Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law? [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)68. You don't like labels? Labels like "anti-gun zealot"?
Apparently you don't like consistency either...
About Rachel. What is it going to take to get you to actually quote the sentence(s) that Rachel said that you disagree with, and then actually present some evidence that she was lying? Not a cryptic reference to some urban legend. Not a link to a gungeon post a pro-gunner who has since been TSed, who himself is linking to a pro-gun propaganda website even though just one post ago you claimed that y'all didn't actually use those kinds of sources...
Specifics. Evidence. C'mon ge, it's not that complicated!
You know, I was thinking maybe this "plastic gun" thing might be the one time you finally said something true, but it's really looking like I was right from the beginning:
Oh, and regarding Rachel's supposedly false statements, as usual you provide no evidence here: neither a link to what she said nor any evidence that it was false. It is of course possible that Rachel made a mistake on some technicality (I'm not sure exactly what she said that has you so upset), but since almost nothing you say on this board is ever true, my guess is that this is just another piece of fiction you picked up on a gun blog.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
135 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
And the pro-gun crowd just smiles, knowing that one of their own will likely not be convicted.
Hoyt
Apr 2012
#67
This is nonsensical flamebait, and an obvious attempt to disrupt the Gun Control & RKBA Group...
petronius
Apr 2012
#7
But there are a number here that have embraced the term and admit to being anti-gun zealots
rl6214
Apr 2012
#34
So one of your sources is a pro-gun blogger with a clear NRA bias, we can toss him out.
DanTex
Apr 2012
#76
Well, at least you recognize that she didn't actually say anything that was incorrect.
DanTex
Apr 2012
#102
Spot-on. And why (in this instance) Rachel is even sleazier than a liar.
Simo 1939_1940
Apr 2012
#122
Iverglas wants to ban private ownership of handguns. That is not "gun-friendly". nt
hack89
Apr 2012
#133
Proud to be included in the group. Like others, I'm against public toting. I also would like
Hoyt
Apr 2012
#70
jpak, you have put a lot of energy into posting ridiculous crap in this forum
slackmaster
Apr 2012
#88
I suppose. They could also claim innocence under an insanity plea...
OneTenthofOnePercent
Apr 2012
#108