The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.
You failed.
I'm sorry you are't clever enough to trap me into taking a position you agree with - but then, no one is.Rubbish.The questoin was a false dichotomy - it allowed for only two valid responses when more exist.The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….
The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.
You failed.
Next time, try not offering a false dichotomy or some other fallacy.
Do you own an illegal bump stockAsk me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!
Thank you for reinforcing your false dichotomy fallacy.The only valid answer falls on the side of logic.I'm sorry you are't clever enough to trap me into taking a position you agree with - but then, no one is.Rubbish.The questoin was a false dichotomy - it allowed for only two valid responses when more exist.The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….
The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.
You failed.
Next time, try not offering a false dichotomy or some other fallacy.
I did, until the terrible boating accident.Do you own an illegal bump stockAsk me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!
Bump stocks were not restricted because of a boating accident.I did, until the terrible boating accident.Do you own an illegal bump stockAsk me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!
No - they were "restricted" because of a nonsensical, hyper-emtional, reactionary response to THE single instance of their illegal use.Bump stocks were not restricted because of a beating accident.I did, until the terrible boating accident.Do you own an illegal bump stockAsk me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!
Thank you for reinforcing your false dichotomy fallacy.The only valid answer falls on the side of logic.I'm sorry you are't clever enough to trap me into taking a position you agree with - but then, no one is.Rubbish.The questoin was a false dichotomy - it allowed for only two valid responses when more exist.The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….
The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.
You failed.
Next time, try not offering a false dichotomy or some other fallacy.
I was 100% honest in my response.Thanks for confirming you cannot be honest.Thank you for reinforcing your false dichotomy fallacy.The only valid answer falls on the side of logic.I'm sorry you are't clever enough to trap me into taking a position you agree with - but then, no one is.Rubbish.The questoin was a false dichotomy - it allowed for only two valid responses when more exist.
You failed.
Next time, try not offering a false dichotomy or some other fallacy.
I was 100% honest in my response.Thanks for confirming you cannot be honest.Thank you for reinforcing your false dichotomy fallacy.The only valid answer falls on the side of logic.I'm sorry you are't clever enough to trap me into taking a position you agree with - but then, no one is.Rubbish.
Next time, try not offering a false dichotomy or some other fallacy.
That you choose to not understand this is not my issue.
You present a false dichotomy.No; you answered a question that wasn’t asked based on data not supplied in the question.I was 100% honest in my response.Thanks for confirming you cannot be honest.Thank you for reinforcing your false dichotomy fallacy.The only valid answer falls on the side of logic.I'm sorry you are't clever enough to trap me into taking a position you agree with - but then, no one is.
Next time, try not offering a false dichotomy or some other fallacy.
That you choose to not understand this is not my issue.
So you are a criminal and wish to be a source of info, presumably to other criminals, who believe that when the Russians attack that a rubber band toy will save them.No - they were "restricted" because of a nonsensical, hyper-emtional, reactionary response to THE single instance of their illegal use.Bump stocks were not restricted because of a beating accident.I did, until the terrible boating accident.Do you own an illegal bump stockAsk me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!
Since you didn't pick up on it, I'll translate my response:
If I have one (or two or five, or...) I'm not telling you.
it would also limit how much I can fire backAsk me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!
If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?
Limiting magazine sizes may do that.
Obviously not.It was a simple yes or no.I'm more concerned about cover and the ability to get away; absent either, I am more concerned about getting hits and not running out of ammo.If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?Ask me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!
That's why my carry guns have 12 to 16 round magazines, with at least 1 reload on hand.
Why do you want me to run out of ammo?
You can talk all you want about rushing shooter during a split-second magazine change; in doing so you completely ignore the extraordinarily high probability that any person who would rush said shiooter would prefer to have a firearm on hand to shoot the shooter instead.
Would you prefer someone spending more time reloading than shooting? Yes or no.
YEs it's better not to be shot at but if you are it's better to have a lot of ammo to shoot backI'm sorry you are't clever enough to trap me into taking a position you agree with - but then, no one is.Rubbish.The questoin was a false dichotomy - it allowed for only two valid responses when more exist.The question isn’t accurate? Wow…thats a first. LOL….
The question does what it was designed to do...It exposes the idiocy of the opposition to magazine size.
You failed.
Next time, try not offering a false dichotomy or some other fallacy.
The only valid answer falls on the side of logic; it’s better not to be shot at. That you have trouble being honest is a creation of your own lack of character.
I am? News to me.So you are a criminal....No - they were "restricted" because of a nonsensical, hyper-emtional, reactionary response to THE single instance of their illegal use.Bump stocks were not restricted because of a beating accident.I did, until the terrible boating accident.Do you own an illegal bump stockAsk me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!
Since you didn't pick up on it, I'll translate my response:
If I have one (or two or five, or...) I'm not telling you.
Ignorance is not an excuseI am? News to me.So you are a criminal....No - they were "restricted" because of a nonsensical, hyper-emtional, reactionary response to THE single instance of their illegal use.Bump stocks were not restricted because of a beating accident.I did, until the terrible boating accident.Do you own an illegal bump stock
Since you didn't pick up on it, I'll translate my response:
If I have one (or two or five, or...) I'm not telling you.
How am I a criminal?Ignorance is not an excuseI am? News to me.So you are a criminal....No - they were "restricted" because of a nonsensical, hyper-emtional, reactionary response to THE single instance of their illegal use.Bump stocks were not restricted because of a beating accident.I did, until the terrible boating accident.
Since you didn't pick up on it, I'll translate my response:
If I have one (or two or five, or...) I'm not telling you.
Bump stocks are federally illegal, if you purchased on credit your name is in a federal database already.How am I a criminal?Ignorance is not an excuseI am? News to me.So you are a criminal....No - they were "restricted" because of a nonsensical, hyper-emtional, reactionary response to THE single instance of their illegal use.Bump stocks were not restricted because of a beating accident.
Since you didn't pick up on it, I'll translate my response:
If I have one (or two or five, or...) I'm not telling you.
it would also limit how much I can fire backAsk me anything, and you'll get an honest answer.
Note that if your question contains falsehoods and/or logical fallacies, that honest answer will make light of same.
Note also that a number of your are on ignore, so if you don't get a response, you'll know why.
Fire away!
If you were being fired at by someone, wouldn’t you prefer they spend more time re-loading than firing at you?
Limiting magazine sizes may do that.
so
