Massage parlor shooting

[Blue Heeler]

I'm sorry you are so consistently confused.

No. I will type slower for you. You stated ...

Cobra is intended to be temporary coverage. The insurance companies have controlled the game since Nixon set it up that way.....obamacare or not. This is Nixon's doing(emphasis mine), not Obama's.

My comment was to how you structure a paragraph. I get that you will mindlessly parrot your liberal coloring books to revise history for your political convenience. But (genius) my comment goes to your puerile paragraph structure. From your post, one would think Nixon was responsible (while you, me and the free world all well know he wasn't).

I see you mention a learning disability above-- sorry if that is indeed your issue.

I want to make sure that if you are as retarded as you post I don't disparage you simply because you have learning disabilities or that you are not very bright. Assuming English is not a second or third language for you, I will be generous and give you credit for both.

You seem to have severe projection issues.

No. If you want to whine and play the victim of someone "projecting" (whatever) your way, have at it. Have some chocolate, take a bump of Midol and whine as much as you like. I simply pointed out you cannot construct a paragraph at a fifth grade level (and that you are not bright enough to understand that). Again, check out an adult remedial ed class in writing composition and possibly reading comprehension. Do you have a GED? I am sure they will find a seat for you.

But i get it....when you don't have a real argument or counterpoints,

Again, I don't think you do get it. Which is why I asked if you have any learning disabilities. Again, I am typing very slow for you. It's about how you structured your paragraph. We all know that Nixon had nothing to do with it. But we could not tell from your puerile prose.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

A lot of y'all think your method of correspondence is clever and quipped big-brain style, but you have to understand sarcasm doesn't read as sarcasm... it reads as immature and childish. Y'all might find common ground and a symbiotic respect for one another in your disagreement if you respond like the men you imagine yourselves to be.

 

[Blue Heeler]

A lot of y'all think your method of correspondence is clever and quipped big-brain style, but you have to understand sarcasm doesn't read as sarcasm... it reads as immature and childish. Y'all might find common ground and a symbiotic respect for one another in your disagreement if you respond like the men you imagine yourselves to be.

LOL. Sarcasm was never my intent.

 

[silvius]

No. I will type slower for you. You stated ...



My comment was to how you structure a paragraph. I get that you will mindlessly parrot your liberal coloring books to revise history for your political convenience. But (genius) my comment goes to your puerile paragraph structure. From your post, one would think Nixon was responsible (while you, me and the free world all well know he wasn't).



I want to make sure that if you are as retarded as you post I don't disparage you simply because you have learning disabilities or that you are not very bright. Assuming English is not a second or third language for you, I will be generous and give you credit for both.



No. If you want to whine and play the victim of someone "projecting" (whatever) your way, have at it. Have some chocolate, take a bump of Midol and whine as much as you like. I simply pointed out you cannot construct a paragraph at a fifth grade level (and that you are not bright enough to understand that). Again, check out an adult remedial ed class in writing composition and possibly reading comprehension. Do you have a GED? I am sure they will find a seat for you.



Again, I don't think you do get it. Which is why I asked if you have any learning disabilities. Again, I am typing very slow for you. It's about how you structured your paragraph. We all know that Nixon had nothing to do with it. But we could not tell from your puerile prose.

It really is probably time to just let it go, chief.

 

[Blue Heeler]

It really is probably time to just let it go, chief.

I think we can agree that I should have better things to do than correct leftist trolls who cannot construct a cognitive thought.

 

[RugersGR8]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/03/17/nbc-news-atlanta-shooter-used-9mm-handgun-that-was-purchased-legally/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=down-range&utm_campaign=20210321dr
NBC News: Atlanta Shooter Used 9mm Handgun ‘Purchased Legally’
AWR HAWKINS 17 Mar 2021
2,202

...”News that the alleged attacker got his gun “legally” means he is only the latest in a long line of public attackers to do so.

These attackers also acquired their guns via a background check at retail:

• Parkland high school attacker (February 14, 2018)
• Texas church attacker (November 5, 2017)
• Las Vegas attacker (October 1, 2017)
• Alexandria attacker (June 14, 2017))
• Orlando attacker (June 12, 2016)
• UCLA gunman (June 1, 2016))
• San Bernardino attackers (December 2, 2015)
• Colorado Springs attacker (October 31, 2015)
• Umpqua Community College attacker (October 1, 2015)
• Alison Parker’s attacker (August 26, 2015)
• Lafayette movie theater attacker (July 23, 2015)
• Chattanooga attacker (July 16, 2015)
• Alleged Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attacker (Jun 17, 2015)
• Muhammad Carton Contest attackers (May 3, 2014)
• Las Vegas cop killers (June 9, 2015)
• Santa Barbara attacker (May 23, 2014)
• Fort Hood attacker (April 2, 2014)
• Arapahoe High School attacker (December 13, 2013)
• D.C. Navy Yard attacker (September 16, 2013)
• Aurora movie theater attacker (July 20, 2012)
• Gabby Giffords’ attacker (January 8, 2011)
• Fort Hood attacker (November 5, 2009)
• Northern Illinois University attacker (February 14, 2008)
• Virginia Tech attacker (April 16, 2007)
• And many others”...

 

[RugersGR8]

Atlanta Shootings Prove Universal Background Checks Like HR8 Will Not Prevent Gun Violence
Colion Noir
Published on Mar 18, 2021

 

[Aries]

Unfortunately, I don't think this argument will work very well against the anti-gun crowd.

We see it like, "See? Background checks don't work, so it makes no sense to expand them."

They see it like, "See? Background checks don't work, so we need to drastically expand restrictions up to and including make it illegal for anyone to buy a gun."

 

[Blue Heeler]

Unfortunately, I don't think this argument will work very well against the anti-gun crowd.

We see it like, "See? Background checks don't work, so it makes no sense to expand them."

They see it like, "See? Background checks don't work, so we need to drastically expand restrictions up to and including make it illegal for anyone to buy a gun."

Best summary of the issue. Well said.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Unfortunately, I don't think this argument will work very well against the anti-gun crowd.

We see it like, "See? Background checks don't work, so it makes no sense to expand them."

They see it like, "See? Background checks don't work, so we need to drastically expand restrictions up to and including make it illegal for anyone to buy a gun."

Exactly right! Neither side hears the other.