Extremists will always resort to personal insults. How many hours did you spend with your thesaurus?

Instead, learn what antinarcissism is. Donald Trump is so much like you.

Or you could answer the question. What is the mass shooting for this week? That would be an adult reply.

You got the reply you bargained for. If you begin to function WNL, you might get the replies you ask for. Otherwise, learn to accept that you'll always be on the losing side.

More cheapshots from one who is best known here for attacking others with insults.

You have no currency here. You're on the losing side of every issue you discuss. You oppose Trump; but, Trump becomes President. You oppose the NRA; but, the NRA is thriving. Who's going to place stock in a losing proposition? These are the facts. The only thing left to discuss is you and why tw is always losing when even someone like Charlie Sheen is winning!

UT, you incorrectly assumed that I would disagree with your definition. I don't. By all means let's further the conversation with a snarky GIF you fucking pompous dickbag.

I thought you were an extremist.

Since undertoad has Tapped Out, can someone point me to the NRAs initiatives to implement the imposition of proper discipline and training, and compare that to gun control Advocates initiatives to implement the imposition of proper discipline and training, and tell me which one of these two groups is using the proper 1791 definition of the term well regulated??

I'll leave you to ponder whether the definition of imposition describes a voluntary action with no accountability mechanism.

[quote=Flint;1007604]...can someone point me to the NRAs initiatives to implement the imposition of proper discipline and training... [quote]

Get the fuck outta here. :rolleyes:

And you assumed I was a very vocal, very hyperbolic faction of our society that immediately makes the hyper-space jump...

I am fine with gun control. Honestly.

If you go back in the thread, I was pointing out that, if it's harder for one side to make progress on this movement, it's not the rabidity, it's the Constitution.

That was our topic. That was "the conversation" we were furthering. But you made it into the argument you wanted to have, with the opponent you wanted to pick a fight with. Not me, but a caricature opponent.

Good luck with all that. Don't pretend it's real conversation. Whatever you're playing at, it's not conversation.

Nobody needs guns that shoot NATO rounds (ie AR-15). Those exist for only one purpose - to kill people.

A true sportsman fires once, takes the gun off his shoulder, puts it back up, and then fires again. If you can't do that and hit the target every time, then a sportsman needs practice; must do that many more times.

Not clear which 'you' is discussed.

Meanwhile where was this week's mass killing?

You're killing us with your ignorance of what constitutes a true sportsman.

Shouldering a firearm, firing, lowering the firearm and repeating the procedure may not allow for a quick enough follow-up shot if necessary. Only a complete ignoramus expects one shot to work every time with real world variables. The method described; however, can still be done with a semi-automatic. A true sportsman does practice. Practice often costs money in range time. Sportsmen don't want to spend that time at the range they're paying for reloading. They don't need to practice reloading. They're there to practice shooting and time is money. They also know that shot placement is more important than caliber and that NATO rounds are economical fodder for practice.

Tw, you're cranky-stupid again, go take a nap.

No. No, I didn't. I said those people exist and cause difficulty.

Go back and read it, you're wrong. Twice in this thread you've made wildly wrong assumptions *that you're so pompously certain are correct*

You have an objectivity problem.