Why is it wrong to ask "coincidence or not?" The thread's simple purpose was to trump the likely, usual assertion that these killers were NRA-cheerleaders and registered Republicans. I think that has been established with some vagueness.
This is not a cherry-picked list; these are the headliners from the last decade or so. The line about getting rid of anybody was from the original blog post and NOT MY THOUGHT.
#1 I who said the killers were NRA-cheerleaders? Several of the killers you listed were very young. I have not heard folks saying the killers are NRA nuts. The discussion is more that "NRA nuts" are AGAINST limits on guns. #2 No, you haven't established anything with "some vagueness", all you have done once again is prove you are a damn fool.
What did I say that was illogical? I particularly like FB's "no evidence >> likely FALSE." That is the height of logic, wouldn't you say B Bob? The piece whose beginning is noted makes certain conclusions that are not mine.
Is this better? No evidence means that you completely wasted everyone's time, you made yourself look foolish and your point should be completely disregarded? Better?
I said NOTHING about banning anything, so what are you trying to accomplish by imagining that I did? Again, I made no such assertion(s). The only "evidence" offered is that in two of the states which are likely residential to two of the suspects that there is no partisan registration so an objection to "registered Democrat" was raised. Every other bit of "evidence" offered is just counter-conjecture with virtually NO prooof. (I'll have to check detail again; I'm at work right now and may not have the time to do so right now)-- unless you consider that since Newtown went for Romney so to, probably, did Lanza. Such facts! I have, apparently, the only open mind that is willing or a ble to discuss this stuff without being reactionary. I didn't change the purpose of the thread. The purpose is really encased in the thread title. The "message" of some guy was posted to challenge some assumptions that are likely out there. You and Me. Jeapordy. Any time, any day. Indeed your childish insults are something that most of my First Graders are beyond.
No one did. I said "likely assumptions" and I don't just mean the respondents here. Not sure which discussion you are talking about. I'm raising something that is NOT being discussed and I think is worth discussing. If you don't feel it is, shut the hell up... I'm not here to seek your approval.
Thread is now useful! I have forgotten the correct use of good/well, so I generally use great. And affect/effect. I pretend they do not even exist. Any good advice on keeping these straight?
The fact that you teach first graders while being so obviously intellectually inept is a little scary. Can you point to where you got the idea that everyone thinks the above murderers were NRA Republicans?
He is stupid and stubborn and inept... a really dangerous cocktail. He does not even know what he is arguing or attempting to prove 80% of the time. The only fool bigger than GIDDY is me, for thinking that the turd could actuallt process what the hell is going on around him.
Nowhere ever did I say "everyone." I characterized is as a "usual assertion." The ineptness is on your part, sorry to say. Are you really trying to say that the NRA is not vilified in the press generally? All I said (without even saying it) is that the surprise is that the most of "these" killers had, apparently, more to do with the Democratic Party than the Republican. Who ever talks about that? There is some pause as to how true this all is, but the counter intelligence is maybe more flimsy than the original intelligence.
Links to where anyone on this board or real news media tied the NRA to mass/ psychotic murderers, besides the NRA's extreme blocking of gun regulation. TIA.
And not one of your claims that these people had more to do with the Democratic party can be backed up by fact at all. You have provided no facts for these claims. But since no one can dispute what you wrote it must make what you wrote true. Spin all you want, no matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you argue to the contrary, you have no credibility at all.
LMFAO in your bizarro world perhaps.... I give you this, at times you are so stupid that you are entertaining. You only tore yourself a big one. Your entire premise (it changes several times in typical GIDDY style) is false, your proofs are false.
Typical giddy performance in this thread. Start with a Facebook post/chain email that insinuates one thing, then twist yourself into knots explaining how you're right.
