Obama losing his gun control campaign

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Originally Posted by MMDad

In other words, when people don't remember every word you ever posted you berate them for not paying attention. Yet when anyone uses your own contradictory statements against you they are obsessed.

Fling some more poo monkey boy.

Still flinging poo from your glass house, huh?

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Originally Posted by aps45819

I'd be willing to bet that she did not giver him permission to shoot her in the face.

Why do you think she did?



Oh yea, you're That Obtuse Guy

So you have no idea about their relationship or if he was either allowed access to the guns or if they were given to him and your frustration at having this pointed out makes you act like a five year old.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by thatguy

Wirelessly posted



So you have no idea about their relationship or if he was either allowed access to the guns or if they were given to him and your frustration at having this pointed out makes you act like a five year old.

Any rational person would look at the facts and come up with a logical conclusion. You failed to do so. You want to throw out a theory that flies in the face of the facts:

1. They were her guns.
2. He shot her with her gun.
3. He then took her guns and shot more people.

You added 1+2+3 and came up with ketchup. What evidence do you have for your theory that she illegally gave him the guns?

The only logical conclusion given the known facts is that he stole her guns. Your theory is not based on any facts. I'm convinced that the only reason that you are still making this argument is that you threw it out there and when it was ridiculed you were unable to let it go. Instead you dug in your heels like a little kid and insisted that your little fairy tale is more logical than the facts.

Just be a grown up and admit that you were wrong. Of course you won't, but at least I tried.

[aps45819]

Originally Posted by TOG

So you have no idea about their relationship or if he was either allowed access to the guns or if they were given to him and your frustration at having this pointed out makes you act like a five year old.

...Obtuse Guy says he had permission to shoot his mother in the face

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Originally Posted by MMDad

Any rational person would look at the facts and come up with a logical conclusion. You failed to do so. You want to throw out a theory that flies in the face of the facts:

1. They were her guns.
2. He shot her with her gun.
3. He then took her guns and shot more people.

You added 1+2+3 and came up with ketchup. What evidence do you have for your theory that she illegally gave him the guns?

The only logical conclusion given the known facts is that he stole her guns. Your theory is not based on any facts. I'm convinced that the only reason that you are still making this argument is that you threw it out there and when it was ridiculed you were unable to let it go. Instead you dug in your heels like a little kid and insisted that your little fairy tale is more logical than the facts.

Just be a grown up and admit that you were wrong. Of course you won't, but at least I tried.

I'm not wrong. I am saying there is more than one conclusion as to how Lanza got the weapons.

1) she bought the guns. We don't know what happened after that.
2&3) what Lanza did with the guns after he had possession doesn't factor into the question of how he got them.

I guess you also think that if he had stabbed his mother with a kitchen knife the only logical conclusion would be that he had stolen it?

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Originally Posted by aps45819

...Obtuse Guy says he had permission to shoot his mother in the face

No thatguy didn't say that and doesn't think it. Until you can have a conversation that doesn't include childish name calling you will be talking to yourself

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by thatguy

That's a weak argument. For all you know those were gifts or they were left for common use in the house. If he stabbed his mother with a kitchen knife would you say that he stole it from her?

The law already says that a felon can not buy guns. Why should they be allowed to buy used guns?

Weak? Yeah. I gave you the facts, as opposed to making crap up like what you just wrote. Adam Lanza wasn't old enough to buy a knife. He was not old enough to buy any gun. He shot his mother with a gun - her gun. He had those guns illegally. If you want to believe his mother gave them to her and she's the one that broke the law I honestly don't care. You can make up any s**t scenario you want; fact of the matter is he got those guns and existing laws that were designed to prevent it from happening didn't work.

If a felon wants to get a gun, no background check is going to stop him. It's obvious you'll never get that. More laws will not result in better measures to prevent it. You'll never get that. You want to believe it's the government's place to deprive law-abiding citizens their right to buy without having to ask the government's permission then you don't deserve to own guns. You are perpetuating the very thing that will lead to the confiscation of your own guns. It's like liberal talkshow hosts advocating the 'The Fairness Doctrine'. They don't even realize they may be advocating their own demise. Pure ignorance!

TOG lives!

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Weak? Yeah. I gave you the facts, as opposed to making crap up like what you just wrote. Adam Lanza was old enough to buy a knife. He was not old enough to buy any gun. He shot his mother with a gun - her gun. He had those guns illegally. If you want to believe his mother gave them to her and she's the one that broke the law I honestly don't care. You can make up any s**t scenario you want; fact of the matter is he got those guns and existing laws that were designed to prevent it from happening didn't work.

If a felon wants to get a gun, no background check is going to stop him. It's obvious you'll never get that. More laws will not result in better measures to prevent it. You'll never get that. You want to believe it's the government's place to deprive law-abiding citizens their right to buy without having to ask the government's permission then you don't deserve to own guns. You are perpetuating the very thing that will lead to the confiscation of your own guns. It's like liberal talkshow hosts advocating the 'The Fairness Doctrine'. They don't even realize they may be advocating their own demise. Pure ignorance!

TOG lives!

So you are giving up and calling names too? I guess you'll be talking to your self too


It is not a fact that Lanza stole those guns. It is a fact (according to the police) that he used them. How he got them hasn't been disclosed.

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

BTW, that AR 15 would have been a long gun. CT has no age restriction for possessing long arms.

It is illegal for a person to possess a long gun if he or she:

1. has ever been convicted of a felony;

2. has ever been convicted of a serious juvenile offense;

3. knows that he or she is subject to a restraining or protective order, in a case involving the use, threatened, or attempted use of force (after notice and a hearing opportunity, for in-state orders);

4. knows that he or she is subject to a firearms seizure order, after notice and a hearing opportunity; or

5. is prohibited from transporting or possessing firearms under federal law (because he or she has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution, except in cases where the Treasury Department grants relief from the disability).

State law sets no minimum age for possessing long guns. A junior firearms hunting license may be issued to a child between ages 12 and 16 (CGS § 26-27a). (Federal law prohibits FFLs from selling or transferring long guns to people under age 18. But it does not address sales or transfers by nondealers or possession by minors (18 USC § 922(b) and 27 CFR § 478. 99(b)(1)).

Illegal possession of a long gun is a class D felony with a two-year mandatory minimum prison term (CGS § 53a-217(b)).

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0369.htm

There would be nothing illegal about his mother giving him that rifle.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by thatguy

So you are giving up and calling names too? I guess you'll be talking to your self too

It is not a fact that Lanza stole those guns. It is a fact (according to the police) that he used them. How he got them hasn't been disclosed.

Dude I honestly gave up on you a long time ago. I don't know what prompted me to get back into with you. But you can consider this our last. So, if you're going to continue to be obtuse don't bother replying to my posts.

You asked for proof. I gave it to you. You rejected it and instead made up your own facts. That's called being obtuse.

It is a fact that those guns weren't his. It's a fact that since he shot the person that owned the guns he had no intention of returning them to the owner. If he didn't borrow them, and he certainly couldn't buy them, the only logical thing left is that he stole them. Try using some deductive reasoning. Do you have to have some news source tell you everything in order to come to logical conclusions?