Your "humble opinion" has absolutely no relevance to the facts at hand, and, clearly, you didn't even bother to read the thread. You and Hattie are arguing with an individual who didn't state anything even remotely obvious and has nothing whatsoever to do with "lack of forethought" on the subject.

Here is exactly what he said:





See anything in these two statements that is even remotely related to "obvious" or "useless"?


What I see is an individual who perpetually ignores the thread because of his own agenda. You've done it before and, presumably, you'll do it again.

certainly would make mall shopping interesting now, especially with the 100 round snail drum magazine.


Machine Gun Ad | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

"The Thompson submachine gun, popularly called the Tommy Gun, was developed to be a ``trench broom`` by Brig. Gen. John T. Thompson, director of arsenals in World War I. It was not perfected until 1920. Because the gun did not violate concealed-weapon regulations in the early 1920s, it was sold openly in hardware and sporting-goods stores. Advertisements for the Tommy Gun claimed it was excellent for ``protecting large estates and ranches.`` In 1923, the price was $175 and it came with a 20-cartridge magazine. A 50-cartridge magazine cost an additional $21. In the hands of an unskilled person, some said, 50 shots by the gun might not be sufficient to hit a target.. "

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-03-01/features/8701170189_1_chicago-river-treaty-raising/2

I'd love to shoot one of those. I think I'd like to own one. I just wouldn't want to have to pay for it!

guys give it up, no point in arguing with a liar, err i mean lawyer. he went to school for many years to learn how to be full of ****

Read post #41 before you go spouting off next time-

... wait I'll just post it here:
I expect better from you Brian.



Now back to your regular programming.

Notice that he stated "if my memory serves".

Unfortunately, he was not accurate, as his memory didn't recall the two posts that I originally gave to you...........the two that you didn't read.

And, highlighting a portion of his statement in red does not make it any more truthful.


Now back to your regular programming.

So whenever I wish to be able to backtrack and say I never said that I just have to put "if my memory serves" in front and I'm good to go- as if that opinion is not real.
Are you really that stupid? How many other times later did he defend his statement? Want me to count for you or can YOU read the thread?

Here ya go Brian....

Popcorn!

I love it when somebody else provides the entertainment.

He did not say that until post #71 after you and others crucified him for statements that he did not make.

This statement, although obvious to you and not necessary for you, is not obvious or clear to him because he had no knowledge of whether automatic weapons are currently regulated.

You can only take issue with him if you can be sure that he already knows that automatic weapons are currently regulated.

And, since you cannot be sure of that position, you're way over the top trying to put words in his mouth.

You know............like I'm "left leaning"..........for which you haven't been able to offer up a single shred of support.

.... and beer!

Deja vu. How long does it take a lawyer to find out if there is at least ONE regulation about automatic weapons? Took me 17 seconds. It was a real chore to find out.

Beside the point.

... Morning beer!

So, are you irritated because he should have known that automatic weapons are regulated?

Are you going to require a certain level of knowledge to allow discourse on here? If so, I'm with you baby............let's boot off all the members who spout off on things without any supporting facts or data.

If we can't boot 'em, we can certainly insult them because of their lack of knowledge. Yep, I like it. Hell, I do it over on DD with regularity now.