No one is going to take your guns

Guns, like insurance are about mitigating risk. In the case of insurance you pay money over time and risk never recouping it vs. the risk of something happening and you NOT having insurance, thus having to pay for entire event.

With guns, you mitigate the risk of being assaulted by ANY threat, vs. the risk of misusing the gun. Yes, some people do misuse them, but that is a risk YOU can control. What you can't control is a violent confrontation by an armed or bigger perp if you are not armed.

Eat that, fucktard.

No thanks. False analogies in canard sauce gives me gas. Knock yourself out.

otherwise known as, "no retort."

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

You're attempting to compare a psychosis with a business practice. 'Nuff said.

DUH.
 
No thanks. False analogies in canard sauce gives me gas.

Actually, it's an apt analogy - even though you got your ass handed to you.

Man up and accept that you were beaten.

Knock yourself out.

:eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:

Man up and bite me, Danth. He tried to float a comparison between an emotional state and a wagering business. If all it took to "win" an argument was a stupid unworkable analogy, you'd have some actual notches in your belt by now. But by all means, enlighten us on how walking around in a comic book world of self-delusional fear is like paying an insurance premium. This oughta be good.

This is how weak you coward wankers argue -- got nothing but snark, declaring victory and then running away.
 
Last edited:
Not yet they're not! :lol:

Life begins at first breath. Just like the Sistine Chapel depicts.

It's funny how you dumbass progs are all for Catholicism now that the Pope has called for wealth redistribution.
I was raised Catholic, but I haven't really been one ever. I enjoy some of the pageantry, and the funny hats, though.

You're the supposed believer. Why don't you believe that God breathed life into man?
Where did you get the asinine idea that I don't believe that?
 
Two women who are unlikely to be raped. :thup:


I don't know why anti-gun nuts want women to be raped. That's just sick.


The first could be a guy.
Oh, yes, guys don't get raped.

Wait -- yes, they do.
The second is unlikely to be raped anyway. She doesn't look like she needs a gun to fight off anyone.
She'd need a gun to fight off a rapist with a knife.

Seriously, son, the fail just never stops with you, does it?

Uh.... that's not what he means.
Only an obsessed gun fetishist could fail to see the obvious point. :eusa_whistle:
 
tumblr_m4ajtcqVSh1r5j928o1_500.gif


gunmamma.gif
Two women who are unlikely to be raped. :thup:


I don't know why anti-gun nuts want women to be raped. That's just sick.

No, we just don't want them shooting their husbands during an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best or their kids shooting themselves because their girlfriend unfriended them on Facebook.

Both far more likely, given the gun statistics.
Given the false statistics you try to peddle, sure.
 
[


...and then there is this:

"Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. (Steven) Lippmann (of the University of Louisville School of Medicine) and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder. "
Daily Kos: Guns in homes kill people
Did you notice how the number keeps going down?

First it was 43 times. Then 22. Now 12.

Come back when they get it right.

Any of those numbers are equally bad.

But here's the thing. When Kellerman came out with his study, the NRA ran whining to Congress to make sure the CDC never, ever studied this subject again.

Strikes me they know what the truth is, and really don't want you to know. Which is fine, because you don't want to know.
No, they DON'T know what the truth is. CDC has an anti-gun agenda, and their studies are skewed.

But morons who agree with the agenda eagerly swallow it.

You know, like you.
 
And one lame strawman who is unlikely to be entertained. :thup:
Not really. A firearm is a far more effective deterrent than pissing your pants or throwing up, don't you think?

"Deterrent" pre-assumes "threat". There's your problem right there: seeing everything around you as a "threat".
We're not talking about what I see as a threat -- which is not everything around me, by the way.

We're talking about rape and the effectiveness of the leftist recommendation -- peeing in your pants or throwing up -- and the normal person's recommendation, buying, training with, and carrying a weapon.

Which do you think is more effective?
That, along with subsequent escalation of that paranoia. You have a rock? I get a rock. You have a stick? I get a stick. You have a thermonuclear device? I get a thermonuclear device. What could possibly go wrong. :dunno:
The funny part is, I don't even own any firearms right now. I sold the Marlin .22 I had, the only firearm I had. :lol:
 
Is Mal-Wart having a sale on non sequiturs?

And THIS is how a progressive stoodge reacts when they get called on something.

Enjoy your paint filled corner.

Hey, don't blame your inability to think on somebody else. You make the leap from comic book paranoia to insurance, not me. Which means I called you out, not the other way around. Duh?
Ummm, Pogo, you know I think you're all right, but you and I were talking about anti-rape strategies, and then you shifted over to me thinking everything around me is a threat.

So you've got no reason to criticize anyone about making leaps.
 
The first could be a guy.
Oh, yes, guys don't get raped.

Wait -- yes, they do.
The second is unlikely to be raped anyway. She doesn't look like she needs a gun to fight off anyone.
She'd need a gun to fight off a rapist with a knife.

Seriously, son, the fail just never stops with you, does it?

Uh.... that's not what he means.
Only an obsessed gun fetishist could fail to see the obvious point. :eusa_whistle:
Dood. It's Synthia. He's incapable of having a point. :lol:
 
And THIS is how a progressive stoodge reacts when they get called on something.

Enjoy your paint filled corner.

Hey, don't blame your inability to think on somebody else. You make the leap from comic book paranoia to insurance, not me. Which means I called you out, not the other way around. Duh?
Ummm, Pogo, you know I think you're all right, but you and I were talking about anti-rape strategies, and then you shifted over to me thinking everything around me is a threat.

So you've got no reason to criticize anyone about making leaps.

Actually I've never been talking about anti-rape strategies. I believe that's your strawman.

Anyway this stream was Marty's psychosis. Don't get too near it, might be contagious.
 
Not really. A firearm is a far more effective deterrent than pissing your pants or throwing up, don't you think?

"Deterrent" pre-assumes "threat". There's your problem right there: seeing everything around you as a "threat".
We're not talking about what I see as a threat -- which is not everything around me, by the way.

We're talking about rape and the effectiveness of the leftist recommendation -- peeing in your pants or throwing up -- and the normal person's recommendation, buying, training with, and carrying a weapon.

Which do you think is more effective?

Well first, I don't see how self-urination or vomiting can be described as "leftist", but I will be glad to take the question to my doctor just in case you're right...

And second, I have this gnawing suspicion that the two methods you've listed here are not the only two there are. But I know which one I find more destructive, because the answer to guns is always... more guns. :thup:

(/sarc)

That, along with subsequent escalation of that paranoia. You have a rock? I get a rock. You have a stick? I get a stick. You have a thermonuclear device? I get a thermonuclear device. What could possibly go wrong. :dunno:
The funny part is, I don't even own any firearms right now. I sold the Marlin .22 I had, the only firearm I had. :lol:

It happens, it's a message board. I don't drink Pepsi (or Coke) and yet I find myself trapped in this thing.
 
Hey, don't blame your inability to think on somebody else. You make the leap from comic book paranoia to insurance, not me. Which means I called you out, not the other way around. Duh?
Ummm, Pogo, you know I think you're all right, but you and I were talking about anti-rape strategies, and then you shifted over to me thinking everything around me is a threat.

So you've got no reason to criticize anyone about making leaps.

Actually I've never been talking about anti-rape strategies. I believe that's your strawman.

Anyway this stream was Marty's psychosis. Don't get too near it, might be contagious.
Yeah, I've played this game with you before. Not interested.
 
"Deterrent" pre-assumes "threat". There's your problem right there: seeing everything around you as a "threat".
We're not talking about what I see as a threat -- which is not everything around me, by the way.

We're talking about rape and the effectiveness of the leftist recommendation -- peeing in your pants or throwing up -- and the normal person's recommendation, buying, training with, and carrying a weapon.

Which do you think is more effective?

Well first, I don't see how self-urination or vomiting can be described as "leftist", but I will be glad to take the question to my doctor just in case you're right...
Because they were proposed by leftists who don't want women to have guns.

College women told to urinate or vomit to deter a rapist - CNN.com
And second, I have this gnawing suspicion that the two methods you've listed here are not the only two there are. But I know which one I find more destructive, because the answer to guns is always... more guns. :thup:

(/sarc)
Y'know, they probably ought to make rape illegal, since criminals are so good about obeying laws.
That, along with subsequent escalation of that paranoia. You have a rock? I get a rock. You have a stick? I get a stick. You have a thermonuclear device? I get a thermonuclear device. What could possibly go wrong. :dunno:
The funny part is, I don't even own any firearms right now. I sold the Marlin .22 I had, the only firearm I had. :lol:

It happens, it's a message board. I don't drink Pepsi (or Coke) and yet I find myself trapped in this thing.
So what's keeping you there? Somebody threaten to piss their pants at you?
 
We're not talking about what I see as a threat -- which is not everything around me, by the way.

We're talking about rape and the effectiveness of the leftist recommendation -- peeing in your pants or throwing up -- and the normal person's recommendation, buying, training with, and carrying a weapon.

Which do you think is more effective?

Well first, I don't see how self-urination or vomiting can be described as "leftist", but I will be glad to take the question to my doctor just in case you're right...
Because they were proposed by leftists who don't want women to have guns.

College women told to urinate or vomit to deter a rapist - CNN.com

So -- some pamphlet passed around (and now nonexistent) at a campus of the University of Colorado becomes a philosophy of the entire "the left"?

:rofl: walked right into that one, you did.

Y'know, they probably ought to make rape illegal, since criminals are so good about obeying laws.

You're saying laws against rape have no effect?

The funny part is, I don't even own any firearms right now. I sold the Marlin .22 I had, the only firearm I had. :lol:

It happens, it's a message board. I don't drink Pepsi (or Coke) and yet I find myself trapped in this thing.
So what's keeping you there? Somebody threaten to piss their pants at you?

Somebody who can't read keeps puking. Then it has to be cleaned up.

You know how it is... "I woulda been here sooner, but somebody was wrong on the internet".
 
[

Again, guy, Criminals aren't really the problem.

Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic arguments gone wrong, and accidents. (You know, grandpa leaving his gun out where little Timmy can find it.)

But here's the thing. Where do you think those criminals get their guns?

Yup. They STEAL them from the law abiding. 600,000 guns are stolen every year.

Tell me something, what is domestic violence gone right? Is that the burning bed scenario where a woman kills someone who is asleep and gets away with it because she was afraid? Is that the same fear that lets cops kill unarmed people who are running away?

Never mind, I know you made that whole thing up.

FYI, ATF says that most criminals get their guns legally.

Guy, make up your mind.

Either criminals are stealing guns because they are criminals, or they are buying them legally, in which case, banning the sale of guns will disarm them.

You can't have it both ways.

Did The Burning Bed traumitize you? Maybe we can set you up on a dream date with Lorena Bobbit!

I don't know what you are talking about. I never said criminals stole their guns, I said criminals don't care about laws. That makes them an order of magnitude below people who think that laws are only applicable if they are just. The latter is what empowered Gandhi to take on the British Empire, and win. Society holds up people who challenge laws, and uses them as examples of what all men should strive for. Funny how you can't name a single shopkeeper who defended Jim Crow, or any other unjust law. All you need to do know is blather about being on the right side of history and you will sound just like that guy in Berlin that sneered when Jesse Owens won the Gold Medal in the Olympics.
 

Forum List

Back
Top