Because everyone who owns a gun needs to be turned in....

[ixtow]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

ixtow wrote:

wrightme wrote:

ixtow wrote:

wrightme wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.

Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
The more often you repeat your choice of tactics, the more I believe you would make an exemplary JBT.

Please explain how that makes sense, WITHOUT using your straw man again....

I responded to the relevant portions. That is no strawman. Had you desired to present a different position other than the bolded portions, you are free to do so.
Your choice of tactic is nothing to do with education, and everything to do with one-upsmanship. Simple. Choose a different tactic, you will be presented with a different response. Simple.

You have immediately defeated your own position. I also have no tactic.

The relevant portions? So you decide what parts of my message are relevant, and then ignore the rest. Then, you tell me that I must re-state the very same things I have already stated in order for you to stop ignoring them for the sake of your straw man....

So shall I restate what I have already stated such that you may then again decide it isn't relevant, ignore it, and continue to propagate your straw man?

What a lovely circular bit of immaturity.

One-upmanship? Where?

You are grasping at straws to wipe the egg from your face. Just man up already... You tried to put words in my mouth and I didn't let you. If that s one-upmanship, well, you're reading out of a different dictionary than I am....

I officially call into question your ability to read and comprehend the English language. You have attempted to identify "entrapment" as the opposite of it's definition, and you have declared that anything you don't put in bold in a quote never happened.... Really....

Speaking with you has become nothing more than a morbidly curious exercise in seeing exactly how impossible it is to fix stupid... You step in one pile after another presuming that one smell will hide the other... Accompanied by the presumption that no one, including myself, will notice....

Sure....

I do not need to address each point you present. I addressed the point I chose to respond to. If you do not believe that a course of action is a "tactic," that is fine. Please continue to delude yourself.

I have not declared anything I did not bold didn't happen. But, that attempt by you is a fantastic example of a strawman. You attempt to argue against a position I did not take. Otherwise, please point out where I have "declared that anything I don't put in bold in a quote never happened..." Really.

Again, nice try. You fail so miserably in this one, I don't even have to rebut it. You are almost arguing with yourself. I wonder who will win...

You've been added to the ignore list. And the topic is unwatched. Have fun accusing me of the impossible...

 

[wrightme]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

wrightme wrote:

ixtow wrote:

wrightme wrote:

ixtow wrote:

wrightme wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.

Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
The more often you repeat your choice of tactics, the more I believe you would make an exemplary JBT.

Please explain how that makes sense, WITHOUT using your straw man again....

I responded to the relevant portions. That is no strawman. Had you desired to present a different position other than the bolded portions, you are free to do so.
Your choice of tactic is nothing to do with education, and everything to do with one-upsmanship. Simple. Choose a different tactic, you will be presented with a different response. Simple.

You have immediately defeated your own position. I also have no tactic.

The relevant portions? So you decide what parts of my message are relevant, and then ignore the rest. Then, you tell me that I must re-state the very same things I have already stated in order for you to stop ignoring them for the sake of your straw man....

So shall I restate what I have already stated such that you may then again decide it isn't relevant, ignore it, and continue to propagate your straw man?

What a lovely circular bit of immaturity.

One-upmanship? Where?

You are grasping at straws to wipe the egg from your face. Just man up already... You tried to put words in my mouth and I didn't let you. If that s one-upmanship, well, you're reading out of a different dictionary than I am....

I officially call into question your ability to read and comprehend the English language. You have attempted to identify "entrapment" as the opposite of it's definition, and you have declared that anything you don't put in bold in a quote never happened.... Really....

Speaking with you has become nothing more than a morbidly curious exercise in seeing exactly how impossible it is to fix stupid... You step in one pile after another presuming that one smell will hide the other... Accompanied by the presumption that no one, including myself, will notice....

Sure....

I do not need to address each point you present. I addressed the point I chose to respond to. If you do not believe that a course of action is a "tactic," that is fine. Please continue to delude yourself.

I have not declared anything I did not bold didn't happen. But, that attempt by you is a fantastic example of a strawman. You attempt to argue against a position I did not take. Otherwise, please point out where I have "declared that anything I don't put in bold in a quote never happened..." Really.

Again, nice try. You fail so miserably in this one, I don't even have to rebut it. You are almost arguing with yourself. I wonder who will win...

You've been added to the ignore list. And the topic is unwatched. Have fun accusing me of the impossible...

LOL, so you cannot find the post where I allegedly stated that I have "declared that anything I don't put in bold in a quote never happened?" Must be a lie then, eh? Or is it simply a strawman argument?

Question. If an LE does not respond in the manner you expect to your chosen pile you create for him to step in, do you "put him on ignore" and "unwatch the topic?"

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

If this was initiated by the County Sheriff Pictured, she needs to be let go at election time.

 

[HankT]

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

Alas it takes to long to recover your gun from the cops to make it worthwhile.
It's even worse to get a conviction on those rights violators. :lol:
Maybe Danbus should ask for his 'reward'.

After Danbus' latest conviction, he cannot even carry a gun. He doesn't even own one anymore.

He's safe from this program.

<Whew.>

 

[MSC 45ACP]

imported post

Anyone know why hanky is concerned with Danbus in Virginia?

WhataNoseyFlocker...

 

[Citizen]

imported post

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Anyone know why hanky is concerned with Danbus in Virginia?

WhataNoseyFlocker...

Because he's a troll?

He provides no link, no cite. Just a comment that would tend to slightly demoralize pro-gunners while feeding anti-gun sentiment.

Makes you kinda hope it isn't true so Danladi can sue him for defamation, don't it?

 

[HankT]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

MSC 45ACP wrote:

Anyone know why hanky is concerned with Danbus in Virginia?

WhataNoseyFlocker...

Because he's a troll?

He provides no link, no cite. Just a comment that would tend to slightly demoralize pro-gunners while feeding anti-gun sentiment.

Makes you kinda hope it isn't true so Danladi can sue him for defamation, don't it?

Why would anyone pro-gunners be demoralized about that comment, Citizen? You're not making much sense.

Just builiding up your post count, I guess....

 

[Citizen]

imported post

HankT wrote:

SNIP Why would anyone pro-gunners be demoralized about that comment, Citizen? You're not making much sense.

I'm sorry Hanky. Your mommy asked me not to feed your troll-ish obsessions too much, so I can't play with you anymore tonight.

I do have to point out yourdouble-standard,though. You are quick to fuss about people who create, in your sensitive view,ill-repute for gun owners; but in this case, you are the only person reporting, unnecessarily I might add, that a gun owner has gotten into trouble. You are the conduit for the information onto this website.

And even if I am mistaken andit has been reported on this site before, you are the person re-presenting it here.



Gentle readers,

Now, I wonder whyHanky would reportthisabout Danbus, twice recently, even if it were true.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

HankT wrote:

SNIP Why would anyone pro-gunners be demoralized about that comment, Citizen? You're not making much sense.

I'm sorry Hanky. Your mommy asked me not to feed your troll-ish obsessions too much, so I can't play with you anymore tonight.

I do have to point out yourdouble-standard,though. You are quick to fuss about people who create, in your sensitive view,ill-repute for gun owners; but in this case, you are the only person reporting, unnecessarily I might add, that a gun owner has gotten into trouble. You are the conduit for the information onto this website.

And even if I am mistaken andit has been reported on this site before, you are the person re-presenting it here.



Gentle readers,

Now, I wonder whyHanky would reportthisabout Danbus, twice recently, even if it were true.

Because it is, um, the truth ... that he got convicted of a crime?

Again?

He's been the "star" of OC for a couple of years and had praise and idolotry thrown his way on a daily basis but now he cannot be talked about?

Should we just hide it, Citizen?

Embarassed, are you, Citizen that you defended him so much?

Well, you should be...

 

[Citizen]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Citizen wrote:

HankT wrote:

SNIP Why would anyone pro-gunners be demoralized about that comment, Citizen? You're not making much sense.

I'm sorry Hanky. Your mommy asked me not to feed your troll-ish obsessions too much, so I can't play with you anymore tonight.

I do have to point out yourdouble-standard,though. You are quick to fuss about people who create, in your sensitive view,ill-repute for gun owners; but in this case, you are the only person reporting, unnecessarily I might add, that a gun owner has gotten into trouble. You are the conduit for the information onto this website.

And even if I am mistaken andit has been reported on this site before, you are the person re-presenting it here.



Gentle readers,

Now, I wonder whyHanky would reportthisabout Danbus, twice recently, even if it were true.

Because it is, um, the truth ... that he got convicted of a crime?

Again?

He's been the "star" of OC for a couple of years and had praise and idolotry thrown his way on a daily basis but now he cannot be talked about?

Should we just hide it, Citizen?

Embarassed, are you, Citizen that you defended him so much?

Well, you should be...

These are pretty sad evasions for a troll as sophisticated as you are, Hanky.

Why don't you answer the main underlying questions:

1) Anybody know why Hanky is so concerned about Danbus? -- MSC 45ACP

2) Why would Hanky report this, twice recently, even if it were true? --Citizen

C'mon Hanky, you know you want to tell us. The angry urge to shove it in our faces from your lofty perch is right there. Quitsuppressing it. Just go ahead and tell us. You know you want to.Go ahead.

 

[PrayingForWar]

imported post

architect wrote:

Either we are equal or we are not. (been looking for a way to use that line for a while!)

We are not all equal. We have equal opportunity andequal rights (regardless of what jesse jackass and the moonbats say) but not equal outcomes. We are not built equally. Some people are weaker, dumber, liberal, lazy or just follow stronger forces. It's up to us to take or stand on their necks and defeat them.

I don't even care about the little rich kid creeps who start out better than the rest of us. If I had the advantage, I'd run with it. No one should have enough power to take that away either.

Ok that's my equalty rant for the day.