Discussion:
Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun to Canada GOOD
(too old to reply)
de chucka
2019-01-11 20:11:27 UTC
Permalink
She probably wouldn't have enjoyed Manus Island if she'd got here.
Anyhow she's not a true refugee, who cares what the Office of the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees. says, as she has money (willing to pay
smugglers to get her here and lied to out authorities), has a phone and
didn't stop at her first port of call. Just because she feared death or
severe retribution if she went back to Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to us
keeping these people out or doing the right thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/saudi-teen-fleeing-family-granted-asylum-in-canada/2019/01/11/2dcc701e-1595-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e59bf2f7fb61
de chucka
2019-01-11 20:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
She probably wouldn't have enjoyed Manus Island if she'd got here.
Anyhow she's not a true refugee, who cares what the Office of the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees. says, as she has money (willing to pay
smugglers to get her here and lied to out authorities), has a phone and
didn't stop at her first port of call. Just because she feared death or
severe retribution if she went back to Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to us
keeping these people out or doing the right thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/saudi-teen-fleeing-family-granted-asylum-in-canada/2019/01/11/2dcc701e-1595-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e59bf2f7fb61
SORRY wrong ng
Mattb
2019-01-12 20:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
She probably wouldn't have enjoyed Manus Island if she'd got here.
Anyhow she's not a true refugee, who cares what the Office of the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees says, as she has money (willing to pay
smugglers to get her here and lied to out authorities), has a phone and
didn't stop at her first port of call. Just because she feared death or
severe retribution if she went back to Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to us
keeping these people out or doing the right thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/saudi-teen-fleeing-family-granted-asylum-in-canada/2019/01/11/2dcc701e-1595-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e59bf2f7fb61
She has rejected Islam and would have been killed.
If you can't understand my post you are ignorant of Australian politics
and therefore your posts are a waste of bandwidth.
What about a factual statement of "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed" is limited by what you see a Australian politics and
how does Australian politics make it not factual?
Details?
She has the right to reject Islam and all it teaching IMO and I
believe she has that right in Australia.
Given the position of Dutton et al she doesn't
She might be a atheist now.
That still doesn't explain why what I said was not truth under your
type of "Australian politics"

Now how does "She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." not
fit in with "Australian politics" and how does it make one "you are
ignorant of Australian politics".

Please explain?
Mattb
2019-01-12 21:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
She probably wouldn't have enjoyed Manus Island if she'd got here.
Anyhow she's not a true refugee, who cares what the Office of the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees says, as she has money (willing to pay
smugglers to get her here and lied to out authorities), has a phone and
didn't stop at her first port of call. Just because she feared death or
severe retribution if she went back to Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to us
keeping these people out or doing the right thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/saudi-teen-fleeing-family-granted-asylum-in-canada/2019/01/11/2dcc701e-1595-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e59bf2f7fb61
She has rejected Islam and would have been killed.
If you can't understand my post you are ignorant of Australian politics
and therefore your posts are a waste of bandwidth.
What about a factual statement of "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed" is limited by what you see a Australian politics and
how does Australian politics make it not factual?
Details?
She has the right to reject Islam and all it teaching IMO and I
believe she has that right in Australia.
Given the position of Dutton et al she doesn't
She might be a atheist now.
That still doesn't explain why what I said was not truth under your
type of "Australian politics"
Now how does "She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." not
fit in with "Australian politics" and how does it make one "you are
ignorant of Australian politics".
Please explain?
The OP obviously whooshed you repeating what was written in the OP does
not show an understanding of the aus political situation.
I said "She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." ONLY. How
does that have any effect on the "aus political situation". Would the
Aux politics want her dead for rejecting Islam?
BTW keep it where you found it
Keep it where people need to see it.
Mattb
2019-01-12 21:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
She probably wouldn't have enjoyed Manus Island if she'd got here.
Anyhow she's not a true refugee, who cares what the Office of the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees says, as she has money (willing to pay
smugglers to get her here and lied to out authorities), has a phone and
didn't stop at her first port of call. Just because she feared death or
severe retribution if she went back to Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to us
keeping these people out or doing the right thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/saudi-teen-fleeing-family-granted-asylum-in-canada/2019/01/11/2dcc701e-1595-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e59bf2f7fb61
She has rejected Islam and would have been killed.
If you can't understand my post you are ignorant of Australian politics
and therefore your posts are a waste of bandwidth.
What about a factual statement of "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed" is limited by what you see a Australian politics and
how does Australian politics make it not factual?
Details?
She has the right to reject Islam and all it teaching IMO and I
believe she has that right in Australia.
Given the position of Dutton et al she doesn't
She might be a atheist now.
That still doesn't explain why what I said was not truth under your
type of "Australian politics"
Now how does "She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." not
fit in with "Australian politics" and how does it make one "you are
ignorant of Australian politics".
Please explain?
The OP obviously whooshed you repeating what was written in the OP does
not show an understanding of the aus political situation.
I said "She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." ONLY. How
does that have any effect on the "aus political situation".
You parroted my op
Would the
Post by Mattb
Aux politics want her dead for rejecting Islam?
Anything to keep illegals out of Aus even if they are refugees. Read a
bit about the LNP and boat people or maybe they think it is OK if they
come by plane.
By what I read Australia was going to grant her entry legally. You
do know there is a difference in legally entry and illegal?
Post by Mattb
BTW keep it where you found it
Keep it where people need to see it.
aus.politics
Petzl
2019-01-13 00:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
She probably wouldn't have enjoyed Manus Island if she'd got here.
Anyhow she's not a true refugee, who cares what the Office of the U.N.
High Commissioner for Refugees says, as she has money (willing to pay
smugglers to get her here and lied to out authorities), has a phone and
didn't stop at her first port of call. Just because she feared death or
severe retribution if she went back to Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to us
keeping these people out or doing the right thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/saudi-teen-fleeing-family-granted-asylum-in-canada/2019/01/11/2dcc701e-1595-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e59bf2f7fb61
She has rejected Islam and would have been killed.
If you can't understand my post you are ignorant of Australian politics
and therefore your posts are a waste of bandwidth.
What about a factual statement of "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed" is limited by what you see a Australian politics and
how does Australian politics make it not factual?
Details?
She has the right to reject Islam and all it teaching IMO and I
believe she has that right in Australia.
Given the position of Dutton et al she doesn't
She might be a atheist now.
That still doesn't explain why what I said was not truth under your
type of "Australian politics"
Now how does "She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." not
fit in with "Australian politics" and how does it make one "you are
ignorant of Australian politics".
Please explain?
The OP obviously whooshed you repeating what was written in the OP does
not show an understanding of the aus political situation.
I said "She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." ONLY. How
does that have any effect on the "aus political situation".
You parroted my op
Would the
Post by Mattb
Aux politics want her dead for rejecting Islam?
Anything to keep illegals out of Aus even if they are refugees. Read a
bit about the LNP and boat people or maybe they think it is OK if they
come by plane.
By what I read Australia was going to grant her entry legally. You
do know there is a difference in legally entry and illegal?
Well, she had asylum in Thailand now, Australia has nothing to do with
this.

The scammer from Saudi, dishonestly procured a visa, intending to come
to Australia and never leave and avail herself of every benefit she
can sign up for under the sun.
--
Petzl
If it's in the Koran, it's Allah's word
Slavery-Paedophillia (Thighing)-incest (inbreeding)-polygamy/polygyny-Lying (taqiyya)-Halal (Animal Cruelty)- Honour Killings-Beastility
https://petzlx.wordpress.com/2018/06/20/stealth-trojan-horse-islamic-invasion/
https://is.gd/LAUfv2
Fran
2019-01-13 08:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Petzl
Well, she had asylum in Thailand now,
Wrong! As usual.
Snit
2019-01-13 01:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
The OP obviously whooshed you repeating what was written in the OP does
not show an understanding of the aus political situation.
I said "She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." ONLY. How
does that have any effect on the "aus political situation".
You parroted my op
Would the
Post by Mattb
Aux politics want her dead for rejecting Islam?
Anything to keep illegals out of Aus even if they are refugees. Read a
bit about the LNP and boat people or maybe they think it is OK if they
come by plane.
By what I read Australia was going to grant her entry legally. You
do know there is a difference in legally entry and illegal?
We need to greatly fix our immigration system. Right now the waiting
time is decades and the costs are very high. Imagine if we had a 100%
sales tax. This would create a very large black market. This is
predictable. We can also predict a broken immigration system will create
a "black market" immigration system.

To tie to the topic of the group, if guns were suddenly outlawed then
every gun owner would be breaking the law. Would you call them law
breakers and blame them or would you look to fix the law? Presumably you
would look to fix the law. Does not mean you want everyone to have a gun
(toddlers and convicted murderers, for example, I think you would agree
should not).

In both cases we should not excuse those who cause harm, but we should
also not look to those who go around immoral and absurd laws as being
the ones in the wrong... the LAW is what is wrong here.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.


Mattb
2019-01-13 03:16:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:21:39 -0000 (UTC), Ördög
/snip/
Post by Mattb
By what I read Australia was going to grant her entry legally.
Originally she was coming here on a tourist visa and was to seek asylum.
Obviously lying to our immigration on her intention. Yes after all the
publicity Dutton said he'd grant her a visa, this is extreme hypocrisy
given the LNP's attitude to refugees arriving here by boat and our
refusal to accept them even if they are found to be genuine reasons. My
comments about money, phones, not stopping at he first port of call etc
raised some of the reasons that people claimed the boat arrivals weren't
genuine
Yes, it takes reading comprehension to interpret this saga from the point
of view of OZ politics.
Actually no not from your group......She rejected Islam so should not
be allowed in although you are all for some to come to OZ illegally.
You expect too much from this septic Yank trolling freak-show! He'll
never come up with the goods no matter how you try to enlighten his
wilful ignorance!
Septic Yank? Lets see you hate Americans but you support Islamic
terrorist? As does Dechucka and his wife.
Post by Mattb
You
do know there is a difference in legally entry and illegal?
Your ignorance of Australian politics led to the OP flying over your
head like a F35 whooooooosh
Mattb
2019-01-13 19:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 22:21:39 -0000 (UTC), Ördög
/snip/
Post by Mattb
By what I read Australia was going to grant her entry legally.
Originally she was coming here on a tourist visa and was to seek asylum.
Obviously lying to our immigration on her intention. Yes after all the
publicity Dutton said he'd grant her a visa, this is extreme hypocrisy
given the LNP's attitude to refugees arriving here by boat and our
refusal to accept them even if they are found to be genuine reasons. My
comments about money, phones, not stopping at he first port of call etc
raised some of the reasons that people claimed the boat arrivals weren't
genuine
Yes, it takes reading comprehension to interpret this saga from the point
of view of OZ politics.
Actually no not from your group
Certainly no comprehension or understanding of our politics from you
How does this statement that you are attacking differ from your
politics? ""She has rejected Islam and would have been killed."

I know you defend Hamas, then why do you reject this girl? Is it
because she rejected Islam?
......She rejected Islam so should not
Post by Mattb
be allowed in although you are all for some to come to OZ illegally.
You expect too much from this septic Yank trolling freak-show! He'll
never come up with the goods no matter how you try to enlighten his
wilful ignorance!
Septic Yank? Lets see you hate Americans but you support Islamic
terrorist? As does Dechucka and his wife.
Fuck-off will you
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Snit
2019-01-13 19:59:48 UTC
Permalink
On 1/13/19 12:58 PM, Mattb wrote:
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-01-13 20:03:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Only paranoid leftist whackos feel threatened by a gun law.
de chucka
2019-01-13 20:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Snit
2019-01-13 20:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Sure... his nonsense on climate change is my favorite example. But I
want to see if he will answer this question.

I suspect he will run. He almost always does.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
de chucka
2019-01-13 20:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Sure... his nonsense on climate change is my favorite example. But I
want to see if he will answer this question.
I suspect he will run. He almost always does.
He won't even bother to answer or twist your words it will just
blatantly lie about what you have posted
Snit
2019-01-13 20:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Sure... his nonsense on climate change is my favorite example. But I
want to see if he will answer this question.
I suspect he will run. He almost always does.
He won't even bother to answer or twist your words it will just
blatantly lie about what you have posted
Mattb did that when he claimed I was backing the idea of "controlling
truth" because I noted that HE was doing so to try to pretend his
bigoted crap about Palestinians and blacks should not be seen as such if
he actually thinks it is true. What he thinks is not the question, he
would have to alter reality, or "control truth" for his excuse to make
any sense at all.

He tried to turn his utter failure to back his bigoted crap as a failure
on my part.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 20:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.

Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
Mattb
2019-01-13 21:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Boy you're a lying septic. Why do you lie so much? Can't you put forward
a logical and factual argument or do you lie to cover up your personal
inadequacies?
I just posted these words and you went ballistic as to the why each
will have to decide for themselves "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed."

I believe you care little about her being killed but are really upset
she rejected the false prophet Muhammad,
Mattb
2019-01-13 21:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Boy you're a lying septic. Why do you lie so much? Can't you put forward
a logical and factual argument or do you lie to cover up your personal
inadequacies?
I just posted these words and you went ballistic as to the why each
will have to decide for themselves "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed."
So repeating my words in my OP is your logical and factual argument?
Did you say them in that clear a manner?
Post by Mattb
I believe
but you're in an alternate reality
You needed to divide a sentence to respond how far left of you.
Post by Mattb
you care little about her being killed but are really upset
she rejected the false prophet Muhammad,
You ignorance of the LNP policy is why you're being whooooshed so badly.
Did I? How would the "LNP policy" make what I wrote wrong "She has
rejected Islam and would have been killed." Please explain?
Look up Tampa
Mattb
2019-01-13 22:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Not there more lies and bullshit from you, lucky I'm a speed reader? ;-)
Sure you are slow down and try some comprehension, you seem to be
lacking in that.
Seems needing to divide a sentence to respond is not far left of me.
Another example of you lying and total ignorance of politics
You needed to edit the post for this lie and Bullshit of the far left.
You are losing it.

Why would you remove the evidence if what you said was true?

Time for you to call in Fran and Ordog and the Nymshifting
sockpuppets?
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Not there more lies and bullshit from you, lucky I'm a speed reader? ;-)
Sure you are slow down and try some comprehension, you seem to be
lacking in that.
Seems needing to divide a sentence to respond is not far left of me.
Another example of you lying and total ignorance of politics
You needed to edit the post for this lie and Bullshit of the far left.
Certainly don't
Yet you did.
Post by Mattb
You are losing it.
Maybe but I'm way behind you
After you last post talking about emasculation along with Fran please
do not get anywhere near my behind that was scary you hand her talking
about me in a sexual manner, Sick just sick.
Post by Mattb
Why would you remove the evidence if what you said was true?
I can't, it is there for all to se
Sure Yet you did edit.
Post by Mattb
Time for you to call in Fran and Ordog and the Nymshifting
sockpuppets?
Time for you to stop cross-posting
Nope as you are powerless as is your wife it seems.
Snit
2019-01-13 22:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Post by Mattb
Boy you're a lying septic. Why do you lie so much? Can't you put forward
a logical and factual argument or do you lie to cover up your personal
inadequacies?
I just posted these words and you went ballistic as to the why each
will have to decide for themselves "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed."
I believe you care little about her being killed but are really upset
she rejected the false prophet Muhammad,
de chucka
2019-01-13 22:28:03 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Sorry for the tautology
Mattb
2019-01-13 22:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Boy you're a lying septic. Why do you lie so much? Can't you put forward
a logical and factual argument or do you lie to cover up your personal
inadequacies?
I just posted these words and you went ballistic as to the why each
will have to decide for themselves "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed."
I believe you care little about her being killed but are really upset
she rejected the false prophet Muhammad,
de chucka
2019-01-13 22:58:35 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans.
Snit is rightly commenting on the tautology
Post by Mattb
I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
FFS I live in AUSTRALIA not AUSTRIA. Austria is in Europe and Australia
isn't. You are one dumb fuck septic.
Snit
2019-01-13 23:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
OK  put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans.
Snit is rightly commenting on the tautology
Post by Mattb
 I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
FFS I live in AUSTRALIA not AUSTRIA. Austria is in Europe and Australia
isn't. You are one dumb fuck septic.
Did he really confuse Australia and Austria?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Snit
2019-01-13 22:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Boy you're a lying septic. Why do you lie so much? Can't you put forward
a logical and factual argument or do you lie to cover up your personal
inadequacies?
I just posted these words and you went ballistic as to the why each
will have to decide for themselves "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed."
I believe you care little about her being killed but are really upset
she rejected the false prophet Muhammad,
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:13:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Boy you're a lying septic. Why do you lie so much? Can't you put forward
a logical and factual argument or do you lie to cover up your personal
inadequacies?
I just posted these words and you went ballistic as to the why each
will have to decide for themselves "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed."
I believe you care little about her being killed but are really upset
she rejected the false prophet Muhammad,
Snit
2019-01-13 23:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Boy you're a lying septic. Why do you lie so much? Can't you put forward
a logical and factual argument or do you lie to cover up your personal
inadequacies?
I just posted these words and you went ballistic as to the why each
will have to decide for themselves "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed."
I believe you care little about her being killed but are really upset
she rejected the false prophet Muhammad,
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:34:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Boy you're a lying septic. Why do you lie so much? Can't you put forward
a logical and factual argument or do you lie to cover up your personal
inadequacies?
I just posted these words and you went ballistic as to the why each
will have to decide for themselves "She has rejected Islam and would
have been killed."
I believe you care little about her being killed but are really upset
she rejected the false prophet Muhammad,
Snit
2019-01-13 23:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:53:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:43 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
Then there should be no problem if the USA withdraws from being the
world police and sucker.

Glad we agree. First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN. Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
Snit
2019-01-13 23:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:43 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
Then there should be no problem if the USA withdraws from being the
world police and sucker.
Glad we agree.
What do you think we agreed on?
Post by Mattb
First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN.
Why?
Post by Mattb
Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:58:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:56:50 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:43 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
Then there should be no problem if the USA withdraws from being the
world police and sucker.
Glad we agree.
What do you think we agreed on?
You don't believe the EU can take over all the USA does today?
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN.
Why?
because we should let these countries take care of themselves and
focus on ourselves.

They are not owed.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
Snit
2019-01-14 00:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:56:50 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:43 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
Then there should be no problem if the USA withdraws from being the
world police and sucker.
Glad we agree.
What do you think we agreed on?
You don't believe the EU can take over all the USA does today?
That does not answer my question. Are you openly admitting you made up
the idea you found agreement here?
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN.
Why?
because we should let these countries take care of themselves and
focus on ourselves.
To bury our head in the sand and not work with other countries is NOT
taking care of ourselves.
Post by Mattb
They are not owed.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 00:31:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:04:20 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:56:50 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:43 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
Then there should be no problem if the USA withdraws from being the
world police and sucker.
Glad we agree.
What do you think we agreed on?
You don't believe the EU can take over all the USA does today?
That does not answer my question. Are you openly admitting you made up
the idea you found agreement here?
Nope you are insane.

You said and I quote: "We have the resources to focus on our own
infrastructure and still not just ignore that there is a world"

Then we agree the USA is not needed in the EU or the UN and you have
the resources to take over. Do you or do you not?
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN.
Why?
because we should let these countries take care of themselves and
focus on ourselves.
To bury our head in the sand and not work with other countries is NOT
taking care of ourselves.
Our head? Now you are American? Seems you can't decide.

We should work with other countries but only as it benefits the USA as
the USA does not owe them.

Let the EU take up the slack.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
They are not owed.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
Snit
2019-01-14 00:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:04:20 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:56:50 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:43 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
Then there should be no problem if the USA withdraws from being the
world police and sucker.
Glad we agree.
What do you think we agreed on?
You don't believe the EU can take over all the USA does today?
That does not answer my question. Are you openly admitting you made up
the idea you found agreement here?
Mattb dodges the question with his common kneejerk insults to try to
cover up his insecurity.
Post by Mattb
Nope you are insane.
You said and I quote: "We have the resources to focus on our own
infrastructure and still not just ignore that there is a world"
Do you agree with this.
Post by Mattb
Then we agree the USA is not needed in the EU or the UN and you have
the resources to take over.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that.
Post by Mattb
Do you or do you not?
Happy to move on to your question once you answer mine on if you openly
are admitting you made up the idea we have already reached agreement here.

But you will not answer. You will just keep dodging the fact you were
caught in yet another lie.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN.
Why?
because we should let these countries take care of themselves and
focus on ourselves.
To bury our head in the sand and not work with other countries is NOT
taking care of ourselves.
Our head? Now you are American? Seems you can't decide.
I have never said I was not American. I am.
Post by Mattb
We should work with other countries but only as it benefits the USA as
the USA does not owe them.
Let the EU take up the slack.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
They are not owed.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 00:46:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:38:25 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:04:20 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:56:50 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:43 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
Then there should be no problem if the USA withdraws from being the
world police and sucker.
Glad we agree.
What do you think we agreed on?
You don't believe the EU can take over all the USA does today?
That does not answer my question. Are you openly admitting you made up
the idea you found agreement here?
Mattb dodges the question with his common kneejerk insults to try to
cover up his insecurity.
Post by Mattb
Nope you are insane.
You said and I quote: "We have the resources to focus on our own
infrastructure and still not just ignore that there is a world"
Do you agree with this.
Post by Mattb
Then we agree the USA is not needed in the EU or the UN and you have
the resources to take over.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that.
Post by Mattb
Do you or do you not?
Happy to move on to your question once you answer mine on if you openly
are admitting you made up the idea we have already reached agreement here.
But you will not answer. You will just keep dodging the fact you were
caught in yet another lie.
What lie and do add references?
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN.
Why?
because we should let these countries take care of themselves and
focus on ourselves.
To bury our head in the sand and not work with other countries is NOT
taking care of ourselves.
Our head? Now you are American? Seems you can't decide.
I have never said I was not American. I am.
OK Not much of one maybe you a lowlife antifa scum?

Yes I am VERY bigoted towards the antifa scum.

VERY bigoted toward the antifa freeloading scum.

There that should give you something to bitch about for a week.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
We should work with other countries but only as it benefits the USA as
the USA does not owe them.
Let the EU take up the slack.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
They are not owed.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
The US needs to take care of their own before others for a time.
Snit
2019-01-14 01:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:38:25 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:04:20 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:56:50 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:43 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
Then there should be no problem if the USA withdraws from being the
world police and sucker.
Glad we agree.
What do you think we agreed on?
You don't believe the EU can take over all the USA does today?
That does not answer my question. Are you openly admitting you made up
the idea you found agreement here?
Mattb dodges the question with his common kneejerk insults to try to
cover up his insecurity.
Post by Mattb
Nope you are insane.
You said and I quote: "We have the resources to focus on our own
infrastructure and still not just ignore that there is a world"
Do you agree with this.
Post by Mattb
Then we agree the USA is not needed in the EU or the UN and you have
the resources to take over.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that.
Post by Mattb
Do you or do you not?
Happy to move on to your question once you answer mine on if you openly
are admitting you made up the idea we have already reached agreement here.
But you will not answer. You will just keep dodging the fact you were
caught in yet another lie.
What lie and do add references?
Mattb
------
Then we agree the USA is not needed in the EU or the UN and you have
the resources to take over.
-----

You made that up.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN.
Why?
because we should let these countries take care of themselves and
focus on ourselves.
To bury our head in the sand and not work with other countries is NOT
taking care of ourselves.
Our head? Now you are American? Seems you can't decide.
I have never said I was not American. I am.
OK Not much of one maybe you a lowlife antifa scum?
Yes I am VERY bigoted towards the antifa scum.
VERY bigoted toward the antifa freeloading scum.
There that should give you something to bitch about for a week.
Odd how when you think of an American you think only of Antifa.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
We should work with other countries but only as it benefits the USA as
the USA does not owe them.
Let the EU take up the slack.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
They are not owed.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
The US needs to take care of their own before others for a time.
False dichotomy.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 01:47:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 18:20:40 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:38:25 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:04:20 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:56:50 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:43 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
We have the resources to focus on our own infrastructure and still not
just ignore that there is a world.
Then there should be no problem if the USA withdraws from being the
world police and sucker.
Glad we agree.
What do you think we agreed on?
You don't believe the EU can take over all the USA does today?
That does not answer my question. Are you openly admitting you made up
the idea you found agreement here?
Mattb dodges the question with his common kneejerk insults to try to
cover up his insecurity.
Post by Mattb
Nope you are insane.
You said and I quote: "We have the resources to focus on our own
infrastructure and still not just ignore that there is a world"
Do you agree with this.
Post by Mattb
Then we agree the USA is not needed in the EU or the UN and you have
the resources to take over.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that.
Post by Mattb
Do you or do you not?
Happy to move on to your question once you answer mine on if you openly
are admitting you made up the idea we have already reached agreement here.
But you will not answer. You will just keep dodging the fact you were
caught in yet another lie.
What lie and do add references?
Mattb
------
Then we agree the USA is not needed in the EU or the UN and you have
the resources to take over.
The you believe the USA is needed to be the worlds police ans welfare
system?

Think you will find most those that pay taxes will disagree.

The freeloaders believe in handouts.
Post by Snit
-----
You made that up.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN.
Why?
because we should let these countries take care of themselves and
focus on ourselves.
To bury our head in the sand and not work with other countries is NOT
taking care of ourselves.
Our head? Now you are American? Seems you can't decide.
I have never said I was not American. I am.
OK Not much of one maybe you a lowlife antifa scum?
Yes I am VERY bigoted towards the antifa scum.
VERY bigoted toward the antifa freeloading scum.
There that should give you something to bitch about for a week.
Odd how when you think of an American you think only of Antifa.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
We should work with other countries but only as it benefits the USA as
the USA does not owe them.
Let the EU take up the slack.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
They are not owed.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
The US needs to take care of their own before others for a time.
False dichotomy.
Snit
2019-01-14 01:52:33 UTC
Permalink
On 1/13/19 6:47 PM, Mattb wrote:
...
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Then we agree the USA is not needed in the EU or the UN and you have
the resources to take over.
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied that.
Post by Mattb
Do you or do you not?
Happy to move on to your question once you answer mine on if you openly
are admitting you made up the idea we have already reached agreement here.
But you will not answer. You will just keep dodging the fact you were
caught in yet another lie.
What lie and do add references?
Mattb
------
Then we agree the USA is not needed in the EU or the UN and you have
the resources to take over.
The you believe the USA is needed to be the worlds police ans welfare
system?
Another unsupported claim on your part.

You just keep making up claims, attributing them to me, and then
repeating that mistake as you are called out on it.
Post by Mattb
Think you will find most those that pay taxes will disagree.
The freeloaders believe in handouts.
Keep in mind most of the "handouts" go to the very rich.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
-----
You made that up.
Notice how you ignore how you simply make up claims and work to
attribute them to me.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
First withdraw from NATO and then cut all funding to
the UN.
Why?
because we should let these countries take care of themselves and
focus on ourselves.
To bury our head in the sand and not work with other countries is NOT
taking care of ourselves.
Our head? Now you are American? Seems you can't decide.
I have never said I was not American. I am.
OK Not much of one maybe you a lowlife antifa scum?
Yes I am VERY bigoted towards the antifa scum.
VERY bigoted toward the antifa freeloading scum.
There that should give you something to bitch about for a week.
Odd how when you think of an American you think only of Antifa.
No comment on you from this. Can you explain your odd assumption there?
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
We should work with other countries but only as it benefits the USA as
the USA does not owe them.
Let the EU take up the slack.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
They are not owed.
Post by Mattb
Let the EU pick up the tab and that of the International
Monetary Fund.
The US needs to take care of their own before others for a time.
False dichotomy.
No comment from you on your false dichotomy where you assumed that the
US working with other countries is not also a part of taking care of
itself.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Fran
2019-01-14 02:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
I have never said I was not American. I am.
OK  Not much of one maybe you a lowlife antifa scum?
Yes I am VERY bigoted towards the antifa scum.
VERY bigoted toward the antifa freeloading scum.
There that should give you something to bitch about for a week.
Odd how when you think of an American you think only of Antifa.
:-)) this is such a delight to watch. I'm going ot make popcorn and
settle back to enjoy the show.

We in aus.politics have been subjected to his far right, naive and
simplistic view of the world for too long.
Snit
2019-01-14 02:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
I have never said I was not American. I am.
OK  Not much of one maybe you a lowlife antifa scum?
Yes I am VERY bigoted towards the antifa scum.
VERY bigoted toward the antifa freeloading scum.
There that should give you something to bitch about for a week.
Odd how when you think of an American you think only of Antifa.
:-))  this is such a delight to watch. I'm going ot make popcorn and
settle back to enjoy the show.
I have opinions on the best popcorn, too. :)
We in aus.politics have been subjected to his far right, naive and
simplistic view of the world for too long.
It is amusing to see him post.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
de chucka
2019-01-13 23:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:15:57 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:15 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans. I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Welcome your kind would have won. No D-day.
America does put a huge amount into our military... more than something
like the next ten largest combined.
America needs to go into isolation for a time and focus it's resources
on its own infrastructure. Pick and choose who to help and withdraw
from NATO and the UN.
and you'll soon realise the world doesn't need you as others take over
your posistion
Fran
2019-01-14 02:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity.  As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK  put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans.  I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Jesus wept what a moron!!!!!!!!!!! He regrets "the American lives that
were lost defending Europe". The moron is probably still geographically
challenged and thinks the aus in aus.politics refers to Austria.
Snit
2019-01-14 02:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:11:28 +1100, de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity.  As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK  put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans.  I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Jesus wept what a moron!!!!!!!!!!!  He regrets "the American lives that
were lost defending Europe".  The moron is probably still geographically
challenged and thinks the aus in aus.politics refers to Austria.
It is sorta mind boggling.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 02:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fran
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity.  As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK  put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans.  I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Jesus wept what a moron!!!!!!!!!!! He regrets "the American lives that
were lost defending Europe". The moron is probably still geographically
challenged and thinks the aus in aus.politics refers to Austria.
WOW Fran is losing it. I want the USA to stop being the worlds
policeman and welfare system. I want the USA to go into isolation for
a time let Australia handle China and let the EU handle the rest. Let
the USA help those it chooses and leave the rest to others.
Snit
2019-01-14 02:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Fran
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity.  As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK  put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Ask Dechucka, Fran and Ordog that is what they call Americans.  I do
regret the American lives that were lost defending Europe.
Thank you.
Jesus wept what a moron!!!!!!!!!!! He regrets "the American lives that
were lost defending Europe". The moron is probably still geographically
challenged and thinks the aus in aus.politics refers to Austria.
WOW Fran is losing it. I want the USA to stop being the worlds
policeman and welfare system. I want the USA to go into isolation for
a time let Australia handle China and let the EU handle the rest. Let
the USA help those it chooses and leave the rest to others.
Some of that makes sense... but you want America to "go into isolation". Oy.

That is not gonna happen, and would not make any sense for it to even
consider doing.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Fran
2019-01-14 02:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity. As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Rhymning slang - Septic tank = septic yank. Shortened over time to just
septic
Snit
2019-01-14 02:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by de chucka
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Matt feels threatened by reality and fights it at evert opportunity
Dechucka defends Islamic terrorist and African gangs at every
opportunity.  As does his wife.
Yet if a girl rejects Islam wants her returned home to be killed.
and thus you once again prove that your grasp on reality is at best
tenuous or probably non-existent.
OK  put it into words even a septic American will understand?
Septic American?
Rhymning slang - Septic tank = septic yank.  Shortened over time to just
septic
I guess. Sorta weak... but I am not into name calling.

Thanks for the explanation though.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 20:54:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.

I've carried a gun most my life and never had it jump out and start
shooting on it's own.
de chucka
2019-01-13 21:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Really Matt really?
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
I've carried a gun most my life and never had it jump out and start
shooting on it's own.
Really Matt really?
Snit
2019-01-13 21:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms. Thank you for answering the question -- I did not expect you to.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
I've carried a gun most my life and never had it jump out and start
shooting on it's own.
Even for you that is a bizarre side issue.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 21:50:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
Post by Snit
Thank you for answering the question -- I did not expect you to.
I did answer it as I said "Not at all"

Were you trying to be deceptive again?
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
I've carried a gun most my life and never had it jump out and start
shooting on it's own.
Even for you that is a bizarre side issue.
Just over your head.
Snit
2019-01-13 22:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Thank you for answering the question -- I did not expect you to.
I did answer it as I said "Not at all"
Right. That is what I was noting, that you did answer. Seems odd how you
want to belabor that, but given your history of refusing to answer
questions I can see why you would want to make a big deal out of your doing
so.

Fair enough.
Post by Mattb
Were you trying to be deceptive again?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
I've carried a gun most my life and never had it jump out and start
shooting on it's own.
Even for you that is a bizarre side issue.
Just over your head.
I welcome you to try to dig your way out of this one. How does your not
feeling threatened by gun laws tie to you fantasizing about your gun
jumping out and shooting people on its own?

So you know: I do not expect you to answer. The predictability of your
refusal to answer questions about your comments ties into my surprise at
you actually answering a question, above.
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Thank you for answering the question -- I did not expect you to.
I did answer it as I said "Not at all"
Right. That is what I was noting, that you did answer. Seems odd how you
want to belabor that, but given your history of refusing to answer
questions I can see why you would want to make a big deal out of your doing
so.
Fair enough.
Good.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Were you trying to be deceptive again?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
Do you have fear? Is there a green dot on your forehead?
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
I've carried a gun most my life and never had it jump out and start
shooting on it's own.
Even for you that is a bizarre side issue.
Just over your head.
I welcome you to try to dig your way out of this one. How does your not
feeling threatened by gun laws tie to you fantasizing about your gun
jumping out and shooting people on its own?
You see why does anyone need to do as you say "dig your way out" who
do you believe you are that anyone would need do that for stating a
opinion?
Post by Snit
So you know: I do not expect you to answer. The predictability of your
refusal to answer questions about your comments ties into my surprise at
you actually answering a question, above.
Where are the cites I've asked you for?

You and Dechucka are much alike.

Maybe I need find out university servers are easy.
Snit
2019-01-13 23:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
good to know you do not feel your rights are threatened by any of these:

• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and
transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as
machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons,
explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.

• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers,
importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a
Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to
certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.

• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited
interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying
handguns.

• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating
interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate
firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and
importers.

• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially
repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians
of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage.
Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.

• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few
exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery,
possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of
metal content.

• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals
from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background
checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.

• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that
looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding
devices. The law expired in 2004.

• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement
officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a
concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless
of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.

• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms
manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence
when crimes have been committed with their products.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Thank you for answering the question -- I did not expect you to.
I did answer it as I said "Not at all"
Right. That is what I was noting, that you did answer. Seems odd how you
want to belabor that, but given your history of refusing to answer
questions I can see why you would want to make a big deal out of your doing
so.
Fair enough.
Good.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Were you trying to be deceptive again?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
Do you have fear? Is there a green dot on your forehead?
The fact you jump to the idea of fear in my noting your logical fallacy
is interesting.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
I've carried a gun most my life and never had it jump out and start
shooting on it's own.
Even for you that is a bizarre side issue.
Just over your head.
I welcome you to try to dig your way out of this one. How does your not
feeling threatened by gun laws tie to you fantasizing about your gun
jumping out and shooting people on its own?
You see why does anyone need to do as you say "dig your way out" who
do you believe you are that anyone would need do that for stating a
opinion?
So you cannot explain what you think went over my head as you worked to
tie your not feeling threatened by gun laws tie to you fantasizing about
your gun jumping out and shooting people on its own

Fair enough... you simply made another absurd comment. Got it.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
So you know: I do not expect you to answer. The predictability of your
refusal to answer questions about your comments ties into my surprise at
you actually answering a question, above.
Where are the cites I've asked you for?
I have no desire to help you find some examples of cites you asked me
for. Do they even exist?
Post by Mattb
You and Dechucka are much alike.
Maybe I need find out university servers are easy.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:27:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
Nope.

Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.

Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Snit
2019-01-13 23:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:45:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
de chucka
2019-01-13 23:50:06 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Mattb
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
How can a law threaten you?
Snit
2019-01-13 23:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 00:05:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say. I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
Snit
2019-01-14 00:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say.
What agenda are you imagining?
Post by Mattb
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
I know of no proposal to target only those who have not broken laws.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 00:36:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:27:08 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say.
What agenda are you imagining?
Post by Mattb
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
I know of no proposal to target only those who have not broken laws.
Right you believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law. Wait
isn't murder and assault already illegal? You far left types are
lacking in common sense.
Snit
2019-01-14 01:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:27:08 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say.
What agenda are you imagining?
Post by Mattb
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
I know of no proposal to target only those who have not broken laws.
Right you believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law.
To be clear: you made that up and it is not based on ANYTHING I have
ever said.
Post by Mattb
Wait
isn't murder and assault already illegal?
Yes. Surprised you did not know this.
Post by Mattb
You far left types are
lacking in common sense.
You are the one who came up with the idea that "gangs of say Chicago
will obey the law".
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 01:53:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 18:18:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:27:08 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say.
What agenda are you imagining?
Post by Mattb
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
I know of no proposal to target only those who have not broken laws.
Right you believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law.
To be clear: you made that up and it is not based on ANYTHING I have
ever said.
Then try to be clear and concise in your writing. You lack that
skill.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Wait
isn't murder and assault already illegal?
Yes. Surprised you did not know this.
Post by Mattb
You far left types are
lacking in common sense.
You are the one who came up with the idea that "gangs of say Chicago
will obey the law".
You believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law? What good are
gun laws if the criminals won't obey them?

Criminals and their supporters love gun laws as it makes for easy
victims. Do a home invasion in California the criminals are mostly
safe, do so in Florida good chance they will die.

Besides being contentious do you really have a point here?
Snit
2019-01-14 02:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 18:18:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:27:08 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say.
What agenda are you imagining?
Post by Mattb
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
I know of no proposal to target only those who have not broken laws.
Right you believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law.
To be clear: you made that up and it is not based on ANYTHING I have
ever said.
Then try to be clear and concise in your writing. You lack that
skill.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Wait
isn't murder and assault already illegal?
Yes. Surprised you did not know this.
Post by Mattb
You far left types are
lacking in common sense.
You are the one who came up with the idea that "gangs of say Chicago
will obey the law".
You believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law?
Remember: that is YOUR idea, not mine.
Post by Mattb
What good are
gun laws if the criminals won't obey them?
If nobody is breaking a law there is literally no reason for a law. For
example, there is currently no law I know of that makes it illegal to
carve logos into rocks on the moon. As our technology grows and people
start to do this there may very well be such laws.

But laws exist BECAUSE people go against such actions.
Post by Mattb
Criminals and their supporters love gun laws as it makes for easy
victims. Do a home invasion in California the criminals are mostly
safe, do so in Florida good chance they will die.
Besides being contentious do you really have a point here?
I am noting your bizarre ideas, such as gangs not breaking laws (what a
weird concept) but before that the focus was on your other bizarre idea
that there are or will be laws that target only those who have not
broken laws. Specifically, before it get even more buried:

Snit:
-----
What agenda are you imagining?
-----

Mattb:
-----
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove
weapons from the law abiding without removing them
from the criminal element and that being so written
into the law.
-----

It is a very odd idea you came up with there!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 02:27:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:04:02 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 18:18:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:27:08 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say.
What agenda are you imagining?
Post by Mattb
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
I know of no proposal to target only those who have not broken laws.
Right you believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law.
To be clear: you made that up and it is not based on ANYTHING I have
ever said.
Then try to be clear and concise in your writing. You lack that
skill.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Wait
isn't murder and assault already illegal?
Yes. Surprised you did not know this.
Post by Mattb
You far left types are
lacking in common sense.
You are the one who came up with the idea that "gangs of say Chicago
will obey the law".
You believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law?
Remember: that is YOUR idea, not mine.
I posted data? Where?
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
What good are
gun laws if the criminals won't obey them?
If nobody is breaking a law there is literally no reason for a law.
I agree but what makes you believe the lowlife gang members will obey
a gun law? I mean they sell drugs, murders people and such which is
already against the law so new laws won't stop it except maybe giving
any use of a gun in a crime a additional 10-15 years in prison no
matter age.
Post by Snit
For
example, there is currently no law I know of that makes it illegal to
carve logos into rocks on the moon. As our technology grows and people
start to do this there may very well be such laws.
But laws exist BECAUSE people go against such actions.
Post by Mattb
Criminals and their supporters love gun laws as it makes for easy
victims. Do a home invasion in California the criminals are mostly
safe, do so in Florida good chance they will die.
Besides being contentious do you really have a point here?
I am noting your bizarre ideas, such as gangs not breaking laws (what a
weird concept) but before that the focus was on your other bizarre idea
that there are or will be laws that target only those who have not
-----
What agenda are you imagining?
-----
-----
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove
weapons from the law abiding without removing them
from the criminal element and that being so written
into the law.
-----
It is a very odd idea you came up with there!
Not really for anyone with common sense. Your type is rather strange.
Hard working law abiding people (My Type) must give up their rights
for the lowlife freeloading scum. (Your type). To you that is what
it means to be politically correct and other idea is bigotry to you.
Snit
2019-01-14 02:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:04:02 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 18:18:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:27:08 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say.
What agenda are you imagining?
Post by Mattb
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
I know of no proposal to target only those who have not broken laws.
Right you believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law.
To be clear: you made that up and it is not based on ANYTHING I have
ever said.
Then try to be clear and concise in your writing. You lack that
skill.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Wait
isn't murder and assault already illegal?
Yes. Surprised you did not know this.
Post by Mattb
You far left types are
lacking in common sense.
You are the one who came up with the idea that "gangs of say Chicago
will obey the law".
You believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law?
Remember: that is YOUR idea, not mine.
I posted data? Where?
You presented the idea that "gangs of say Chicago will obey the law".
Where would you come up with such an idea, even as a question?
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
What good are
gun laws if the criminals won't obey them?
If nobody is breaking a law there is literally no reason for a law.
I agree but what makes you believe the lowlife gang members will obey
a gun law?
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied they (as a rule) would.

You often push your own ideas onto me. It is an odd habit.
Post by Mattb
I mean they sell drugs, murders people and such which is
already against the law so new laws won't stop it except maybe giving
any use of a gun in a crime a additional 10-15 years in prison no
matter age.
Post by Snit
For
example, there is currently no law I know of that makes it illegal to
carve logos into rocks on the moon. As our technology grows and people
start to do this there may very well be such laws.
But laws exist BECAUSE people go against such actions.
Post by Mattb
Criminals and their supporters love gun laws as it makes for easy
victims. Do a home invasion in California the criminals are mostly
safe, do so in Florida good chance they will die.
Besides being contentious do you really have a point here?
I am noting your bizarre ideas, such as gangs not breaking laws (what a
weird concept) but before that the focus was on your other bizarre idea
that there are or will be laws that target only those who have not
-----
What agenda are you imagining?
-----
-----
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove
weapons from the law abiding without removing them
from the criminal element and that being so written
into the law.
-----
It is a very odd idea you came up with there!
Not really for anyone with common sense.
Funny how you pretend it is "common sense" to assume there will be law
proposals to target only those who have not broken laws.

Below you, as is your norm, try to change the topic.
Post by Mattb
Your type is rather strange.
Hard working law abiding people (My Type) must give up their rights
for the lowlife freeloading scum. (Your type). To you that is what
it means to be politically correct and other idea is bigotry to you.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 02:48:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:33:52 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:04:02 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 18:18:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:27:08 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say.
What agenda are you imagining?
Post by Mattb
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
I know of no proposal to target only those who have not broken laws.
Right you believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law.
To be clear: you made that up and it is not based on ANYTHING I have
ever said.
Then try to be clear and concise in your writing. You lack that
skill.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Wait
isn't murder and assault already illegal?
Yes. Surprised you did not know this.
Post by Mattb
You far left types are
lacking in common sense.
You are the one who came up with the idea that "gangs of say Chicago
will obey the law".
You believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law?
Remember: that is YOUR idea, not mine.
I posted data? Where?
You presented the idea that "gangs of say Chicago will obey the law".
You edited the sentence to much it was "you believe the gangs of say
Chicago will obey the law."?
Post by Snit
Where would you come up with such an idea, even as a question?
How will gun laws help the gang problem if they do not obey the
current laws?
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
What good are
gun laws if the criminals won't obey them?
If nobody is breaking a law there is literally no reason for a law.
I agree but what makes you believe the lowlife gang members will obey
a gun law?
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied they (as a rule) would.
You squirm around the point by saying anything otherwise is bigotry.
Post by Snit
You often push your own ideas onto me. It is an odd habit.
Post by Mattb
I mean they sell drugs, murders people and such which is
already against the law so new laws won't stop it except maybe giving
any use of a gun in a crime a additional 10-15 years in prison no
matter age.
Post by Snit
For
example, there is currently no law I know of that makes it illegal to
carve logos into rocks on the moon. As our technology grows and people
start to do this there may very well be such laws.
But laws exist BECAUSE people go against such actions.
Post by Mattb
Criminals and their supporters love gun laws as it makes for easy
victims. Do a home invasion in California the criminals are mostly
safe, do so in Florida good chance they will die.
Besides being contentious do you really have a point here?
I am noting your bizarre ideas, such as gangs not breaking laws (what a
weird concept) but before that the focus was on your other bizarre idea
that there are or will be laws that target only those who have not
-----
What agenda are you imagining?
-----
-----
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove
weapons from the law abiding without removing them
from the criminal element and that being so written
into the law.
-----
It is a very odd idea you came up with there!
Not really for anyone with common sense.
Funny how you pretend it is "common sense" to assume there will be law
proposals to target only those who have not broken laws.
Yes ans I will oppose them. I believe we need to give anyone caught
using a gun in a crime a additional 10 - 15 years in prison with no
parole.
Post by Snit
Below you, as is your norm, try to change the topic.
Post by Mattb
Your type is rather strange.
Hard working law abiding people (My Type) must give up their rights
for the lowlife freeloading scum. (Your type). To you that is what
it means to be politically correct and other idea is bigotry to you.
Who are you to control the topic. It is nowhere near the original
topic of "Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun to Canada GOOD"
Snit
2019-01-14 03:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:33:52 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 19:04:02 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 18:18:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:27:08 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:53:26 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:37:16 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:11:09 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:23:17 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 12:59:48 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
...
Post by Mattb
I'm starting to see why you believe Americans gun laws are a threat.
Do you not feel threatened by America's gun laws?
Not at all it is the criminals that are the problem.
Good to know you do not feel threatened by background checks and bans on
arms.
Why would I. I have no problem with them. Why would I?
You might if you thought they were not fair and threatened your rights. I
admit I expected that from you and am surprised. That is good — I can
usually predict your views and actions well and enjoy being surprised.
None so far on the Federal level bother me.
Interesting how you limit it to the federal level. But even with that,
• National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
• Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
• Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
• Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
• Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
• Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.
• Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
• Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
• Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatics that looked like assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
• Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (2004): Granted law enforcement officers and former law enforcement officers the right to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Prevents firearms manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.
Nope.
Fine with the current fed levels. Yes I limit it to the federal level
because believe it or not so not know the laws for each State.
But that means that while there might be some exceptions, overall you
are OK with the general laws... or if not OK at least do not feel they
threaten your rights. Good to know.
The Federal laws as currently written and interpreted do not threaten
me at all.
Fine.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Seems here you are trying to change the topic from your lack of feeling
your rights are threatened by such laws.
What we see here is you not being able to remove your agenda from
reading what I say.
What agenda are you imagining?
Post by Mattb
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove weapons from the
law abiding without removing them from the criminal element and that
being so written into the law.
I know of no proposal to target only those who have not broken laws.
Right you believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law.
To be clear: you made that up and it is not based on ANYTHING I have
ever said.
Then try to be clear and concise in your writing. You lack that
skill.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Wait
isn't murder and assault already illegal?
Yes. Surprised you did not know this.
Post by Mattb
You far left types are
lacking in common sense.
You are the one who came up with the idea that "gangs of say Chicago
will obey the law".
You believe the gangs of say Chicago will obey the law?
Remember: that is YOUR idea, not mine.
I posted data? Where?
You presented the idea that "gangs of say Chicago will obey the law".
You edited the sentence to much it was "you believe the gangs of say
Chicago will obey the law."?
I was focusing on the idea you came up with... not the fact you
dishonesty presented it as being tied to me. But, sure, you both came up
with that idea AND dishonestly presented it as if it was tied to me.

Why would you do EITHER of those?
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Where would you come up with such an idea, even as a question?
How will gun laws help the gang problem if they do not obey the
current laws?
Of note, you dodged the question of where and why you would would come
up with the idea that "gangs of say Chicago will obey the law", even as
a question. You do that a lot... just run from questions.

As far as how laws can help situations when people do not follow the
law, what other ways do laws help OTHER than to:

* deal with people when they break the law
* discourage behavior that would be against the law. Can you think

Your very question assumes a deep ignorance about the very reason we
have laws!
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
What good are
gun laws if the criminals won't obey them?
If nobody is breaking a law there is literally no reason for a law.
I agree but what makes you believe the lowlife gang members will obey
a gun law?
I never said, suggested, hinted, or implied they (as a rule) would.
You squirm around the point by saying anything otherwise is bigotry.
Notice how you make up a claim about me believing a general idea that
"lowlife gang members will obey a gun law" and when you are called out
on this absurd claim you change the topic to yet ANOTHER absurd claim.

It is interesting how quickly you pile one absurd claim onto another. Do
you do it on purpose or are you really just unable to help it?
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
You often push your own ideas onto me. It is an odd habit.
Post by Mattb
I mean they sell drugs, murders people and such which is
already against the law so new laws won't stop it except maybe giving
any use of a gun in a crime a additional 10-15 years in prison no
matter age.
Post by Snit
For
example, there is currently no law I know of that makes it illegal to
carve logos into rocks on the moon. As our technology grows and people
start to do this there may very well be such laws.
But laws exist BECAUSE people go against such actions.
Post by Mattb
Criminals and their supporters love gun laws as it makes for easy
victims. Do a home invasion in California the criminals are mostly
safe, do so in Florida good chance they will die.
Besides being contentious do you really have a point here?
I am noting your bizarre ideas, such as gangs not breaking laws (what a
weird concept) but before that the focus was on your other bizarre idea
that there are or will be laws that target only those who have not
-----
What agenda are you imagining?
-----
-----
I am speaking of future laws and maybe some State
laws. I will not support any future laws that remove
weapons from the law abiding without removing them
from the criminal element and that being so written
into the law.
-----
It is a very odd idea you came up with there!
Not really for anyone with common sense.
Funny how you pretend it is "common sense" to assume there will be law
proposals to target only those who have not broken laws.
Yes ans I will oppose them.
What even theoretical laws do you think would target ONLY those who have
not broken laws?
Post by Mattb
I believe we need to give anyone caught
using a gun in a crime a additional 10 - 15 years in prison with no
parole.
Fair enough.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Below you, as is your norm, try to change the topic.
Post by Mattb
Your type is rather strange.
Hard working law abiding people (My Type) must give up their rights
for the lowlife freeloading scum. (Your type). To you that is what
it means to be politically correct and other idea is bigotry to you.
Who are you to control the topic. It is nowhere near the original
topic of "Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun to Canada GOOD"
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
de chucka
2019-01-13 23:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Pity they have such easy access to guns before they become criminals
Snit
2019-01-13 23:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Laws that disarm the law abiding and yet fail to disarm criminals and
gangs yes I have a problem with but not sure how to correct that.
Many of those federal laws limit arms for people other than criminals.
Yes and yet it is the criminals that are the major problem.
Pity they have such easy access to guns before they become criminals
Or known criminals.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 21:18:15 UTC
Permalink
snip
It doesn't but this thread is about the LNPs reaction to refugees
The what was your problem?
?
Post by Mattb
I know you defend Hamas,
Thus showing you know 3/5s of 4/7th of fuck al
Post by Mattb
then why do you reject this girl?
I didn't
Then what is your problem with my statement of fact?
It is a marvellous statement.
Obviously it is a marvellous statement as I made it in the OP in a
thread about the LNP attitude to refugees. As you are so ignorant about
Aus politics and with that F35 closely overhead it is not surprising you
babble on about things already stated
So you are claiming you got so upset because we both made the same
comment? That is strange.
Mattb
2019-01-13 21:56:57 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Mattb
So you are claiming you got so upset because we both made the same
comment?
No, I'm upset because you are so pig ignorant of aus politics but troll
here. Oh and your cross-posting.
The you had no other reason that because I am a American?

I see
However I'll live with both of these
while you keep amusing me but don't bore me.
Is this another threat to killfile me OOOHH NOO the world is coming
to a end OHH the pain the pain.....LOL
de chucka
2019-01-13 22:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
snip
Post by Mattb
So you are claiming you got so upset because we both made the same
comment?
No, I'm upset because you are so pig ignorant of aus politics but troll
here. Oh and your cross-posting.
The you had no other reason that because I am a American?
pig ignorance of aus politics and trolling is not just a seotic's problem
Post by Mattb
I see
However I'll live with both of these
while you keep amusing me but don't bore me.
Is this another threat to killfile me
I've never killfile you, in fact I believe dolf is the only one to
receive that honour

OOOHH NOO the world is coming
Post by Mattb
to a end OHH the pain the pain.....LOL
Mattb
2019-01-13 22:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Mattb
snip
Post by Mattb
So you are claiming you got so upset because we both made the same
comment?
No, I'm upset because you are so pig ignorant of aus politics but troll
here. Oh and your cross-posting.
The you had no other reason that because I am a American?
pig ignorance of aus politics and trolling is not just a seotic's problem
How was my posting the words "She has rejected Islam and would have
been killed." show ignorance or be trolling as it is a factual
statement.
Post by de chucka
Post by Mattb
I see
However I'll live with both of these
while you keep amusing me but don't bore me.
Is this another threat to killfile me
I've never killfile you, in fact I believe dolf is the only one to
receive that honour
Goof luck with that he changes things just enough to get out from time
to time.
Post by de chucka
OOOHH NOO the world is coming
Post by Mattb
to a end OHH the pain the pain.....LOL
Mattb
2019-01-13 22:01:57 UTC
Permalink
snip
No I'm not I'm posting as and for dechucka
The why do you clam what I wrote is not for any Australians true.
I didn't
yet do you
truly speak for ALL Australians?
OK you're totally off with the fairies. I hope for your sake it is drugs
causing this
You just make no sense in another post you claimed you made the same
basic comment and if so why the attitude?
You're parroting a comment I made in the OP but are too ignorant to
understand what the thread is about as you know 2/3rds of 3/5ths of
fuck-all about australian politics but insist on trolling here and
cross-posting
Since this is the limit of what I posted before you went ballistic
"She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." how can you know
what I understood at that time?

You look like the troll here.

Then why do you claim to know so much abut American gun Control?
Mattb
2019-01-13 22:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
snip
No I'm not I'm posting as and for dechucka
The why do you clam what I wrote is not for any Australians true.
I didn't
yet do you
truly speak for ALL Australians?
OK you're totally off with the fairies. I hope for your sake it is drugs
causing this
You just make no sense in another post you claimed you made the same
basic comment and if so why the attitude?
You're parroting a comment I made in the OP but are too ignorant to
understand what the thread is about as you know 2/3rds of 3/5ths of
fuck-all about australian politics but insist on trolling here and
cross-posting
Since this is the limit of what I posted before you went ballistic
"She has rejected Islam and would have been killed." how can you know
what I understood at that time?
You obviously didn't understand the thread and you keep confirming it
with each and every post
Did I and am I? How so as I'm just trying to understand what set you
off. "She has rejected Islam and would have been killed" is a factual
statement, and why that is not accepted by LNP policy you are correct
I do not understand and have asked you a few times to explain.
Post by Mattb
You look like the troll here.
Then why do you claim to know so much abut American gun Control?
because I have lived their, briefly, and I can research a topic
I can say I lived in Australia briefly and be honest. You are right
gave me only the most basic understanding of OZ politics, enough to
know it can be in many ways as screwed up as that of the USA.

You far left is as screwed up as US liberal/progressives and your far
right as screwed up as ours. The advantage OZ has is a limited
population of about 23 million.
Mattb
2019-01-13 20:52:16 UTC
Permalink
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs 100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Snip
Mattb
2019-01-13 21:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were. You claimed they attacked cops because people taking
videos provoked then so were not at fault.
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner. I blamed both
sides you only the people taking the video. The African gangs were in
the right to you.

You do have a pattern.

Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'

African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.

This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.

Do we see a pattern?

No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
Mattb
2019-01-13 22:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.

Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'

African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.

This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.

Do we see a pattern?

No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
Snit
2019-01-13 22:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
Mattb
2019-01-13 22:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
I was responding to Dechucka are you one of Dechucka's sockpuppets?
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
Snit
2019-01-13 22:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
I was responding to Dechucka are you one of Dechucka's sockpuppets?
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
I responded to a public post.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:08:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
I was responding to Dechucka are you one of Dechucka's sockpuppets?
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
I responded to a public post.
True and that is your right as it is mine. Try to remember that.
Snit
2019-01-13 23:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
I was responding to Dechucka are you one of Dechucka's sockpuppets?
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
I responded to a public post.
True and that is your right as it is mine. Try to remember that.
Have I ever suggest you should not?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:35:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:16:28 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
I was responding to Dechucka are you one of Dechucka's sockpuppets?
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
I responded to a public post.
True and that is your right as it is mine. Try to remember that.
Have I ever suggest you should not?
You have suggested those that post much be politically correct to your
standards. That I reject as to be that requires one to lie.
Snit
2019-01-13 23:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:16:28 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
I was responding to Dechucka are you one of Dechucka's sockpuppets?
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
I responded to a public post.
True and that is your right as it is mine. Try to remember that.
Have I ever suggest you should not?
Of note, Mattb did not answer this question but changes the topic. He
has NO examples where I have said ANYONE should not respond to a public
post, as he implied.
Post by Mattb
You have suggested those that post much be politically correct to your
standards. That I reject as to be that requires one to lie.
By politically correct do you mean anything other than I am against your
open bigoted comments? If so, what?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-13 23:48:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:04 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:16:28 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
I was responding to Dechucka are you one of Dechucka's sockpuppets?
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
I responded to a public post.
True and that is your right as it is mine. Try to remember that.
Have I ever suggest you should not?
Of note, Mattb did not answer this question but changes the topic. He
has NO examples where I have said ANYONE should not respond to a public
post, as he implied.
Actually I did answer it. Just not to your liking. Sometimes a yes
or No answer is not the complete truth.
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
You have suggested those that post much be politically correct to your
standards. That I reject as to be that requires one to lie.
By politically correct do you mean anything other than I am against your
open bigoted comments? If so, what?
Your claimed openly bigoted comments. Even after I explained my
meaning you still go on and on and leave out the explanation to my
meaning. Why one must wonder because it does not fit your political
agenda and therefore is not politically correct to you. You have
proven my point here.
Snit
2019-01-13 23:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:04 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:16:28 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
Post by Mattb
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Post by Mattb
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
I was responding to Dechucka are you one of Dechucka's sockpuppets?
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
I responded to a public post.
True and that is your right as it is mine. Try to remember that.
Have I ever suggest you should not?
Of note, Mattb did not answer this question but changes the topic. He
has NO examples where I have said ANYONE should not respond to a public
post, as he implied.
Actually I did answer it. Just not to your liking. Sometimes a yes
or No answer is not the complete truth.
Note: still no answer from Mattb.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
You have suggested those that post much be politically correct to your
standards. That I reject as to be that requires one to lie.
By politically correct do you mean anything other than I am against your
open bigoted comments? If so, what?
Your claimed openly bigoted comments.
Your openly bigoted comments.

--------------------------------------------------------
In response to someone using course language:

Mattb
-----
Rep. Rashida Tlaib did that. The she is showing her
Palestinian core.
-----
You blamed such on her being a Palestinian

Mattb
-----
No as I have seen Blacks are VERY racist
-----
Note, you are not saying SOME blacks are racist, or all people are
racist. You are singling out blacks and saying they (no qualifiers) are
"VERY racist".

When questioned about this you also said;
-----
I did not try to back petal I asked you, "How is that a bigoted
comment if it is true?" Was talking about Blacks being racist.
-----
You wanted to know what would happen if you altered reality to make your
bigoted crap be true. Later you tried to twist this as if *I* was
backing "controlling facts" or some such nonsense.

Later you said:
-----
Blacks are every bit as racist as are whites in general.
In my experience they are more so.
-----
At least here you acknowledged whites can be racist, and note you are
speaking only of your experience (your perception). You are backing off
on your claim... even you knew your claim was bigoted crap you could not
support.

You completely ignored your comments about Palestinians.

And now you try to twist your own words to suggest you merely meant a
black person can be racist.

Do you understand why it would take someone pretty stupid to accept your
silly twisting as you try to weasel your way out of your own words?
--------------------------------------------------------

Below you try to blame me for your comments. Not biting.
Post by Mattb
Even after I explained my
meaning you still go on and on and leave out the explanation to my
meaning. Why one must wonder because it does not fit your political
agenda and therefore is not politically correct to you. You have
proven my point here.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Mattb
2019-01-14 00:26:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:54:40 -0700, Snit
<***@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

After far left BS removed nothing left from Snit.
Snit
2019-01-14 00:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:41:04 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 16:16:28 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:59:37 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:53:59 +1100, de chucka
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:10:19 +1100, de chucka
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:16:47 +1100, de chucka
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and
trolling. If not I
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off. You
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
100% as was Fran and Ordog.
Remember they had the right to attack the police because they were
provoked by someone taking a video?????
Do you really remember that? Shit you're getting worse
That is what you were saying in a very angry manner.
You are getting worse your memory is shot.
snip mat's facts
You do have a pattern.
Hamas fires missiles into Israel and Israel responds only Israel is at
fault as Hamas were just 'freedom fighters'
African gangs attacks police and only the people taking video was at
fault as gangs were provoked.
This girl will be killed for rejecting Islam if returned and you are
insane about that.
Do we see a pattern?
No wonder you want gun control in a country you don't live in.
I am just happy to hear you do not feel threatened by gun control laws.
I was responding to Dechucka are you one of Dechucka's sockpuppets?
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
I responded to a public post.
True and that is your right as it is mine. Try to remember that.
Have I ever suggest you should not?
Of note, Mattb did not answer this question but changes the topic. He
has NO examples where I have said ANYONE should not respond to a public
post, as he implied.
Actually I did answer it. Just not to your liking. Sometimes a yes
or No answer is not the complete truth.
Note: still no answer from Mattb.
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
Post by Mattb
You have suggested those that post much be politically correct to your
standards. That I reject as to be that requires one to lie.
By politically correct do you mean anything other than I am against your
open bigoted comments? If so, what?
Your claimed openly bigoted comments.
Your openly bigoted comments.

--------------------------------------------------------
In response to someone using course language:

Mattb
-----
Rep. Rashida Tlaib did that. The she is showing her
Palestinian core.
-----
You blamed such on her being a Palestinian

Mattb
-----
No as I have seen Blacks are VERY racist
-----
Note, you are not saying SOME blacks are racist, or all people are
racist. You are singling out blacks and saying they (no qualifiers) are
"VERY racist".

When questioned about this you also said;
-----
I did not try to back petal I asked you, "How is that a bigoted
comment if it is true?" Was talking about Blacks being racist.
-----
You wanted to know what would happen if you altered reality to make your
bigoted crap be true. Later you tried to twist this as if *I* was
backing "controlling facts" or some such nonsense.

Later you said:
-----
Blacks are every bit as racist as are whites in general.
In my experience they are more so.
-----
At least here you acknowledged whites can be racist, and note you are
speaking only of your experience (your perception). You are backing off
on your claim... even you knew your claim was bigoted crap you could not
support.

You completely ignored your comments about Palestinians.

And now you try to twist your own words to suggest you merely meant a
black person can be racist.

Do you understand why it would take someone pretty stupid to accept your
silly twisting as you try to weasel your way out of your own words?
--------------------------------------------------------

Below you try to blame me for your comments. Not biting.
Post by Mattb
Even after I explained my
meaning you still go on and on and leave out the explanation to my
meaning. Why one must wonder because it does not fit your political
agenda and therefore is not politically correct to you. You have
proven my point here.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
de chucka
2019-01-13 23:56:50 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by Snit
By politically correct do you mean anything other than I am against your
open bigoted comments? If so, what?
Your claimed openly bigoted comments. Even after I explained my
meaning you still go on and on and leave out the explanation to my
meaning. Why one must wonder because it does not fit your political
agenda and therefore is not politically correct to you. You have
proven my point here.
You ARE a nasty bigoted alt-right racist, just suck it up sunshine
de chucka
2019-01-13 23:41:15 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Snit
Have I ever suggest you should not?
You have suggested those that post much be politically correct to your
standards. That I reject as to be that requires one to lie.
You'll lie no matter what the circumstances
Snit
2019-01-13 23:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Snit
Have I ever suggest you should not?
You have suggested those that post much be politically correct to your
standards.  That I reject as to be that requires one to lie.
You'll lie no matter what the circumstances
He does. Heck, I have never said anything should be "politically
correct" -- it is not a phrase I use. I have noted I do not approve of
Mattb's bigoted crap.

Here is where I have described and quoted his bigoted crap:

--------------------------------------------------------
In response to someone using course language:

Mattb
-----
Rep. Rashida Tlaib did that. The she is showing her
Palestinian core.
-----
You blamed such on her being a Palestinian

Mattb
-----
No as I have seen Blacks are VERY racist
-----
Note, you are not saying SOME blacks are racist, or all people are
racist. You are singling out blacks and saying they (no qualifiers) are
"VERY racist".

When questioned about this you also said;
-----
I did not try to back petal I asked you, "How is that a bigoted
comment if it is true?" Was talking about Blacks being racist.
-----
You wanted to know what would happen if you altered reality to make your
bigoted crap be true. Later you tried to twist this as if *I* was
backing "controlling facts" or some such nonsense.

Later you said:
-----
Blacks are every bit as racist as are whites in general.
In my experience they are more so.
-----
At least here you acknowledged whites can be racist, and note you are
speaking only of your experience (your perception). You are backing off
on your claim... even you knew your claim was bigoted crap you could not
support.

You completely ignored your comments about Palestinians.

And now you try to twist your own words to suggest you merely meant a
black person can be racist.

Do you understand why it would take someone pretty stupid to accept your
silly twisting as you try to weasel your way out of your own words?
--------------------------------------------------------

Mattb never answered this question. Of course.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
de chucka
2019-01-13 23:02:29 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Mattb
His crew of Dechucka, Fran and Ordog have many.
Maybe they are a member of my crew but I don't know them, I doubt it
because I understand neither live in the Village area. Not sure if
either is even RFS BF trained, if they aren't they couldn't possibly be
a member of my crew
Mattb
2019-01-13 22:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
snip
Yet you defended those African gangs in another thread.
No I didn't I just pointed out that you fanboi sucking up to the
Alt-right in their harassment of innocent people on an Australian beach
because they were black showed your racist leanings and extreme right
political pov
No you were defending the African gangs
I wasn't as you know and are deliberately lying and trolling. If not I
hope it is drugs causing your grasp on reality to fail rather then
organic brain disease
Yes you were.
I didn't
You claimed they attacked cops because people ta
I didn't
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off.
So we have confirmed you lie
No we confirmed you lied. That is what set you off and your crew
jumped in.
You
Post by Mattb
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
not to your satisfsction but in the pub-test it is
You weren't able to at all. To you anything right of Stalin is
alt-right.

Stalin also feared guns in the hands of the citizens.
Mattb
2019-01-13 22:49:03 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Mattb
Post by Mattb
Actually the article I posted did and that really set you off.
So we have confirmed you lie
No we confirmed you lied. That is what set you off and your crew
jumped in.
You firstly claimed it was your comments that set me off and now you've
back-pedalled an claimed it was an article. So you lied about it being
your comments.
Just so you understand in this thread it was my comment of ""She has
rejected Islam and would have been killed."

In another thread it was about my posting a article with the complete
facts as to the gangs that attacked the police and you claiming they
were provoked because they were being filmed by a white guy.
Post by Mattb
You
Post by Mattb
said it was a alt-right source but were never able to prove that.
not to your satisfsction but in the pub-test it is
You weren't able to at all. To you anything right of Stalin is
alt-right.
No prizes for second place
Remember what Stalin built died and was built on murder. Can see why
your kind want gun confiscation.
Loading...