Jump to content

Chuck!

Admin Monkey
  • Content Count

    41,739
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Chuck!

  • Rank
    Lowly member

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    No Party/Other

Profile Fields

  • Website URL
    http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?showtopic=23607

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Very male
  • Location
    Way up the holler
  • Interests
    Freedom for All

Recent Profile Visitors

154,781 profile views
  1. Classic example of your intellectual dishonesty No one says he doesn't deserve jail. Why are you so dishonest?
  2. Your links don't back up your case The NRA is who invented background checks, you fool
  3. Then why are't the words "Sandy Hook" even mentioned in your OP? Why are the words not even on your first page? Why did it take you 27 pages to mention it at all? Six years after Sandy Hook, you began a thread because of it, without mentioning it at all. Yeah right, and you have the only car in existence whose windshield will stop a bullet with just a crack Then you go tell this lie And when someone asks you about it, you go find exactly the opposite of what you claimed to be true. Saturday, September 14 and high noon is a gun rights rally at the Statehouse, just three days before the legislature goes back into session. Will you come down and join us, meet me, shake my hand?
  4. FALSE You are a gun banner in disguise, even telling lies about crimes committed against you that never happened, thinking that victim status somehow makes you more credible. Every question you ask is designed to lead the responder to admitting nothing can be done except ban guns Every time someone presents an alternative idea on saving lives, you go back to all those guns that will still be on the street. Stop lying and admit what you are
  5. You’re looking for stats that will support your position for banning guns. If you were honest and “reasonable“ he would be looking for stats period.
  6. Is because you were here does not mean you are reasonable. As a matter fact, on this topic you are anything but reasonable. To answer your question, again, no. You are not going to eliminate a few random shootings that you are so uptight about without unleashing tyranny across the land I’ve said this to you many times. Why are you making me repeat myself? That is not “reasonable” He is not looking for a serious answer. He’s trying to make a case for disarming the population
  7. For crying out loud we’ve done this A half a dozen times You are not capable of “a serious discussion on gun violence”
  8. Are you admitting that your so-called "serious discussion" is actually one sided and full of questions you won't answer?
  9. The whole freaking country was predicting a “suicide“ Nobody is surprised it happened, although I think everyone is a little surprised at how “acceptable“ it seems to be
  10. You realize the SCOTUS disagrees with you, right? Ever read the Heller decision?
  11. You realize this is false, right? All you have to do is pay an additional tax on it
  12. OK smart guy Using your own words, explain the second law of thermodynamics to the class
  13. Why? Such a minuscule amount of murders are committed with "assault weapons" , or even guns in general. Why are you so worried about them and say nothing about other, more common forms of murder and the even more common forms of early death? I say it's because you oppose freedom and the risks that come with it What do you say?
×
×
  • Create New...