ok people..the smoking Gun...your take on Gun control...

Borderline? They show facts, simple as that.
I've explained why I don't believe anything, repeat ANYTHING 100%-pay attention.

"Your claiming that they would aprove of citizens having access to the weapons of today. Where the hell do they say this. You said it, but they sure as hell didn't."

I've explained this part before. I don't care if you are sick of hearing it, because I've explained this notion. You can't prove that I didn't explain this.

"Yes I used interpretation in my views on history but I used historical facts to support my claims."

Noo, they are your own interpretation on why the 2nd amendment is still around. You used historical FACTS to support your side, and I have used historical FACTS to support my side. Nothing you can complain about there.

"BS!!! I will not stand for this IGNORANT AND AROGANT view. I am no Nazi and it's a insult MUCH BIGGER than anything I ever called you by a mile. I want a ******* apology now."

You won't get it, 'cause it's not deserving. Nazi germany had institued measures that are similar to what anti-gunners are trying to do, simple as that.

"Never got back to Darthmom on where you got those stats now did you?"

I sent her a private message, and we all learned how credible she turned out to be.

"So who attacked who's view first. I've now proven you wrong and I want my apology now. Go back if you want but you will read the same thing. Who was being the rude person? It sure as hell wasn't me or anyone else but yourself. So go ahead and come up with another one. I dare you."

Even if an apology was deserved, it isn't to no, nor anyone else. I've explained why I said what I said to him, I shouldn't have to explain myself over and over again to a person that cannot pay attention. You canont prove that I did not explain my position on this already.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

If one really looks back...unto the first page....everyone will realize WHO started the flaming over...and over...and over.
]
Moriarte....I find it funny that you are attacking my credibility when you have aligned yourself with the senates biggest flamer. It was ok for him to call me a ******* Wh**** right? In fact, you encouraged it, and then you expressed outrage over my transgression.

Rolleyes.gif

POT-KETTLE-BLACK.

If you do not mind, I will post your PM stats. I will not do it until your permission is granted.

 

I hate to be the voice of reason here, but . . . is it possible you guys could just go fight a duel or something? With guns?

This IS supposed to be a civil debate about gun control (or, prefferably, lack thereof). So forget who insulted who and just debate like the nice people you really are, somewhere, deep, deep, down there. (J/K )

 

I prefer sword fighting.....

 

Hi I'm new here, and I've been searching around the boards looking for an interesting topic to discuss, and I think I found it.

Well I've read through most of these responses and it's typical on such a touchy subject,however I couldn't help but see this duel of words going on between Darthpigfeet and Moriarte. While I agree with you Darthpigfeet in your view on the subject I must tell you that you've basically made your point on Moriarte and it's time to move on dude. Your interpretation and historical post was done well and it makes sense. Moriarte you have your good points also,and both of you are acting the same. Your posting opinions based on historical facts and documents nothing more.

Moriarte you mentioned those CDC reports as evidence of facts. Well yes they are facts but they are also bias by nature of being statistics. Plus some of those other facts you listed are also opinionated and not 100% factual and I think that is what was getting DP upset. You kept menitoning fact, when really it's opinion. I agree where your coming from Moriarte but you and Darthpigfeet need to grow up and stay on topic. I would say after reading up to page 9 this was a good active topic but since then it has become a personal duel of attacks.


I will mention one thing that is totally wrong with what you said Moriarte is comparing anti-gun people to Nazi's that is uncalled for and I believe you owe DP a apology as well as others. While I agree with DP's reasoning I believe in self defense and personal protection but maybe you should look at your right to bear arms. You know your paying a lot of money for that right. It's more of a privlage today than a right. You pay up to 100 to 300 dollars for a conceal weapons permit. Not everyone can afford that especially since guns run from 300 to 1000 dollars. That is a lot of money for a right. Now take other defensive means like mace, taser, baseball bat or just run away and it's dirt cheap. It's reckless to think that a gun will solve all your problems in defense because I'm all for mandatory training course to see if a person who has passed a background check must be able to use a gun properly. It's no use having a gun if you don't know how to use it.

Well anyway I have to get to class now, and I hope this topic can get back to normal now,and it's time to stop calling people ignorant, arrogant, stupid, dumb or a NAZI to get your message across. May the force be with you.



P.S. I love your icon Moriarte. Plo Koon is awesome looking and can't wait to see him in action in EP II.

 

Encouraged? PPOR I made him say that. Obviously there were some unresolved issues between you two. But since you're hidden message flaming Trips, how can you think that I could ever trust what you say?
You said yourself it was a big misunderstanding on who I was quoting, and that's why we tangled, but even after your empty apology, and you're flaming on Trips, I simply cannot trust your opinion.

MJD:
What angered me? Well that is because DPF tried to say that only his facts were true, and that I had none. I was merely proving the case that not only have I used historical references, but facts as well.
The part of Hitler anti-gun protocols and comparing them to anti-gunners here, was on the part of Trips. It's simply an example, though, to show what a despotic government does i.e. take guns away from the people and keep them for the military under the governments strict control. That creates absolutely no possible opposition on the parts of it's citizens. It does not matter if they aren't military grade, the fact is, is that they are weapons that can help it's citizens' cause.

"You know your paying a lot of money for that right. It's more of a privlage today than a right."

How is it more a privilage?

"You pay up to 100 to 300 dollars for a conceal weapons permit. Not everyone can afford that especially since guns run from 300 to 1000 dollars. That is a lot of money for a right."

Having rights isn't based on monetary value. I don't have a concealed weapon permit, yes it is a lot of money too, but the option is still, and should be open to access ANY of your rights.

"It's reckless to think that a gun will solve all your problems in defense because I'm all for mandatory training course to see if a person who has passed a background check must be able to use a gun properly. It's no use having a gun if you don't know how to use it."

Reckless how, in what sense? I cannot agree with mandatory training courses, because they should be obvious to a gun-owner to go through one. Even then how much would it actually accomplish? Gun related accidents are one of the lowest cases in accidental deaths. Government mandates over rights, controls those rights, and I'm against the government having any control over them, because our rights are there to prevent the government from controlling us over-much. It may seem like sense, but if they really want to help, they can promote gun and gun safety education, that is all.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

"What angered me? Well that is because DPF tried to say that only his facts were true, and that I had none. I was merely proving the case that not only have I used historical references, but facts as well.
The part of Hitler anti-gun protocols and comparing them to anti-gunners here, was on the part of Trips. It's simply an example, though, to show what a despotic government does i.e. take guns away from the people and keep them for the military under the governments strict control. That creates absolutely no possible opposition on the parts of it's citizens. It does not matter if they aren't military grade, the fact is, is that they are weapons that can help it's citizens' cause"

Moriarte you did the same thing. While you were using stats and such a lot of your posts have been your own personal view and interpretation. I don't want to take sides here, but DP was using concrete historical evidence which was factual and then using his interpretation on those facts to show the difference between the 19th and 20th century. That is his main argument for the reason why the 2nd ammendment has survived this long.

What DP was saying was this. In the 19th century we had the following events in America.

1. America was on the east coast, and then we moved west into the frontier in which weapons like guns which were muskets up until the mid 1860's were needed for protection from Indians, and other settlers. It was essential.

2. War of 1812

3. Indian wars all the way through the 19th century.

4. Mexican American War 1845

5. Civil War 1861-1865

6. Indian wars up until the 1890's


20th century:

No domestic wars or conflicts unless you want to count the hunt for Pancho Villa as one. That is it. All wars and conflicts were fought outside the United states. Therefore that meant domestic stability and it meant that having weapons was no longer needed. The 2nd ammendment speaks of a militia which was made up of citizens, and those citizens were our army. We didn't have a real professional army until after the War of 1812. We didn't have a effective navy until the Spanish American War.

What DP is trying to say and I agree was that the need for bearing arms was needed big time in the 19th century due to the fact that we didn't become a very powerful military nation until after the Spanish American war and even after that not until WWI. Ordinary citizens didn't have the laws and law enforcement to protect them like we had in the 20th century.

What he is saying is because of all this instablity and lack of law enforcement in the frontier you needed the 2nd ammendment. However in some western towns like Dodge City you couldn't carry a gun in town because of a safety issue. This was also policy in other places throughout the U.S.

Now the 20th century has come and gone, and the need for citizens owning handguns, assault rifles and such isn't needed from a common criminal. Plus there are many cases which I've heard of recently in which a registered handgun was used in crimes around where I live. Plus a case where a man who legally owned an entire arsenal at home was served a search warrent on a totally unrelated situation and he opened fire on police and had a 6 hour stand off with them. He had over 20 guns ranging from handguns, shotguns, and assault rifles and enough ammo to last a week. Now that is an extreme case and it cleary shows that not even background checks are enough.

Now I still don't know why you promote gun education, but not a mandatory gun safety class. To me a gun is useless if you don't know how to use it.

Plus like I mentioned and you also did to that concealed weapon permits are expensive and not many people have them. Well the law is clearly written that all guns must be in a locked area. Especially if your talking about your car. It is illegal for you to have a gun underneath the seat of your car. Plus in a unlocked glove capartment.

While I believe people should have the right to protect themselves I do believe that there should be a cut off, or limit on first the numb

 

MASTERJEDIBEEFCAKE where have you been all this time? Welcome to the forums, and thank you for pointing out that this bickering is pointless. I have been getting really angry as of late from the accusations of who started what first and people calling my views as well as others nazism.

Thank you for trying to see what my view on this subject is all about and how the historical FACTS which I stated play into my theory of why the 2nd ammendment has survived as long as it has.

I have nothing else to say on this forum, and I'll go ahead and pass the torch on over to you and get someone in here fresh. Even though I never recieved an apology that is just fine, because I know I'm no nazi and my views certaintly aren't. So like Quigon said to Anakin in TPM after Anakin was fighting Greedo "You will just have to tollarate his opinion. Fighting will not change it."

Have fun on these forums and maybe we will bump into each other on another thread sometime. Later.

 

PPOR that I have never used historical FACTS to support my claims, because I have. I understand why he thinks the way he does, and I used historical FACTS to show why I think he is wrong. We have both used history to support our side, our own interpretation. There is nothing you can discredit me for. But, honestly, I find you very suspicious.

I've already explained this before, the reason why the 2nd amendment was put into the Bill of Rights is not only for the citizen to protect himself from those that would do criminal deeds, but also to arm yourself incase the government becomes corrupt to the point where they are needed to fend yourself away from them. To think that it cannot happen in America is foolish, to think that it is unnecessary is foolish. You never know when you will need to arm yourself, you never know the exact time the government will be corrupt to the point of despotism for it does not happen over-night. The right for the average citizens to own arms is to prevent this from happening. It does not matter if it is military grade or not, the fact that millions of citizens have access to weapons that kill prevents the government from making harsh actions on its citizens because then it would have to deal with the cost of human life on their part.

It does not matter if there isn't any new "frontiers" per-say, what matters is that our right to life is first and foremost, and no one has the right to endanger my life. I have a right to protect myself, and criminals aren't going to care about any restrictions on guns, because they break the law by definition. If a criminal has the availability of a firearm to endanger my life, I have the right to defend myself by whatever means necessary, and that means a firearm in my possession.

You never know when you are going to have to enact your 2nd amendment rights in that regard, which is why we need it as free as possible, restricting it only hurts the law-abiding citizen, not the criminal-it does no good.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

Gee Moriarte.....let me see hear, since you are standing so high on your moral soap box...let me point out a few things to you....

Page 6....trips writes:
blockquote]You got those stats from the Million MOm March/ Brady website. If you go to the site, they have a very bad link to the sites you talk about which never point to the facts you claim they are.

Otherwise, I could just post www.cdc.gov, it says that my informations is correct.

That's flaming. You're outta the ball game. [/blockquote]

Now, if you notice the "that's flaming" part..that was written by lord bane..now before it was edited..trips put in ******* Whore. Obviously, he was banned for that for a week. My posts prior to that were in no way insulting to trips. I asked him to post proof on his generalisations.

Now, notice...a few posts down:

You said:
Dont' go insulting trips darthmom.
Just because he's not agreeing with you does not warrant an insult. He is only saying that both sides, pro-gun and anti-gun BOTH use propaganda to support their veiws.
It just goes to show you having nothing else to say, other than complain about people who don't see things your way.

Did you catch my CDC report? Probably not.

Who and WHEN was I insulting ANYONE? That is what I mean when it comes to encouragement. Um, I DID NOT complain about ANY ONE. I did not insult anyone.....you then went on to become very insulting and sarcastic...but prior to that...you were becoming insulting and sarcastic to ANY ONE who did not agree with you. They call that PROJECTION in the psych world.

Now, as you stand on your moral high ground...you may want to look in a mirror.

Can we talk more about lack of trust of an opinion here? You are no better than anyone else who has flamed on this thread. You stand equal......I would like to know where YOU get off accusing people of doing the very same thing that you do? Do you read what you write?

 

This thread is proof that the world will never become a Utopia.

Moriarte, I agree with you. Citizens should be allowed to have and own guns. Pigfeet, you claim that Americans don't need guns anymore. There is no way to prove that. No one knows the future and taking away guns from Citizens who are open about owning a gun just leaves them defenseless. People have to be free to live their own lives and not what the governement plans for them. The government has failed before in blocking guns from getting to criminals. There are thousands of places where you can get guns illegally. Besides, most Southerners and gun advocates will just buy illegal guns anyway. Rosa Parks proved that the Government wasn't always right. She didn't obey, and neither will most gun owners.

 

I consider it an insult to accuse someone of using propaganda, when you yourself are guilty of it instead, and no, it is not just because of Trips. I've explained why I went on the offensive, and it's purely justified, as people were becoming insulting and sarcastic towards me...first. But then again, you cannot know the inflection or tone that I am using. If you "hear" it as mostly sarcastic, that is the fault on your part. For you to see me as if on a soapbox proclaming my moral superiority over everyone...again that is your fault for interpreting it that way. You inferred those intentions, I had not made myself so.

I don't care what you may think of what I've done, and no it's not an excuse. If I am attacked personally, I will respond to it simple as that. I even posted how many and from what people. Though I had not known what Trips has said to you, I can't trust you anyways, for what you said to him later.

If you believe that I antagnoized you...fine.
If I believe you antagonized me...fine.

This is mostly caused because neither person will change their point of veiw. But again, I never proclaimed myself as you paint me to be, you inferred that.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

Hi everyone!

I just managed to finish reading everything here so far. I have strong opinions on this issue, which I will talk about later, but first, I'd like to point out one thing: Some of this reasoning is so fallacious! I'll point out some things I personally cringed at reading. I won't give names, though -- I don't aim to humiliate. If you see something you've written here, don't be offended, but instead don't commit any more fallacies. Here's a handy link for this sort of thing: http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm... If you have any questions or comments, as always...

You cannot be that naive and not see that the 2nd ammendment is outdated and needs to be revised to fit the 21st century.

It just goes to show you having nothing else to say, other than complain about people who don't see things your way.

He will not admit to it, he will just flame and call people names.

If you cannot try to read the opposing sides veiws I cannot respect ANYTHING you say.

Did you know the CDC tried to make gun violence a disease??? How utterly stupid is that?

I refuse to get into your pissing contest about statistics...

This lady saved 6 lives the other night because she had a pistol for self defense.

You paint a pretty bleak veiw of Pro-Gun groups and it shows that you don't know a thing about them. All your veiws are backwashed and hypocritical.

Bad things happen to good people, Be prepared

You know the first thing a despotic government does is to take away the weapons from the people, so that no citizen(s) can rise against the established power.

It is obvious and well-proven that the amount of violence in any society is determined not by the availability of any particular form of weapon, but by cultural, socio-economic and institutional factors that produce people willing to engage in extreme violence.

Moriarte it's apparent you have watched the Patriot too many times.

Then no...you won't...game, point, match.

Read my past posts, they'll offer opposable material to your statements, and I tire of repetition. It's worth reading the previous posts...doubtful you did though.

I actually look at facts and proofs, not blind mis-guided opinion.

Your arguement is scattered and misplaced, and I do not agree with you and it is obviously why.

You believe that the only reason the 2nd amendment was 'kept is due to your interpretation of your small history lesson.

I'm sure criminals would love that to happen, and you.

I've given history lessons in this thread, take the time to look them up and read them. That way you can take your foot out of your mouth.

If handguns were taken away, [all arms] will shortly follow.

I know judges, policeman, and yes even women who would agree with all that I have been saying.

Moriarte you are as naive as they come.

Crime would increase substantially.

The risk is not worth it.

That is so stupid, I cannot even beleive that you can think like that.

Boy don't you have NRA stamped all over your head. Are you sure your not Charleton Heston?

Ouch ow, that pains me so. Maybe I should listen to your father instead of accredited authors, writers, and lawmakers ow ow.

Say hi to your father for me, when you enter your time machine.

Hardly, small-time historians like yourself form opinionations based on the small amount of factual evidence you have of the past. Objectivity is wasted on you, due to your strong bias.

That's one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen.

To think that the 2nd Amendment was only pretaining to fighting off the British is stupid.

Read all, read well, and if you can't yet understand this, or find proof in its words, blame yourself. That is why you are ignorant.

Samual Adams "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own

 

I believe this was brought up by FutureEmperor, specifically how the forms of debate were broken.
I do know of logic, and of the terms shown, but these things are not in my mind 100% of the time, and to take the time to thoroughly investiage everything I write, and others, in terms of applying exacting logicical terms, well, that would take up too much time, than I care to use.
Unless this were a debate where we are all bound by it, illogical methods are invariabley going to be used.

Is that list conclusive, or are they just examples of the many? Not all statements in debate threads have to be logical per-say.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

moriarte...again, you have been screaming for an apology...when clearly it is YOU who should be the ine spewing apologies from your key board.

You have been the one to start the flaming..and all you can do is talk about inferences. Please...rolleyes.gif.

The facts were presented...you closed your eyes. Again..there is that moral superiority you love to put out. How very.....Charlton Heston of you. You have been programed well.

 

DPF challenged me to find proof and I did, but he conveniantly left before I proved my case, and he returned only to ignore it. I felt deserving from that, and rightly so.

Again referring to me as brainwashed, for the only time a person has their own opinions is when they agree with yours[sarcasm].

The brackets are so you won't be confused.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

Here we go again. How about we establish a new rule. Either you have something new to bring to the table or you don't.





P.S. Moriarte I think you should check back to page 18 where DP proofs you wrong on who started what. He clearly qoutes you from somewhere on page 7, 8, or 9 as to attacking mulitiple people. So you didn't proof him wrong at all. I've checked on this because I think since I'm new and haven't been in this glorified pissing contest to find out who did what and who said what. Both you and DP were acting the same way, but you Moriarte started the insults first, and DP clearly showed it. While yes you showed a later incident that DP attacked you. You were the original instigator. DP didn't ignore you at all. He apparently bought his time, and went back to see what happened. He even apologized to you. You and another person on this forum still haven't apologized to him or others on here for calling them Nazi's because that is down right wrong. I have a real problem with people always connecting things to Nazism, because it really isn't fair. Just remember that the Nazi's weren't the first group to come around and kill people who they deemed different or inferior. People have been persecuting Jews for centuries. Other government factions have done similar things like the Nazi's did, but they aren't Nazi's. I think you need to watch who your calling Nazi's because in other boards I've been on in the past that is pure flaming and it's a banable offense.

So my advice is drop it, and either come up with something new or don't respond on this board because all this will do is start more problems. Now I know you will come on after you read this and bash the heck out of me, but I don't care. I see things the way I see it and that is final. DP has done the right thing. He has decided to leave this subject because he has nothing new to share and frankly he's tired of you Moriarte. He PM me and told me this, and I have to agree. Even though I'm not going to do what he asked me and just take over for him on this thread. He begged me to, but I turned him down, because like I told him your not worth talking to let alone fighting, because until a administrator sets you straight you will not see the errors of your ways. I will check back later to see if maybe you got the message.

 

He apologized for "sinking" to my level. That is not an apology, but a hidden insult.
I never called anyone a nazi.
I am not looking for arguements, I am not looking for fights. I've explained before that if I am attacked I will respond in kind, I will defend myself by posting. I am aware of the tactic to exit gracefully and denounce the opponent so that any attempt at defence might look bad and antagonistic, but it won't work.
We both don't care in debating each other anymore-glad to hear it.
All things you have paid to me, can be equally parted to DPF, though I cannot trust your "new" insight to this thread.
If we agree to disagree, I will be fine with that, but I am not going to stop defending myself if need be.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

"What Nazis did is similar to what Anti-Gunners are trying to do"

"You won't get it, 'cause it's not deserving. Nazi germany had institued measures that are similar to what anti-gunners are trying to do, simple as that."



Close enough, but the first to mention this comparision was Triple B. That is the reason why DP came back and frankly I don't blame him for it either. It's insulting and unwarented.

I will leave it at that and let you and Triple B decide that what you said was out of line. Simple as that.

 

He said Hitler felt the same way about that post.
To give weapons only to the military, and not its citizens, can help to create a tyrannical government.
If I were a dictator wanting power of my people, I would only have my police force have weapons so one has a chance of challenging me, Hitler had his veiws of gun control for those reasons. That is all the the comparison was meant for.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

So has every other dictator in the history of the world. However let me tell you the difference between these nations and ours.

The culture, value system, morals, and the government are so different from the U.S. We are 1 of a kind. When Germany fell to the Nazi's it had one of the weakest governments in the world which was so fragile and useless that is why people welcomed the Nazi party. The Chancellor position had become nothing. Our system of government does not have one all powerful person. It's equally shared power. Trying to compare Nazi Germany or any other dictatorship to the U.S. system of government is like comparing apples to oranges. Most dictatorships come about due to revolution, or other political chaos. Former colonies, and weak governments fall to dictatorships. The day America's system of government does this is when pigs fly. How do you know that if we outlawed guns in the U.S. that the same thing would happen over here?

You can't. It's an assumption that it will, but there is absolutley no proof on your sideline that it will happen. The same goes for my side. Though I don't believe in banning weapons and such I am for strict gun laws and enforcing and hunting down those who sell illegal firearms. Furthermore I'm against anyone owning assault rifles. There is no need for it.

Every time someone trys to compare something to the Nazi's they are trying to sound inteligent when all they are doing is hoping that somewhere in the history books of the Nazi's that there will be a passage stating the Nazi's were against allowing citizens to arm themselves. So the people who built and drive on freeways today here in America are Nazi's? The freeway was invented by them, and we stole the idea. If someone drives a Volkswagen or any other German made car does it make them a Nazi? Because the german automobile flourished and helped build the Nazi war machine? Gee the way you guys like to throw around the word Nazi I guess everyone over here is one. The Big American automobile makers back in the 50's and 60's tried this by making people who bought the Volkswagen bug Nazi supporters, when all people wanted was a car which would last them longer than 3 years and a affordable simple car.

I want to give you an example which I think might shed a little light on a different side of things. I had a professor who lived in Spain during the time of the Franco dictatorship I believe. Well anyway she discussed with the class that while dictatorships are bad, they have there good qualities as well. First off you can walk down a darken street at 4:00 am and not worry about being robbed or mugged. No weapons for either criminals or citizens, not to mention the fear factor involved she said. People would simply dissapear off the face of the earth under that dicatorship. Now she flash forwarded years later after the dictatorship had fallen and she walked down the same street one night and was robbed. See the difference?

 

The thing is, though, you don't need guns to fight a tyrannical regime. You just need the will power. Look at China. Do you really think that the communist government could stop one billion form rising up against them, even if the public were unarmed?
The reason oppressive regimes stay in place is that most people don't want to challenge the status quo. They accept their lack of freedom because they don't want to rock the boat.
I don't think Americans are like that.

 

>>If one really looks back...unto the first page....everyone will realize WHO started the flaming over...and over...and over. <<

Well, lets see. I announce more or less that I am taking a holiday from the strenous world of posting on the 'real world stuff' and instead am going to use my sock puppet which only posts on EU and MOVIES boards...which you still haven't found, have you?

I come back in late december, and you and TPMrules23 seemed to have taken it as a signal to go all out on this subject. Look at the garbage you were throwing at FutureEmperor and Moriarte. Boy, did you ever knuckle under when I returned.....
]
>>Moriarte....I find it funny that you are attacking my credibility when you have aligned yourself with the senates biggest flamer.<<

Moriarte has yet to ally himself with Tpmrules23........

>> It was ok for him to call me a ******* Wh**** right? In fact, you encouraged it, and then you expressed outrage over my transgression. <<

Oh? Really? ANd when have I ever directly posted such a statment on these Message Boards? Not on TheForce.Net message boards EVER!!! I know better then to post that. And you little trangression was pretty pathetic. At least when I have problems with someone, I put it out in the open. Had my Mouse not been as sorry as it was, I probably would have never noticed your little transgression, which eroded your credibility for all to see.

>>If you do not mind, I will post your PM stats. I will not do it until your permission is granted. <<

BTW, I know you are refering to Moriarte's PM.

Well, if you don't mind, I could post the PM's you sent me back in July. The ones where you pretend to be a Republican/Conservitive in a pathetic attempt to get back in my life. You know which ones I am talking about.

>>I prefer sword fighting..... <<

No blasters! No blasters! I use Lightsabers only.

>>trips writes:
blockquote]You got those stats from the Million MOm March/ Brady website. If you go to the site, they have a very bad link to the sites you talk about which never point to the facts you claim they are.

Otherwise, I could just post www.cdc.gov, it says that my informations is correct.

That's flaming. You're outta the ball game. [/blockquote] <<

Actually, the three times i have been banned from these boards, were for using the I word as in Idiot, the S word as in Stupid, and the Dunce Cap comment I made to TpmRules23 once. Two of them were 8 hour spank, but I was already enjoying the MOVIES/EU boards by then anyway.

I would take a break from Triple B, aside from the fact I was getting tired of you cyber stalking me all the time anyway.


>>Who and WHEN was I insulting ANYONE? That is what I mean when it comes to encouragement. Um, I DID NOT complain about ANY ONE. I did not insult anyone.....you then went on to become very insulting and sarcastic...but prior to that...you were becoming insulting and sarcastic to ANY ONE who did not agree with you. They call that PROJECTION in the psych world.

Now, as you stand on your moral high ground...you may want to look in a mirror.

Can we talk more about lack of trust of an opinion here? You are no better than anyone else who has flamed on this thread. You stand equal......I would like to know where YOU get off accusing people of doing the very same thing that you do? Do you read what you write? <<

As said before, when I returned to this thread, you and TPMrules23 seemed to think you were some sort of gods, since I was away. That ended when I returned, and you went into hiding two pages ago after I gave you the stomping you deserved again.

You see, the problem is that Darthmomm is sort of spoiled. For almost a whole year, she was posting on a different, very inferior website. In this website, she was regularly stomped by myself on virtually every subject imaginable. Her only solace back then was that even if I won ever single point in a debate, herself and her allies (people by the name of Midunbar, JwRoc, Blankman71, IceDee and some others) would always d

 

WOW!

Never knew so many liberals liked Star Wars.

Now, I've sifted through almost 11 pages of banter, so I think I will spare people from hearing me talk about the undeniable truth that gun control is evil. (I say 'evil' because it is a technique to disarm the populace.)

I want some of you still doubting this fact to check out http://www.newsmax.com. On the 'Hot Topics' sidebar there is a link titled 'gun control' Click on it. Lots of truth and interesting stuff.

Well, my eyes are watering from the eye strain so I best be off.

 

The point of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from imposing harsh will on its citizens. Would you rather wait for it to happen? The Founding Fathers knew you wield power through the sword, and giving the sword only to the government will eventually hurt us. Again, It does not happen over-night, but helps lead to more corruptness. Your assumption that it can never, ever happen in America is very unhealthy.
We have over 20,000 gun laws, that need better enforcement, and the term "assault" rifle is very ambiguous.

Uh-huh, every single absolute time...sure.
I've explained before the measures were the same, done so, so that the citizens who weren't for Nazi-ism wouldn't resist, it's very obvious.

I'd rather not have political will thrust onto me, have a secret police and no garuntee of my rights as a human being. There are certain social costs that go along with freedom, and I'd rather pay those, be represented, and have my rights spelled out.

Ciou-See the Sig