Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

"ChairMan" wrote in :

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#

The type of gun the shooter used is legal (I believe) everywhere in the US.
It was illegal for him to have it without a license in New York City. He
bought it in FL years ago, I believe legally. Eventually we might find out
when exactly he bought it, whether he had a background check (no reason
that I have seen published that he should have been refused), and how he
transported the gun into the city. So indeed, under current law, he evaded
detection as a nut case, despite there having been an order of protection
against him.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 06:50:02 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Promise?
--

On 27 Aug 2012 12:02:14 GMT, Han wrote:

"ChairMan" wrote in :

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#

The type of gun the shooter used is legal (I believe) everywhere in the US.

Chicago? DC?

It was illegal for him to have it without a license in New York City.

It was illegal for him to CARRY it without a license. I don't know the NY gun
laws well enough to know if it was illegal to posses. If not, the above
sentence contradicts the first.

He bought it in FL years ago, I believe legally.

Point?

Eventually we might find out
when exactly he bought it, whether he had a background check (no reason
that I have seen published that he should have been refused), and how he
transported the gun into the city. So indeed, under current law, he evaded
detection as a nut case

If this is true, how would you propose that "nutcases" be "detected" in the
future? You do know that it is already illegal for a certified "nutcase" to
possess a firearm?

despite there having been an order of protection against him.

So the system doesn't work but you want more of what doesn't work? Why? So it
infringes on the non-nutcases (who are the only ones who will follow the law)?

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room for
lots of other things.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:
....
Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room for
lots of other things.


Oh come on! Just tickle him with a sharp stick. Doug was up to his ass
with alligators, never thinking to drain the swamp :-\
--

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:17:40 -0400, "
wrote:

It was illegal for him to have it without a license in New York City.

It was illegal for him to CARRY it without a license. I don't know the NY gun
laws well enough to know if it was illegal to posses. If not, the above
sentence contradicts the first.

NY has a Peace Officer law. Jobs related to LEO gets some drift in the
laws -- they can carry. When I moved to Upstate NY I never registered
anything on paper while transporting guns.

Spit
--

On Aug 27, 4:50*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:
Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#

Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Doug-

You weren't invited or encouraged to talk....just read.

Try it, you might find it edifying & enjoyable.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:44:45 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 06:50:02 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Promise?

I'll try grin.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:26:28 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:


"Han" wrote in message
.. .
"ChairMan" wrote in :

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#

The type of gun the shooter used is legal (I believe) everywhere in the
US.
It was illegal for him to have it without a license in New York City. He
bought it in FL years ago, I believe legally. Eventually we might find
out
when exactly he bought it, whether he had a background check (no reason
that I have seen published that he should have been refused), and how he
transported the gun into the city. So indeed, under current law, he
evaded
detection as a nut case, despite there having been an order of protection
against him.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


Han,
I'm sorry you missed the whole point to the article. It was not about the
shooter, it was about the media and people like Doug who think guns need


Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

"Doug" wrote in news:ttko38lk3t74h0g1bg48e20unn8fos1rht@
4ax.com:

Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "nut".

Too bad that you can't debate a position on its merits, without disparaging your adversaries
personally. That's not a very mature approach to life.

Doug Miller wrote:
"Doug" wrote in
news:ttko38lk3t74h0g1bg48e20unn8fos1rht@ 4ax.com:

Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk
about guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "nut".

Too bad that you can't debate a position on its merits, without
disparaging your adversaries personally. That's not a very mature
approach to life.

It's what they (the liberals) do.

A recent study asked conservatives to take the liberal position on several
issues and liberals the same. Turns out the conservatives had a pretty good
understanding of the liberal moral positions but simply disagreed. The
liberals, on the other hand, had no conception of the conservatives'
positions nor could they conjure up any logic behind them.

To the conservatives, the liberals' moral positions were simply and
logically wrong. The liberals concluded the conservatives were insane. That
is, could not accept nor understand the moral principles behind most
conservative positions.

Take the issues of slavery or a monarchy. Oh, never mind; that's
conversation for another day.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in news:ttko38lk3t74h0g1bg48e20unn8fos1rht@
4ax.com:

Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "nut".


No... it was meant for the people in the thread titled "Gun Nuts" !!

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:01:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

English isn't your first language, is it?

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:28:35 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:01:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

English isn't your first language, is it?

Am I talking above you again? Damn, I need to remember that.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant
statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room
for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

From your posts, I KNOW that I know more than you on the subject

If memory serves, I gave you a few sites to start educating yourself

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:26:28 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:


"Han" wrote in message
. ..
"ChairMan" wrote in
:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#

The type of gun the shooter used is legal (I believe) everywhere in the
US.
It was illegal for him to have it without a license in New York City.
He
bought it in FL years ago, I believe legally. Eventually we might find
out
when exactly he bought it, whether he had a background check (no reason
that I have seen published that he should have been refused), and how he
transported the gun into the city. So indeed, under current law, he
evaded
detection as a nut case, despite there having been an order of
protection
against him.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


Han,
I'm sorry you missed the whole point to the article. It was not about the
shooter, it was about the media and people like Doug who think guns need


Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

So anyone who knows more than you on a subject "XX" is an "XX nut "
Apparently you believe that people who have. unlike you, taken some time and
effort to educate themselves are "nuts".
What a telling comment about your mindset"
Oh and by the way, does that mean that you're proud of being an empty shell
?

Doug wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:26:28 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"ChairMan" wrote in
:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some
actual facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#

The type of gun the shooter used is legal (I believe) everywhere in
the US.
It was illegal for him to have it without a license in New York
City. He bought it in FL years ago, I believe legally. Eventually
we might find out
when exactly he bought it, whether he had a background check (no
reason that I have seen published that he should have been
refused), and how he transported the gun into the city. So indeed,
under current law, he evaded
detection as a nut case, despite there having been an order of
protection against him.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid


Han,
I'm sorry you missed the whole point to the article. It was not
about the shooter, it was about the media and people like Doug who
think guns need


Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk
about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

As someone has already pointed out, I'm not trying to get you to talk
about guns, I'm just trying to inform you of FACTS instead of feelings.
but nevermind, its obvious facts don't matter and that anyone that
believes in the 2nd amendment is a gun nut to you

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
news:ttko38lk3t74h0g1bg48e20unn8fos1rht@
4ax.com:

Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "nut".


No... it was meant for the people in the thread titled "Gun Nuts" !!

Funny, how that pretty well covers just about everyone who responded to you
and pointed how "knowledge challenged" you are.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:16:27 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm sorry you missed the whole point to the article. It was not about the
shooter, it was about the media and people like Doug who think guns need


Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

You're thinking on an emotional level. "Gun Nuts" is used when
progressive liberals can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread, they change the narrative and
find another agenda to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda.

You never heard from PETA when they found out our president ate a dog.
--

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:12:30 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant
statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room
for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

From your posts, I KNOW that I know more than you on the subject

If memory serves, I gave you a few sites to start educating yourself


Boy it must be good to be you. LOL

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:55:32 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
news:ttko38lk3t74h0g1bg48e20unn8fos1rht@
4ax.com:

Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "nut".


No... it was meant for the people in the thread titled "Gun Nuts" !!

Funny, how that pretty well covers just about everyone who responded to you
and pointed how "knowledge challenged" you are.




I think if the shoe fits, wear it.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:04:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:16:27 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm sorry you missed the whole point to the article. It was not about the
shooter, it was about the media and people like Doug who think guns need


Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

You're thinking on an emotional level. "Gun Nuts" is used when
progressive liberals can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread, they change the narrative and
find another agenda to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda.

You never heard from PETA when they found out our president ate a dog.


No, I referred to Gun Nuts because that was the Subject Line that so
many replied to. I think they know who I'm referring to and I just
didn't want to bother to call them out.

Boy I'm amazed how the same people come crying again. -GRIN-

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:42:03 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:04:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:16:27 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm sorry you missed the whole point to the article. It was not about the
shooter, it was about the media and people like Doug who think guns need


Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

You're thinking on an emotional level. "Gun Nuts" is used when
progressive liberals can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread, they change the narrative and
find another agenda to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda.

You never heard from PETA when they found out our president ate a dog.


No, I referred to Gun Nuts because that was the Subject Line that so
many replied to. I think they know who I'm referring to and I just
didn't want to bother to call them out.

Boy I'm amazed how the same people come crying again. -GRIN-

I don't cry after cauterizing my tear ducts shut...

You latched on to the progressive liberal term Gun Nuts.

Somebody set the hook on him.


--

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:09:46 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:28:35 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:01:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

English isn't your first language, is it?

Am I talking above you again?

That's right, you're just illiterate. You can't even read what *you* have
written.


Damn, I need to remember that.

You're too stupid to remember to breathe. It's a good thing your brain
doesn't need oxygen.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:37:15 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:12:30 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant
statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room
for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

From your posts, I KNOW that I know more than you on the subject

If memory serves, I gave you a few sites to start educating yourself


Boy it must be good to be you. LOL

It's certainly beats being anywhere close to you. There probably aren't ten
IQ points within miles of you.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:00:32 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:42:03 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:04:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:16:27 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm sorry you missed the whole point to the article. It was not about the
shooter, it was about the media and people like Doug who think guns need


Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

You're thinking on an emotional level. "Gun Nuts" is used when
progressive liberals can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread, they change the narrative and
find another agenda to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda.

You never heard from PETA when they found out our president ate a dog.


No, I referred to Gun Nuts because that was the Subject Line that so
many replied to. I think they know who I'm referring to and I just
didn't want to bother to call them out.

Boy I'm amazed how the same people come crying again. -GRIN-

I don't cry after cauterizing my tear ducts shut...

You latched on to the progressive liberal term Gun Nuts.

Somebody set the hook on him.

I don't want him in my boat!

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:12:30 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant
statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room
for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

From your posts, I KNOW that I know more than you on the subject

If memory serves, I gave you a few sites to start educating yourself


Boy it must be good to be you. LOL

Compared to you ?
Absolutely

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:55:32 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
news:ttko38lk3t74h0g1bg48e20unn8fos1rht@
4ax.com:

Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "nut".


No... it was meant for the people in the thread titled "Gun Nuts" !!

Funny, how that pretty well covers just about everyone who responded to
you
and pointed how "knowledge challenged" you are.




I think if the shoe fits, wear it.

Oren described it best in another post
""Gun Nuts" is used when progressive liberals
can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread,
they change the narrative and find another agenda
to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda."
"

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:04:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:16:27 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm sorry you missed the whole point to the article. It was not about
the
shooter, it was about the media and people like Doug who think guns need


Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

You're thinking on an emotional level. "Gun Nuts" is used when
progressive liberals can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread, they change the narrative and
find another agenda to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda.

You never heard from PETA when they found out our president ate a dog.


No, I referred to Gun Nuts because that was the Subject Line that so
many replied to. I think they know who I'm referring to and I just
didn't want to bother to call them out.


So you imagine that they replied to the subject line ?
And completely ignored the content of the post ?
Seems like you are confused about who replied to what
But then you are confused if not ignorant of many things.


Boy I'm amazed how the same people come crying again. -GRIN-

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:42:03 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:04:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:16:27 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm sorry you missed the whole point to the article. It was not about
the
shooter, it was about the media and people like Doug who think guns
need


Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

You're thinking on an emotional level. "Gun Nuts" is used when
progressive liberals can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread, they change the narrative and
find another agenda to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda.

You never heard from PETA when they found out our president ate a dog.


No, I referred to Gun Nuts because that was the Subject Line that so
many replied to. I think they know who I'm referring to and I just
didn't want to bother to call them out.

Boy I'm amazed how the same people come crying again. -GRIN-

I don't cry after cauterizing my tear ducts shut...

You latched on to the progressive liberal term Gun Nuts.

Somebody set the hook on him.


Why ?
It's too small and stupid to keep
Better to throw it back and hope that it will grow in knowledge and
wisdom with more time.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:29:09 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:

I think if the shoe fits, wear it.

Oren described it best in another post
""Gun Nuts" is used when progressive liberals
can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread,
they change the narrative and find another agenda
to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda."
"

© & ®.

Was my grammar, spellin' and punctuation correct? This will later
become my sig line.
--

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:27:50 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:12:30 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant
statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room
for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

From your posts, I KNOW that I know more than you on the subject

If memory serves, I gave you a few sites to start educating yourself


Boy it must be good to be you. LOL

Compared to you ?
Absolutely



Ok if you think so. I have no problem with idiots who give
themselves too much credit.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:29:09 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:55:32 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
news:ttko38lk3t74h0g1bg48e20unn8fos1rht@
4ax.com:

Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "nut".


No... it was meant for the people in the thread titled "Gun Nuts" !!

Funny, how that pretty well covers just about everyone who responded to
you
and pointed how "knowledge challenged" you are.




I think if the shoe fits, wear it.

Oren described it best in another post
""Gun Nuts" is used when progressive liberals
can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread,
they change the narrative and find another agenda
to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda."
"


As I said earlier, I was just using the Subject Line instead of
calling out people. This is usenet, get over it.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:59:19 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

Oren described it best in another post
""Gun Nuts" is used when progressive liberals
can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread,
they change the narrative and find another agenda
to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda."
"


As I said earlier, I was just using the Subject Line instead of
calling out people. This is usenet, get over it.

Don't let the facts interfere with the rightin' of a good report.
--

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:54:36 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:27:50 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:12:30 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:iknm38dpm24q2numpd7t3cenn1pr5p0rgv@4ax. com...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant
statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave room
for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

From your posts, I KNOW that I know more than you on the subject

If memory serves, I gave you a few sites to start educating yourself


Boy it must be good to be you. LOL

Compared to you ?
Absolutely



Ok if you think so. I have no problem with idiots who give
themselves too much credit.

Of course you don't dingbat! Every time you so much as breathe, you give
yourself more credit than you deserve.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:27:50 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:12:30 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:35:38 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:iknm38dpm24q2numpd7t3cenn1pr5p0rgv@4ax. com...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:32:12 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Not that this will change your mind, but it will give you some
actual
facts that might

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/guns-dont...t-cops-might/#



Thank you but I'm not going to talk about guns any more.

Wise choice
You shouldn't throw yourself into discussions by making ignorant
statements
on a subject in which your knowledge could fit a thimble and leave
room
for
lots of other things.


You assume too much but if you think you know more than me, good for
you.

From your posts, I KNOW that I know more than you on the subject

If memory serves, I gave you a few sites to start educating yourself


Boy it must be good to be you. LOL

Compared to you ?
Absolutely



Ok if you think so. I have no problem with idiots who give
themselves too much credit.

So you looked in a mirror, did you ?
And better yet, you recognized yourself too...

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:29:09 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:55:32 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:05:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
news:ttko38lk3t74h0g1bg48e20unn8fos1rht@
4ax.com:

Don't get me started grin. Don't worry I'm not going to talk
about
guns any more here. I'll leave that to the Gun Nuts.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a "nut".


No... it was meant for the people in the thread titled "Gun Nuts" !!

Funny, how that pretty well covers just about everyone who responded to
you
and pointed how "knowledge challenged" you are.




I think if the shoe fits, wear it.

Oren described it best in another post
""Gun Nuts" is used when progressive liberals
can't argue the point, mostly without facts, so
when they get spanked in another thread,
they change the narrative and find another agenda
to conquer. Never finishing the previous agenda."
"


As I said earlier, I was just using the Subject Line instead of
calling out people. This is usenet, get over it.

Get over what ?
That you got thoroughly spanked for your ignorance
Why should I get over YOUR spanking ?