Why hasn't the NRA been blamed for the youtube shootings

[dblack]

3 for 3 ... no wonder we have people actually considering repealing the 2nd Amendment.

Yep! People like you are so stupid on the topic that you should not be allowed to vote!

Listen, dipshit, I'm all too aware of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that you're so eager to point out regarding labeling of a "assault rifles". I know that the "Assault Weapons Ban" was nonsense. But you douchebags are using it as an excuse to ostrich up and ignore the central argument of the gun control question - the fact that some weapons are much more dangerous than others. If the killer in Las Vegas had been armed with a 9mm pistol, instead of a room full rapid-fire rifles, a lot of deaths would have been avoided.

This isn't even a controversial observation (among sane people). Clearly, we already accept this notion. Most of us agree we don't want our neighbor to have the legal right to own a nuclear bomb. So, somewhere between nuclear weapons and a butter knife, we draw a line on what weapons will be legally available for individuals. The question isn't over whether this line should be drawn, but where.

Rapid fire rifles? What are you? Five years old?

If he had been armed with a 9mm, he would have just changed tactics. As has been pointed out many times, the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and had a significant death toll.

The Las Vegas shooter was employing "spray and pray" with his bump stocks. He was not targeting individuals. He was not a good enough shot to do that!

Those 9mms sure are deadly too. The Youtube shooter managed to kill herself but no one else because she had no clue as to what she was doing.

That line you are discussing is defined by the Second Amendment. No further discussion is required. THAT is your problem, gun grabber!

More dodging, FTW!!

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

 

[Godboy]

Yep! People like you are so stupid on the topic that you should not be allowed to vote!

Listen, dipshit, I'm all too aware of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that you're so eager to point out regarding labeling of a "assault rifles". I know that the "Assault Weapons Ban" was nonsense. But you douchebags are using it as an excuse to ostrich up and ignore the central argument of the gun control question - the fact that some weapons are much more dangerous than others. If the killer in Las Vegas had been armed with a 9mm pistol, instead of a room full rapid-fire rifles, a lot of deaths would have been avoided.

This isn't even a controversial observation (among sane people). Clearly, we already accept this notion. Most of us agree we don't want our neighbor to have the legal right to own a nuclear bomb. So, somewhere between nuclear weapons and a butter knife, we draw a line on what weapons will be legally available for individuals. The question isn't over whether this line should be drawn, but where.

Rapid fire rifles? What are you? Five years old?

If he had been armed with a 9mm, he would have just changed tactics. As has been pointed out many times, the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and had a significant death toll.

The Las Vegas shooter was employing "spray and pray" with his bump stocks. He was not targeting individuals. He was not a good enough shot to do that!

Those 9mms sure are deadly too. The Youtube shooter managed to kill herself but no one else because she had no clue as to what she was doing.

That line you are discussing is defined by the Second Amendment. No further discussion is required. THAT is your problem, gun grabber!

More dodging, FTW!!

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

Yes, indoors, pistols are more dangerous, yet you're ignorantly whining about assault rifles.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most Ar-15 rifles sold commercially these days have 10-round capacity magazines.

lol! I've never seen an AR for sale that didn't have at least a 20 round mag.

Well I may have misspoken. I know the Ar-15 used by the Parkland shooter had a 10-round mag but that might be what Florida requires and all states don't?

The Parkland shooter had 30 round magazines. He left fully loaded magazines in his bag that he left behind after the shootings.

Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review

Sorry, but that is not a reliable source because it is second hand info from a state senator.

I've seen this before though. There has been no reports I have seen suggesting a larger magazine.

 

[dblack]

Listen, dipshit, I'm all too aware of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that you're so eager to point out regarding labeling of a "assault rifles". I know that the "Assault Weapons Ban" was nonsense. But you douchebags are using it as an excuse to ostrich up and ignore the central argument of the gun control question - the fact that some weapons are much more dangerous than others. If the killer in Las Vegas had been armed with a 9mm pistol, instead of a room full rapid-fire rifles, a lot of deaths would have been avoided.

This isn't even a controversial observation (among sane people). Clearly, we already accept this notion. Most of us agree we don't want our neighbor to have the legal right to own a nuclear bomb. So, somewhere between nuclear weapons and a butter knife, we draw a line on what weapons will be legally available for individuals. The question isn't over whether this line should be drawn, but where.

Rapid fire rifles? What are you? Five years old?

If he had been armed with a 9mm, he would have just changed tactics. As has been pointed out many times, the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and had a significant death toll.

The Las Vegas shooter was employing "spray and pray" with his bump stocks. He was not targeting individuals. He was not a good enough shot to do that!

Those 9mms sure are deadly too. The Youtube shooter managed to kill herself but no one else because she had no clue as to what she was doing.

That line you are discussing is defined by the Second Amendment. No further discussion is required. THAT is your problem, gun grabber!

More dodging, FTW!!

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

Yes, indoors, pistols are more dangerous, yet you're ignorantly whining about assault rifles.

Jesus fuck. You idiots are so fixated on your talking points that you blind yourself to the question.

So, in your simpleton mind, is a nuclear bomb just as dangerous as a butter knife??

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yep! People like you are so stupid on the topic that you should not be allowed to vote!

Listen, dipshit, I'm all too aware of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that you're so eager to point out regarding labeling of a "assault rifles". I know that the "Assault Weapons Ban" was nonsense. But you douchebags are using it as an excuse to ostrich up and ignore the central argument of the gun control question - the fact that some weapons are much more dangerous than others. If the killer in Las Vegas had been armed with a 9mm pistol, instead of a room full rapid-fire rifles, a lot of deaths would have been avoided.

This isn't even a controversial observation (among sane people). Clearly, we already accept this notion. Most of us agree we don't want our neighbor to have the legal right to own a nuclear bomb. So, somewhere between nuclear weapons and a butter knife, we draw a line on what weapons will be legally available for individuals. The question isn't over whether this line should be drawn, but where.

Rapid fire rifles? What are you? Five years old?

If he had been armed with a 9mm, he would have just changed tactics. As has been pointed out many times, the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and had a significant death toll.

The Las Vegas shooter was employing "spray and pray" with his bump stocks. He was not targeting individuals. He was not a good enough shot to do that!

Those 9mms sure are deadly too. The Youtube shooter managed to kill herself but no one else because she had no clue as to what she was doing.

That line you are discussing is defined by the Second Amendment. No further discussion is required. THAT is your problem, gun grabber!

More dodging, FTW!!

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

I can shoot you with a .22 cal LR semi-automatic pistol, my .40 cal semiautomatic pistol, or I can shoot you with my AR-15. You will just be dead any way that I choose. How does that make the AR-15 more dangerous?

The statistics don't lie! You just ignore them. You have been shown that AR-15s are rarely used in shootings. They are hard to conceal. They are very loud!

You are the one sounding stupid!

 

[S.J.]

She's not white, she's not male, she's not a conservative, not a Christian, can't be spun into looking like any of those "villains", so pretend like it didn't happen and hope another one happens (only by a white guy), then the NRA becomes the devil again.

She looks pretty white to me. What are you seeing?

I'm seeing a Persian woman named Nasim Aghdam, and she doesn't look white to me.

She was born in Iran, a terrorist country and an enemy of the U.S. I don't consider her a "white girl". And you can shove your trolling Nazi remark up your pansy ass.

 

[dblack]

Listen, dipshit, I'm all too aware of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that you're so eager to point out regarding labeling of a "assault rifles". I know that the "Assault Weapons Ban" was nonsense. But you douchebags are using it as an excuse to ostrich up and ignore the central argument of the gun control question - the fact that some weapons are much more dangerous than others. If the killer in Las Vegas had been armed with a 9mm pistol, instead of a room full rapid-fire rifles, a lot of deaths would have been avoided.

This isn't even a controversial observation (among sane people). Clearly, we already accept this notion. Most of us agree we don't want our neighbor to have the legal right to own a nuclear bomb. So, somewhere between nuclear weapons and a butter knife, we draw a line on what weapons will be legally available for individuals. The question isn't over whether this line should be drawn, but where.

Rapid fire rifles? What are you? Five years old?

If he had been armed with a 9mm, he would have just changed tactics. As has been pointed out many times, the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and had a significant death toll.

The Las Vegas shooter was employing "spray and pray" with his bump stocks. He was not targeting individuals. He was not a good enough shot to do that!

Those 9mms sure are deadly too. The Youtube shooter managed to kill herself but no one else because she had no clue as to what she was doing.

That line you are discussing is defined by the Second Amendment. No further discussion is required. THAT is your problem, gun grabber!

More dodging, FTW!!

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

I can shoot you with a .22 cal LR semi-automatic pistol, my .40 cal semiautomatic pistol, or I can shoot you with my AR-15. You will just be dead any way that I choose. How does that make the AR-15 more dangerous?

The statistics don't lie! You just ignore them. You have been shown that AR-15s are rarely used in shootings. They are hard to conceal. They are very loud!

You are the one sounding stupid!

OK, let's start over with the basics. Do you agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others?

 

[Foxfyre]

Rapid fire rifles? What are you? Five years old?

If he had been armed with a 9mm, he would have just changed tactics. As has been pointed out many times, the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and had a significant death toll.

The Las Vegas shooter was employing "spray and pray" with his bump stocks. He was not targeting individuals. He was not a good enough shot to do that!

Those 9mms sure are deadly too. The Youtube shooter managed to kill herself but no one else because she had no clue as to what she was doing.

That line you are discussing is defined by the Second Amendment. No further discussion is required. THAT is your problem, gun grabber!

More dodging, FTW!!

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

I can shoot you with a .22 cal LR semi-automatic pistol, my .40 cal semiautomatic pistol, or I can shoot you with my AR-15. You will just be dead any way that I choose. How does that make the AR-15 more dangerous?

The statistics don't lie! You just ignore them. You have been shown that AR-15s are rarely used in shootings. They are hard to conceal. They are very loud!

You are the one sounding stupid!

OK, let's start over with the basics. Do you agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others?

If you want to get technical, no. A weapon is only as dangerous as the person using it. A person can be incompetent, uninformed, or have intent to do harm/commit murder making ANY weapon more dangerous than it otherwise would be.

But yes, a 12-guage shotgun is more dangerous/deadly at close range than is a .22 pistol if it is discharged at a person. Otherwise one is no more dangerous than another.

For that matter a bomb discharged in a room full of people, or one like Timothy McVeigh used, or jetliners flown into buildings will likely do more damage than will a person armed with an assault rifle. It is all relative.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

She's not white, she's not male, she's not a conservative, not a Christian, can't be spun into looking like any of those "villains", so pretend like it didn't happen and hope another one happens (only by a white guy), then the NRA becomes the devil again.

She looks pretty white to me. What are you seeing?

I'm seeing a Persian woman named Nasim Aghdam, and she doesn't look white to me.

She was born in Iran, a terrorist country and an enemy of the U.S. I don't consider her a "white girl". And you can shove your trolling Nazi remark up your pansy ass.

Congratulations! You just proved that you are no better than any other racist!

She's Armenian and Azerbijani. When she was born, Iran was our ally. I went to school with Iranian Navy officers in the late 70s.

You should really learn to read at your age. I love how you conveniently edited out my comment so you could lie about what I said.

Hurts getting caught with your ignorant racist ass showing, doesn't it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Rapid fire rifles? What are you? Five years old?

If he had been armed with a 9mm, he would have just changed tactics. As has been pointed out many times, the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and had a significant death toll.

The Las Vegas shooter was employing "spray and pray" with his bump stocks. He was not targeting individuals. He was not a good enough shot to do that!

Those 9mms sure are deadly too. The Youtube shooter managed to kill herself but no one else because she had no clue as to what she was doing.

That line you are discussing is defined by the Second Amendment. No further discussion is required. THAT is your problem, gun grabber!

More dodging, FTW!!

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

I can shoot you with a .22 cal LR semi-automatic pistol, my .40 cal semiautomatic pistol, or I can shoot you with my AR-15. You will just be dead any way that I choose. How does that make the AR-15 more dangerous?

The statistics don't lie! You just ignore them. You have been shown that AR-15s are rarely used in shootings. They are hard to conceal. They are very loud!

You are the one sounding stupid!

OK, let's start over with the basics. Do you agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others?

Well, duh! Thermonuclear weapons are quite a bit more dangerous than a rock!

The point you are seeking will continue to elude you!

 

[dblack]

More dodging, FTW!!

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

I can shoot you with a .22 cal LR semi-automatic pistol, my .40 cal semiautomatic pistol, or I can shoot you with my AR-15. You will just be dead any way that I choose. How does that make the AR-15 more dangerous?

The statistics don't lie! You just ignore them. You have been shown that AR-15s are rarely used in shootings. They are hard to conceal. They are very loud!

You are the one sounding stupid!

OK, let's start over with the basics. Do you agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others?

If you want to get technical, no. A weapon is only as dangerous as the person using it. A person can be incompetent, uninformed, or have intent to do harm/commit murder making ANY weapon more dangerous than it otherwise would be.

But yes, a 12-guage shotgun is more dangerous/deadly at close range than is a .22 pistol if it is discharged at a person. Otherwise one is no more dangerous than another.

For that matter a bomb discharged in a room full of people, or one like Timothy McVeigh used, or jetliners flown into buildings will likely do more damage than will a person armed with an assault rifle. It is all relative.

Exactly. Seeing so many gun rights supporters deny this is disappointing. There's no question that we're ok with government limiting our arms choices - unless someone is really ready to argue that their neighbor should be allowed nuclear weapons. The question is which weapons should be allowed and which shouldn't. It's the inability, or unwillingness, to discuss this that's dooming the gun rights discussion.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

I can shoot you with a .22 cal LR semi-automatic pistol, my .40 cal semiautomatic pistol, or I can shoot you with my AR-15. You will just be dead any way that I choose. How does that make the AR-15 more dangerous?

The statistics don't lie! You just ignore them. You have been shown that AR-15s are rarely used in shootings. They are hard to conceal. They are very loud!

You are the one sounding stupid!

OK, let's start over with the basics. Do you agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others?

If you want to get technical, no. A weapon is only as dangerous as the person using it. A person can be incompetent, uninformed, or have intent to do harm/commit murder making ANY weapon more dangerous than it otherwise would be.

But yes, a 12-guage shotgun is more dangerous/deadly at close range than is a .22 pistol if it is discharged at a person. Otherwise one is no more dangerous than another.

For that matter a bomb discharged in a room full of people, or one like Timothy McVeigh used, or jetliners flown into buildings will likely do more damage than will a person armed with an assault rifle. It is all relative.

Exactly. Seeing so many gun rights supporters deny this is disappointing. There's no question we're ok with government limiting our arms choices - unless someone is really ready to argue that they're neighbor should be allowed nuclear weapons. The question is which weapons should be allowed and which shouldn't. It's the inability, or unwillingness, to discuss this that's dooming the gun rights discussion.

The Constitution says "arms". Do you have any fucking clue as to how difficult it is to carry a nuke in your arms?

It has a definition. I suggest you learn it and stop being ignorant.

 

[dblack]

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

I can shoot you with a .22 cal LR semi-automatic pistol, my .40 cal semiautomatic pistol, or I can shoot you with my AR-15. You will just be dead any way that I choose. How does that make the AR-15 more dangerous?

The statistics don't lie! You just ignore them. You have been shown that AR-15s are rarely used in shootings. They are hard to conceal. They are very loud!

You are the one sounding stupid!

OK, let's start over with the basics. Do you agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others?

If you want to get technical, no. A weapon is only as dangerous as the person using it. A person can be incompetent, uninformed, or have intent to do harm/commit murder making ANY weapon more dangerous than it otherwise would be.

But yes, a 12-guage shotgun is more dangerous/deadly at close range than is a .22 pistol if it is discharged at a person. Otherwise one is no more dangerous than another.

For that matter a bomb discharged in a room full of people, or one like Timothy McVeigh used, or jetliners flown into buildings will likely do more damage than will a person armed with an assault rifle. It is all relative.

Exactly. Seeing so many gun rights supporters deny this is disappointing. There's no question we're ok with government limiting our arms choices - unless someone is really ready to argue that they're neighbor should be allowed nuclear weapons. The question is which weapons should be allowed and which shouldn't. It's the inability, or unwillingness, to discuss this that's dooming the gun rights discussion.

The Constitution says "arms". Do you have any fucking clue as to how difficult it is to carry a nuke in your arms?

It has a definition. I suggest you learn it and stop being ignorant.

Yeah.. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I can shoot you with a .22 cal LR semi-automatic pistol, my .40 cal semiautomatic pistol, or I can shoot you with my AR-15. You will just be dead any way that I choose. How does that make the AR-15 more dangerous?

The statistics don't lie! You just ignore them. You have been shown that AR-15s are rarely used in shootings. They are hard to conceal. They are very loud!

You are the one sounding stupid!

OK, let's start over with the basics. Do you agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others?

If you want to get technical, no. A weapon is only as dangerous as the person using it. A person can be incompetent, uninformed, or have intent to do harm/commit murder making ANY weapon more dangerous than it otherwise would be.

But yes, a 12-guage shotgun is more dangerous/deadly at close range than is a .22 pistol if it is discharged at a person. Otherwise one is no more dangerous than another.

For that matter a bomb discharged in a room full of people, or one like Timothy McVeigh used, or jetliners flown into buildings will likely do more damage than will a person armed with an assault rifle. It is all relative.

Exactly. Seeing so many gun rights supporters deny this is disappointing. There's no question we're ok with government limiting our arms choices - unless someone is really ready to argue that they're neighbor should be allowed nuclear weapons. The question is which weapons should be allowed and which shouldn't. It's the inability, or unwillingness, to discuss this that's dooming the gun rights discussion.

The Constitution says "arms". Do you have any fucking clue as to how difficult it is to carry a nuke in your arms?

It has a definition. I suggest you learn it and stop being ignorant.

Yeah.. I'll leave you to it.

Lazy POS!

 

[S.J.]

She's not white, she's not male, she's not a conservative, not a Christian, can't be spun into looking like any of those "villains", so pretend like it didn't happen and hope another one happens (only by a white guy), then the NRA becomes the devil again.

She looks pretty white to me. What are you seeing?

I'm seeing a Persian woman named Nasim Aghdam, and she doesn't look white to me.

She was born in Iran, a terrorist country and an enemy of the U.S. I don't consider her a "white girl". And you can shove your trolling Nazi remark up your pansy ass.

Congratulations! You just proved that you are no better than any other racist!

She's Armenian and Azerbijani. When she was born, Iran was our ally. I went to school with Iranian Navy officers in the late 70s.

You should really learn to read at your age. I love how you conveniently edited out my comment so you could lie about what I said.

Hurts getting caught with your ignorant racist ass showing, doesn't it?

Calling me a racist for pointing out the anti-white sentiments of the left tells me there's another reason for your unprovoked personal attacks. Perhaps you're still butthurt from a past exchange you never quite got over? Could that be it, teacher?

 

[dblack]

OK, let's start over with the basics. Do you agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others?

If you want to get technical, no. A weapon is only as dangerous as the person using it. A person can be incompetent, uninformed, or have intent to do harm/commit murder making ANY weapon more dangerous than it otherwise would be.

But yes, a 12-guage shotgun is more dangerous/deadly at close range than is a .22 pistol if it is discharged at a person. Otherwise one is no more dangerous than another.

For that matter a bomb discharged in a room full of people, or one like Timothy McVeigh used, or jetliners flown into buildings will likely do more damage than will a person armed with an assault rifle. It is all relative.

Exactly. Seeing so many gun rights supporters deny this is disappointing. There's no question we're ok with government limiting our arms choices - unless someone is really ready to argue that they're neighbor should be allowed nuclear weapons. The question is which weapons should be allowed and which shouldn't. It's the inability, or unwillingness, to discuss this that's dooming the gun rights discussion.

The Constitution says "arms". Do you have any fucking clue as to how difficult it is to carry a nuke in your arms?

It has a definition. I suggest you learn it and stop being ignorant.

Yeah.. I'll leave you to it.

Lazy POS!

Dealing with partisan dummies is exhausting!

 

[Foxfyre]

Dodging what?I answered your post. You just don't like the answer. Suck it up, buttercup!

You're dodging the central point - that some weapons are more dangerous than others - and instead making a fuss over irrelevant details. It makes you sound really, really stupid.

I can shoot you with a .22 cal LR semi-automatic pistol, my .40 cal semiautomatic pistol, or I can shoot you with my AR-15. You will just be dead any way that I choose. How does that make the AR-15 more dangerous?

The statistics don't lie! You just ignore them. You have been shown that AR-15s are rarely used in shootings. They are hard to conceal. They are very loud!

You are the one sounding stupid!

OK, let's start over with the basics. Do you agree that some weapons are more dangerous than others?

If you want to get technical, no. A weapon is only as dangerous as the person using it. A person can be incompetent, uninformed, or have intent to do harm/commit murder making ANY weapon more dangerous than it otherwise would be.

But yes, a 12-guage shotgun is more dangerous/deadly at close range than is a .22 pistol if it is discharged at a person. Otherwise one is no more dangerous than another.

For that matter a bomb discharged in a room full of people, or one like Timothy McVeigh used, or jetliners flown into buildings will likely do more damage than will a person armed with an assault rifle. It is all relative.

Exactly. Seeing so many gun rights supporters deny this is disappointing. There's no question that we're ok with government limiting our arms choices - unless someone is really ready to argue that their neighbor should be allowed nuclear weapons. The question is which weapons should be allowed and which shouldn't. It's the inability, or unwillingness, to discuss this that's dooming the gun rights discussion.

Just as much hindrance are the demands from the anti-gun group that a scary looking weapon like the civilian issue AR-15 is somehow more dangerous than 200 other weapons easily available out there. Or preventing law abiding citizens from obtaining certain weapons will somehow make everybody safer.

Until the conversation leaves the partisan, ideological, and silly beliefs sector there will be no solution.

My #1 criteria for making America safer is to change the culture. I have a thread on that subject in the CDZ. So far, not a single person who identifies left of center has been willing to include that in the conversation and several on the right are equally dismissive of that as a solution if it means compromising in ANY way on the guns.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

she was a horrible shot

members of the NRA are usually we versed in their weapons.

Oh crap I REALLY wanted to say something yesterday about her realizing this about herself since she stopped at the range first. See boys and girls, it's not as easy as it looks (for some).

Sorry if I've offended anyone.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

She's not white, she's not male, she's not a conservative, not a Christian, can't be spun into looking like any of those "villains", so pretend like it didn't happen and hope another one happens (only by a white guy), then the NRA becomes the devil again.

She looks pretty white to me. What are you seeing?

I'm seeing a Persian woman named Nasim Aghdam, and she doesn't look white to me.

She was born in Iran, a terrorist country and an enemy of the U.S. I don't consider her a "white girl". And you can shove your trolling Nazi remark up your pansy ass.

Congratulations! You just proved that you are no better than any other racist!

She's Armenian and Azerbijani. When she was born, Iran was our ally. I went to school with Iranian Navy officers in the late 70s.

You should really learn to read at your age. I love how you conveniently edited out my comment so you could lie about what I said.

Hurts getting caught with your ignorant racist ass showing, doesn't it?

Calling me a racist for pointing out the anti-white sentiments of the left tells me there's another reason for your unprovoked personal attacks. Perhaps you're still butthurt from a past exchange you never quite got over? Could that be it, teacher?

No. Apparently you are just a dumbass! I didn't call you a Nazi, nor a racist until you proved it.

 

[S.J.]

She looks pretty white to me. What are you seeing?

I'm seeing a Persian woman named Nasim Aghdam, and she doesn't look white to me.

She was born in Iran, a terrorist country and an enemy of the U.S. I don't consider her a "white girl". And you can shove your trolling Nazi remark up your pansy ass.

Congratulations! You just proved that you are no better than any other racist!

She's Armenian and Azerbijani. When she was born, Iran was our ally. I went to school with Iranian Navy officers in the late 70s.

You should really learn to read at your age. I love how you conveniently edited out my comment so you could lie about what I said.

Hurts getting caught with your ignorant racist ass showing, doesn't it?

Calling me a racist for pointing out the anti-white sentiments of the left tells me there's another reason for your unprovoked personal attacks. Perhaps you're still butthurt from a past exchange you never quite got over? Could that be it, teacher?

No. Apparently you are just a dumbass! I didn't call you a Nazi, nor a racist until you proved it.

Ok, teacher, how does this prove I'm a Nazi?

She's not white, she's not male, she's not a conservative, not a Christian, can't be spun into looking like any of those "villains", so pretend like it didn't happen and hope another one happens (only by a white guy), then the NRA becomes the devil again.

She looks pretty white to me. What are you seeing?

I'm seeing a Persian woman named Nasim Aghdam, and she doesn't look white to me.