No AR-15 found

[boedicca]

No AR-15 found...but we have learned that Alexis was a Democrat Obama supporter who disliked the United States and was treated in a horrible fashion by the Obama led Veterans Administration.

So, let's see how the MSM spin a false narrative to blame Bush, the GOP and the NRA...and we might as well throw the Tea Party into the blame game, too.

 

[Pogo]

No AR-15 found...but we have learned that Alexis was a Democrat Obama supporter who disliked the United States and was treated in a horrible fashion by the Obama led Veterans Administration.

So, let's see how the MSM spin a false narrative to blame Bush, the GOP and the NRA...and we might as well throw the Tea Party into the blame game, too.

Like you just did in the previous sentence?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But still it was a not-AR-15. That means he was never shot, right?

I knew it. It was all staged just like the moon landing.

No, it means you are a hack.

Uh huh.
You've just admitted {post 40) that your thread has no basis.

But I'm the hack.



Low hanging fruit. It's what's for lunch.

You did? Isn't post 40 where I pointed out that they made it about the AR-15 even when there wasn't one used? Didn't I do the same thing in the 1st post?

Regardless, the massacre pushed the AR-15 back into the gun-control debate. The weapon has been used in several other rampages that shocked the nation:

So, yes, you are the hack.

 

[Pogo]

No, it means you are a hack.

Uh huh.
You've just admitted {post 40) that your thread has no basis.

But I'm the hack.



Low hanging fruit. It's what's for lunch.

You did? Isn't post 40 where I pointed out that they made it about the AR-15 even when there wasn't one used? Didn't I do the same thing in the 1st post?

No- you did.

In the OP you pointed out that no AR-15s were harmed. To this I asked, 'so what?'.
In post 40 you conceded that whether an AR-15 or something else was used makes no difference. Ergo your thread, the point of which is "no AR-15 found", has no basis for its own existence.

Basically in post 40 you agreed with my rhetorical query that established this.

Let me know if you want me to repeat this in Papiamento.

Regardless, the massacre pushed the AR-15 back into the gun-control debate. The weapon has been used in several other rampages that shocked the nation:

So, yes, you are the hack.

I didn't even write that. You can't attribute it?

That's what I call hackery.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I love my scary black guns. Time to go on a rampage. I don't help people like Pogo with gun problems, I help guns with people problems.

 

[R.C. Christian]

No AR-15 found...but we have learned that Alexis was a Democrat Obama supporter who disliked the United States and was treated in a horrible fashion by the Obama led Veterans Administration.

So, let's see how the MSM spin a false narrative to blame Bush, the GOP and the NRA...and we might as well throw the Tea Party into the blame game, too.

He was just keeping it real. Grand theft auto made him do it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No- you did.

In the OP you pointed out that no AR-15s were harmed.

I said no AR-15s were harmed? Funny, I don't recall saying that, can you show me where?

To this I asked, 'so what?'.

You actually asked if the point of the thread cost extra, but you also think I claimed no AR-15 was harmed, so I am willing to believe you are just stupid.

In post 40 you conceded that whether an AR-15 or something else was used makes no difference. Ergo your thread, the point of which is "no AR-15 found", has no basis for its own existence.

Since the thread is about the fact that CNN is attacking the very existence of AR-15s even though they admit they are not a factor in this shooting, I think you have, once again, proven yourself to be a hack.

Then again, I can think.

Basically in post 40 you agreed with my rhetorical query that established this.

I agreed with you that the victims will be happy to know that no one used an AR-15? When did I do that? Was it when I said that no AR-15 was harmed?

Let me know if you want me to repeat this in Papiamento.

Is that the secret language of hacks?

I didn't even write that. You can't attribute it?

I didn't say you did, it is from the article in I cited in the OP.

You should try reading before you comment.

That's what I call hackery.

Reading before you comment? I agree.

 

[Pogo]

No- you did.

In the OP you pointed out that no AR-15s were harmed.

I said no AR-15s were harmed? Funny, I don't recall saying that, can you show me where?

To this I asked, 'so what?'.

You actually asked if the point of the thread cost extra, but you also think I claimed no AR-15 was harmed, so I am willing to believe you are just stupid.



Since the thread is about the fact that CNN is attacking the very existence of AR-15s even though they admit they are not a factor in this shooting, I think you have, once again, proven yourself to be a hack.

Then again, I can think.



I agreed with you that the victims will be happy to know that no one used an AR-15? When did I do that? Was it when I said that no AR-15 was harmed?



Is that the secret language of hacks?

I didn't even write that. You can't attribute it?

I didn't say you did, it is from the article in I cited in the OP.

You should try reading before you comment.

That's what I call hackery.

Reading before you comment? I agree.

Ye gads dood -- lot of cutting and pasting of quote marks to say nothing.
Face it, your thread had no basis when it got here, doesn't have one now and won't have one tomorrow. You should be used to that by now. The rest of us are.

By the way-- look up the term "paraphrase".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No- you did.

In the OP you pointed out that no AR-15s were harmed.

I said no AR-15s were harmed? Funny, I don't recall saying that, can you show me where?



You actually asked if the point of the thread cost extra, but you also think I claimed no AR-15 was harmed, so I am willing to believe you are just stupid.



Since the thread is about the fact that CNN is attacking the very existence of AR-15s even though they admit they are not a factor in this shooting, I think you have, once again, proven yourself to be a hack.

Then again, I can think.



I agreed with you that the victims will be happy to know that no one used an AR-15? When did I do that? Was it when I said that no AR-15 was harmed?



Is that the secret language of hacks?



I didn't say you did, it is from the article in I cited in the OP.

You should try reading before you comment.

That's what I call hackery.

Reading before you comment? I agree.

Ye gads dood -- lot of cutting and pasting of quote marks to say nothing.
Face it, your thread had no basis when it got here, doesn't have one now and won't have one tomorrow. You should be used to that by now. The rest of us are.

By the way-- look up the term "paraphrase".

Do you want someone to explain it to you? If so, find someone else.

 

[Pogo]

I said no AR-15s were harmed? Funny, I don't recall saying that, can you show me where?



You actually asked if the point of the thread cost extra, but you also think I claimed no AR-15 was harmed, so I am willing to believe you are just stupid.



Since the thread is about the fact that CNN is attacking the very existence of AR-15s even though they admit they are not a factor in this shooting, I think you have, once again, proven yourself to be a hack.

Then again, I can think.



I agreed with you that the victims will be happy to know that no one used an AR-15? When did I do that? Was it when I said that no AR-15 was harmed?



Is that the secret language of hacks?



I didn't say you did, it is from the article in I cited in the OP.

You should try reading before you comment.



Reading before you comment? I agree.

Ye gads dood -- lot of cutting and pasting of quote marks to say nothing.
Face it, your thread had no basis when it got here, doesn't have one now and won't have one tomorrow. You should be used to that by now. The rest of us are.

By the way-- look up the term "paraphrase".

Do you want someone to explain it to you? If so, find someone else.

Someone else did, but you contradicted him and said the detail of what weapon was used was unimportant.

Since it's your thread, I agree with you -- it IS unimportant.

-- which then undermines the entire existence of the thread.

I don't know how to make it simpler than that.

You make bad thread. Thread not work. Have no basis. You admit. Logic no go. Thread heap stupid.

 

[boedicca]

Pogo,

You have dug yourself into a hole so deep you'll never get out. Hope you can see in the dark.

*helpfully*

boe

 

[Pogo]

Pogo,

You have dug yourself into a hole so deep you'll never get out. Hope you can see in the dark.

*helpfully*

boe

Thanks Boe. But his name is spelled W-i-n-d-b-a-g (and for good reason I might add).

He's conceded that the type of weapon used is irrelevant (and he's right).

That makes his thread meaningless. He can't bring himself to admit that from the hole, even given his obsession with the last word.

You watch-- he'll be back with some kind of typographical pink noise.

 

[Rozman]

Mike Lupica should be restricted to covering sports alone.

 

[Jos]

Multiple sources in the Capitol Police department, which guards the US Capitol complex, have told the BBC that its highly trained and heavily armed four-man Containment and Emergency Response Team (Cert) was near the Navy Yard when the initial report of an active shooter came in at about 8:20 local time.

The officers, wearing full tactical gear and armed with HK-416 assault weapons, arrived outside Building 197 a few minutes later, an official with knowledge of the incident told the BBC.

According to a Capitol Police source, an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Washington DC's main municipal force, told the Capitol Cert officers they were the only police on the site equipped with long guns, and requested their help stopping the gunman.

When the Capitol Police team radioed their superiors, they were told by a watch commander to leave the scene, the BBC was told.

BBC News - Washington Navy Yard shooting: Capitol Police to review response

OOPS

 

[Politico]

Well it was initially reported that's what he used.

Seems that's changed.

In any case, he was legally able to purchase a shotgun.

And the NRA..and Republicans have made sure he could do that.

And are making sure any future mass murdering crazies can do the same.

And they still ran the cover...a day later. So no not in any any case.

And bullshit on the rest too. Idiots failing to enforce the laws on the books is the reason this happned. Quit blaming the NRA and own it for Christ's sake.