Archi you really have a chip on your shoulder.
You need to drop the 'everyone's out to get archi' attitude, because, believe it or not, you're often the instigator.
Max Rambone wrote:That's cool, dude.
I would however like you to show me one post in this thread were I wasn't making an intelligent post....BEFORE
Laser(self-admittedly trolling) SIMPLY SAID "FUCK PEOPLE WHO CARRY GUNS ON THE STREET...While it is his right to do so, it really adds nothing to an intelligent conversation....
I even ignored most of Jakab's terrible remarks like....."it won't change 'cause a 200 year-old piece of paper says so."...."Ya, let's arm children" or "You should move if you need a gun to feel safe."
If you haven't noticed, magyk has pretty much been right with me on the topic of guns and hasn't had anything negative to say about what I've had to say until he saw the opportunity to "archi-bash" me when I told ramshi...quite honestly...that he didn't need to be in this discussion because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
And if you can't see from the previous posts that ramshi doesn't know what he's talking about, then I don't suppose I can help you.
He doesn't have his facts straight and he doesn't read my posts, but he's gonna continue to try to talk about gun control like Peirs Morgan...not gonna provide any evidence on that one, either, 'cause you'll all ignore that, too.
Now, you post this, so I know that you also don't care about a proper discussion and you just want to start archi-bashing like all of the other sheeple here.
Anyway, we had a good discussion going until I called a dude out for not knowing the facts...which...in all honesty, not knowing the facts is the WORST thing you can do in a debate.
Maybe it's not a fact...
But, really, if a mass-murder by an individual is considered to be a murder of FOUR or more people...how is the shooting of four or more people not a considered a MASS-SHOOTING?
"How many you need to be shot to be considered a mass-shooting," I asked?
People who really had an intelligent retort would have, at least, said something like...."it needs to be 10, 20, 30, or more."
People didn't really see the discussion at hand, but got angry over my siege definitions....and I know that I'm not the only one who has come up with every shitty, offensive siege definition here.
But it seems that that's all you guys can argue about now.
Say what you want about me, but I've been courteous enough to read every word in this thread...and the ONLY person who has had ANY semi-intelligent anti-gun sentiment is MajorMajor, and he seems more on the gun side of the fence than the anti-gun side.
~archi
Silver Absolution wrote:Is Archi being too dramatic/raged/whatever : Possibly, not probable.
Magyk wrote:Silver Absolution wrote:Is Archi being too dramatic/raged/whatever : Possibly, not probable.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3655
Darth_Wayne wrote:Max Rambone wrote:That's cool, dude.
I would however like you to show me one post in this thread were I wasn't making an intelligent post....BEFORE
Laser(self-admittedly trolling) SIMPLY SAID "FUCK PEOPLE WHO CARRY GUNS ON THE STREET...While it is his right to do so, it really adds nothing to an intelligent conversation....
I even ignored most of Jakab's terrible remarks like....."it won't change 'cause a 200 year-old piece of paper says so."...."Ya, let's arm children" or "You should move if you need a gun to feel safe."
If you haven't noticed, magyk has pretty much been right with me on the topic of guns and hasn't had anything negative to say about what I've had to say until he saw the opportunity to "archi-bash" me when I told ramshi...quite honestly...that he didn't need to be in this discussion because he doesn't know what he's talking about.
And if you can't see from the previous posts that ramshi doesn't know what he's talking about, then I don't suppose I can help you.
He doesn't have his facts straight and he doesn't read my posts, but he's gonna continue to try to talk about gun control like Peirs Morgan...not gonna provide any evidence on that one, either, 'cause you'll all ignore that, too.
Now, you post this, so I know that you also don't care about a proper discussion and you just want to start archi-bashing like all of the other sheeple here.
Anyway, we had a good discussion going until I called a dude out for not knowing the facts...which...in all honesty, not knowing the facts is the WORST thing you can do in a debate.
Maybe it's not a fact...
But, really, if a mass-murder by an individual is considered to be a murder of FOUR or more people...how is the shooting of four or more people not a considered a MASS-SHOOTING?
"How many you need to be shot to be considered a mass-shooting," I asked?
People who really had an intelligent retort would have, at least, said something like...."it needs to be 10, 20, 30, or more."
People didn't really see the discussion at hand, but got angry over my siege definitions....and I know that I'm not the only one who has come up with every shitty, offensive siege definition here.
But it seems that that's all you guys can argue about now.
Say what you want about me, but I've been courteous enough to read every word in this thread...and the ONLY person who has had ANY semi-intelligent anti-gun sentiment is MajorMajor, and he seems more on the gun side of the fence than the anti-gun side.
~archi
tl;dr: anyone who doesn't agree with me has no idea what they're talking about.
tens0r wrote:I'm a god.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests