The would be gun grabbers position all shot to hell

I wasn’t making a big deal of it being a tank. It was more about not being sufficiently armed.

 

Again, I was informing the person I replied to as that person was clearly not aware. So you can keep harping on that all you like. You’re right...you’re actually harassing

 

And they ran Russia out of Afghanistan!!!!!

 

He clearly is aware that a rifle won't penetrate an armored vehicle, right @logical1?

Harassing you? That's hilarious. Feel free to put me on ignore. Problem solved.

 

LOL, now there's a stretch

 

Effing hilarious. Thanks for doing that work.

 

Look at how tweaked you are over me. This is fun to watch.

 

Hardly

 

It’s actually glaringly clear.

 

Yes, yes it is

 

Are you "tweaked", @ButterBalls? Or are you just presenting data?

 

Nice try at a personal attack. Like I care whether you think I'm emotional or not. It doesn't change the facts on the ground.

 

Only the top members of my fan club call me Butternuts, it's a hands on position!

 

I still wonder why a poster who claims to be "pro-gun" would jump into a thread and simply to point out that a rifle round can't penetrate an armored vehicle. I mean, why even bother?

Unless...

 

No its "Tank"

 

I generally like when people use personal attacks. It means they pretty much have no argument. There are certain posters whose entire canon consists primarily of personal attacks. They can be written off as inconsequential. Those reading this 100 years from now will dismiss them as irrelevant.

 

Attacking you? That’s hilarious. Feel free to put me on ignore. Problem solved.

 

Problem? What problem?

 

If no problem then why bother accusing me of personal attacks???

 

Because you said, "I get it...you get emotional over me. Harass away."

That was a personally directed comment. It was not on topic.

But who cares?

So why do you want to restrict the right of the people of the several states from acquiring or possessing firearms?

 

The government isn't coming to kill its citizens.

 

Show me where I said I want to restrict the right of the people from possessing firearms.

 

I don't need to show. I can simply ask. Do you want to restrict the right of the people of the several states from acquiring or possessing firearms?

 

Yes you do.
You said...
“So why do you want to restrict the right of the people of the several states from acquiring or possessing firearms?”
Why would you say that when I’ve never given any indication I would be for such? I fact, I explicitly already stated, in this thread among others, I am against banning firearms.
Just seems very odd for you to ask me such a question when my statements show otherwise.

 

You have given an indication.

So now I need to ask you: Do you want to restrict the right of the people of the several states from acquiring or possessing firearms?