United We Stand - uwsboard.com

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:And twitter blows up with "see it wasn't an AR15, so only the shooter got killed".. lol

Well . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you missed the point

If you were trying to make some technical gun point that will be lost on the majority of the non-gun enthusiast population, I'm happy to concede.

wow dude, you got so damn used in this thread.... [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38]

yes if he was using a muzzle loader black powder rifle then it would be pretty easy to take him out...... of course that means we would be back over 100 + years ago, so there is that

I'm OK with muzzle loaders.

I'm OK with you using only a feather, ink, and parchment to exercise 1st amendment rights.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:And twitter blows up with "see it wasn't an AR15, so only the shooter got killed".. lol

Well . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you missed the point

If you were trying to make some technical gun point that will be lost on the majority of the non-gun enthusiast population, I'm happy to concede.

wow dude, you got so damn used in this thread....

yes if he was using a muzzle loader black powder rifle then it would be pretty easy to take him out...... of course that means we would be back over 100 + years ago, so there is that

I'm OK with muzzle loaders.

of course you are, you are clueless on firearms

Trollin', trollin', trollin'...

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: Well . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you missed the point

If you were trying to make some technical gun point that will be lost on the majority of the non-gun enthusiast population, I'm happy to concede.

wow dude, you got so damn used in this thread....

yes if he was using a muzzle loader black powder rifle then it would be pretty easy to take him out...... of course that means we would be back over 100 + years ago, so there is that

I'm OK with muzzle loaders.

of course you are, you are clueless on firearms

Very redneck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Well, you missed the point[/quote]

If you were trying to make some technical gun point that will be lost on the majority of the non-gun enthusiast population, I'm happy to concede.[/quote]

wow dude, you got so damn used in this thread....

yes if he was using a muzzle loader black powder rifle then it would be pretty easy to take him out...... of course that means we would be back over 100 + years ago, so there is that[/quote]

I'm OK with muzzle loaders.[/quote]

of course you are, you are clueless on firearms[/quote]

Very redneck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

got it Uncle Fester ( as I said, unable to actually have a conversation...sad)

cwtcr hokie wrote:Well . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, you missed the point[/quote]

If you were trying to make some technical gun point that will be lost on the majority of the non-gun enthusiast population, I'm happy to concede.[/quote]

wow dude, you got so damn used in this thread....

yes if he was using a muzzle loader black powder rifle then it would be pretty easy to take him out...... of course that means we would be back over 100 + years ago, so there is that[/quote]

I'm OK with muzzle loaders.[/quote]

of course you are, you are clueless on firearms[/quote]

Very redneck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

got it Uncle Fester ( as I said, unable to actually have a conversation...sad)[/quote]

I don't profess to be an expert on firearms, cwtcr.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote: Well, you missed the point

If you were trying to make some technical gun point that will be lost on the majority of the non-gun enthusiast population, I'm happy to concede.

wow dude, you got so damn used in this thread.... [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38]

yes if he was using a muzzle loader black powder rifle then it would be pretty easy to take him out...... of course that means we would be back over 100 + years ago, so there is that

I'm OK with muzzle loaders.

of course you are, you are clueless on firearms

Very redneck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, having an opinion and not caring about facts is super redneck, the hallmark of a redneck.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Very redneck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, having an opinion and not caring about facts is super redneck, the hallmark of a redneck.

res ipso loquitur

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Very redneck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, having an opinion and not caring about facts is super redneck, the hallmark of a redneck.

res ipso loquitur

I'm sure many brave Salemites uttered the same phrase during the witch hunt. Congrats on signaling your neo-puritanical world view to the board ip.

ip_law-hokie wrote:res ipso loquitur

So you're trying to say the event in Maryland was an accident or you replying to this thread was an accident

Major Kong wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:res ipso loquitur

So you're trying to say the event in Maryland was an accident or you replying to this thread was an accident

The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:res ipso loquitur

So you're trying to say the event in Maryland was an accident or you replying to this thread was an accident

The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you. And darn it he could not get a concealed carry permit so he was breaking all kinds of laws, sum beatch

it is hilarious you keep coming back for more, dang son, glutton for punishment

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:res ipso loquitur

So you're trying to say the event in Maryland was an accident or you replying to this thread was an accident

The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you

OK. My discussion was not based on this case. I don’t know the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:res ipso loquitur

So you're trying to say the event in Maryland was an accident or you replying to this thread was an accident

The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you. And darn it he could not get a concealed carry permit so he was breaking all kinds of laws, sum beatch

it is hilarious you keep coming back for more, dang son, glutton for punishment

OK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:res ipso loquitur

So you're trying to say the event in Maryland was an accident or you replying to this thread was an accident

The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you

OK. My discussion was not based on this case. I don’t know the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FYI, the NRA does not approve of murder or assaulting anyone with any weapon, wether that be a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a rock, etc etc etc., so what is your point?
So yes it is a great plan, kill the rights of the other 99% of gun owners due to criminals not respecting our laws or human life.....great plan

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:res ipso loquitur

So you're trying to say the event in Maryland was an accident or you replying to this thread was an accident

The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you

OK. My discussion was not based on this case. I don’t know the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FYI, the NRA does not approve of murder or assaulting anyone with any weapon, wether that be a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a rock, etc etc etc., so what is your point?
So yes it is a great plan, kill the rights of the other 99% of gun owners due to criminals not respecting our laws or human life.....great plan

I like the idea of strict liability. Have guns registered to first-time purchasers. All acts of violence committed by that gun are the responsibility of the gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you[/quote]

OK. My discussion was not based on this case. I don’t know the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]


FYI, the NRA does not approve of murder or assaulting anyone with any weapon, wether that be a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a rock, etc etc etc., so what is your point?
So yes it is a great plan, kill the rights of the other 99% of gun owners due to criminals not respecting our laws or human life.....great plan[/quote]

I like the idea of strict liability. Have guns registered to first-time purchasers. All acts of violence committed by that gun are the responsibility of the gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Huh? do you use the same logic with vehicles? what if the gun is sold or stolen? You blame the owner and not the criminal for committing a crime, interesting. Again a firearm is just a hunk of metal unless a human operates it.... same as most other objects on the planet

cwtcr hokie wrote:The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you[/quote]

OK. My discussion was not based on this case. I don’t know the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]


FYI, the NRA does not approve of murder or assaulting anyone with any weapon, wether that be a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a rock, etc etc etc., so what is your point?
So yes it is a great plan, kill the rights of the other 99% of gun owners due to criminals not respecting our laws or human life.....great plan[/quote]

I like the idea of strict liability. Have guns registered to first-time purchasers. All acts of violence committed by that gun are the responsibility of the gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Huh? do you use the same logic with vehicles? what if the gun is sold or stolen? You blame the owner and not the criminal for committing a crime, interesting. Again a firearm is just a hunk of metal unless a human operates it.... same as most other objects on the planet[/quote]

Different rules for guns. I blame both the owner and the criminal. They can be joint and severally liable.

cwtcr hokie wrote:The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you[/quote]

OK. My discussion was not based on this case. I don’t know the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]


FYI, the NRA does not approve of murder or assaulting anyone with any weapon, wether that be a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a rock, etc etc etc., so what is your point?
So yes it is a great plan, kill the rights of the other 99% of gun owners due to criminals not respecting our laws or human life.....great plan[/quote]

I like the idea of strict liability. Have guns registered to first-time purchasers. All acts of violence committed by that gun are the responsibility of the gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Huh? do you use the same logic with vehicles? what if the gun is sold or stolen? You blame the owner and not the criminal for committing a crime, interesting. Again a firearm is just a hunk of metal unless a human operates it.... same as most other objects on the planet[/quote]

Holding someone liable for a sold or stolen gun is ludicrous, but the idea of using the same rules as cars, ie reporting them sold or stolen, might be reasonable, no? I mean, since you like to compare the two.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:res ipso loquitur

So you're trying to say the event in Maryland was an accident or you replying to this thread was an accident

The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Their policy prevented a slaughter today. How have your gun free zones worked?

HokieFanDC wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you

OK. My discussion was not based on this case. I don’t know the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]


FYI, the NRA does not approve of murder or assaulting anyone with any weapon, wether that be a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a rock, etc etc etc., so what is your point?
So yes it is a great plan, kill the rights of the other 99% of gun owners due to criminals not respecting our laws or human life.....great plan[/quote]

I like the idea of strict liability. Have guns registered to first-time purchasers. All acts of violence committed by that gun are the responsibility of the gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Huh? do you use the same logic with vehicles? what if the gun is sold or stolen? You blame the owner and not the criminal for committing a crime, interesting. Again a firearm is just a hunk of metal unless a human operates it.... same as most other objects on the planet[/quote]

Holding someone liable for a sold or stolen gun is ludicrous, but the idea of using the same rules as cars, ie reporting them sold or stolen, might be reasonable, no? I mean, since you like to compare the two.[/quote]

It's a good start.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

Major Kong wrote:So you're trying to say the event in Maryland was an accident or you replying to this thread was an accident

The results of the NRA-approved gun control efforts should speak for themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the kid today used a handgun..... you do realize he could not legally buy it, don't you

OK. My discussion was not based on this case. I don’t know the details.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FYI, the NRA does not approve of murder or assaulting anyone with any weapon, wether that be a firearm, a vehicle, a knife, a rock, etc etc etc., so what is your point?
So yes it is a great plan, kill the rights of the other 99% of gun owners due to criminals not respecting our laws or human life.....great plan

I like the idea of strict liability. Have guns registered to first-time purchasers. All acts of violence committed by that gun are the responsibility of the gun owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Silly post

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:
Well, you missed the point

If you were trying to make some technical gun point that will be lost on the majority of the non-gun enthusiast population, I'm happy to concede.

"Technical" aka you're FOS.

I don't care to associate myself with guns, or care to learn of their details.

Then STFU

That right there is the attitude of gun enthusiasts that is making resonable discussions on the national level difficult. Smugness, and disdain for anyone not fully conversant in the minutae of various guns and terminology.

133743Hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:
Well, you missed the point

If you were trying to make some technical gun point that will be lost on the majority of the non-gun enthusiast population, I'm happy to concede.

"Technical" aka you're FOS.

I don't care to associate myself with guns, or care to learn of their details.

Then STFU

That right there is the attitude of gun enthusiasts that is making resonable discussions on the national level difficult. Smugness, and disdain for anyone not fully conversant in the minutae of various guns and terminology.

Correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk