Google up some “snow in Texas” stories, if you like.
You think you’re more secure than me? bwa-ha-haa… You live in fear of your government and your fellow Americans, calmed only slightly by the stroking of your guns. Meantime, I could casually stroll down to Chinatown at midnight if I felt the need for shrimp, and not even bother to strap on a weapon.
C & H is light-years better than everything you got.
I’m starting get that squirrely feeling, like I’m just giving wedgies to the dumb kid, but let me try to explain my point to you (like that will make a difference).
I floated a rhetorical question (look it up, if it that’s what’s confusing you): "You’ll stick to your guns until you accidentally shoot yourself with one won’t you? "
To which you inexplicably responded: “What percent of gun owners shoot themselves?” That, my intelligence quotient deficient friend, is what is called a non-sequitur. No need to look that one up, I just explained it to you for the millionth time. But in case it’s not cracking the cranium — you’re the one who sent things off the rails by floating a non-sequitur.
I tried (like a moron myself, I must admit) to respond to your non-sequitor to my rhetorical question by laying bare an absolute truth on the matter: “A lot more than the percent of non-gun owners who accidently shoot themselves with guns they don’t own.”
So the point is (strap in now, this might get confusing for you) – if you don’t have a gun in your hand, it’s pretty fucking hard to shoot yourself with it.
I look forward to your next nonsensical question. You might want to invest in some talcum powder, though. Those wedgies must be getting pretty irritating by now.
Sir, I’ll have you know that Canada is a hotbed of conservative, right wing ideology these days, thanks to our Prime Minister. Surely that can’t be inconsequential to a freedom enthusiast such as your fine self because freedom enthusiasts, being so enthusiastic about freedom, should be enthusiastic about freedom wherever it waves its glorious flag of freedom. Enthusiastically.
Yeah, how’d that happen, anyway?! Did the Liberals have nobody but Darth Vader to run, or what?!
Oh what the hell. I’m so damned overcaffeinated my eyeballs are vibrating, but I’m trying to find a distraction from finishing the fucking research paper I’m working on, so here’s a couple tips for you, dearest Kable:
Firstly, “idiot” and “moron” are pretty simplistic and, frankly, pedestrian as all hell. Calling someone Aspie is marginally more creative, but not much. I really feel you need to step up your flamegame if you want to actually get under people’s skins. I realize you’re only here to troll at the moment, but c’mon, have some self-respect.
Secondly, and I can’t believe I’m actually doing this…
As near as I can tell, your definition of a “free” nation is “one which allows unfettered access by its citizens to firearms,” and a nation which allows such access is therefore free. You have simultaneously made gun ownership the sole condition and sole result of “freedom.”
I find this bizarrely limited, blinkered, and…(wait for it)…tautological.
But then, I’m a fan of nuance. I like it even more than target shooting, which I like a lot.
And if you consider that a strawman misrepresentation of your position, Kable, then please name for us even one unarmed society you consider a free one.
TLDR version: The Liberals had been in power for so long (they had become known as the Governing Party of Canada), they became complacent and inbred. Hubris and scandal became their defining characteristics. A change needed to be made, even if Harper was the only viable choice. Never mind Darth Vader, the Liberals would have lost with Luke Skywalker as leader.
I’ve suggested to him before that he’d be happier in Somalia where “gun law” is an oxymoron. I can’t for the life me figure out why he insists on staying in the U.S. and enduring the oppression of those freedom-hating victims of gun violence.
Heh, thing is, I can see gun ownership being defended reasonably:
-“I like shooting, shooting is fun.”
…Well, I agree, it is fun.
-“I have not-unjustified concerns about defending my home and family.”
…Okay, I can see that.
-“I need guns so I can defend Amurrican freedhum!”
…Well, now you’re riding Moron High’s short bus.
Ever notice how the third one is usually subtext, but almost always perceptibly there in some form?
Sorry, but I think he has Aspergers, not so much from what he said here but how I have communicated with him in past discussions. I don’t know so much about OCD but apparently they have a lot in common…
…so my guess wasn’t off by much, if it’s off at all. I still think he writes more like he has Aspergers than OCD.
I did no such thing. I’m sorry I have to tell you this but terms like freedom are RELATIVE terms. You can have more or less of it in regards to a number of topics. In some great countries like the USA and Switzerland you have a lot of freedom with regards to guns. In some lesser countries like Canada, Mexico, or North Korea you have a lot less freedom with regards to owning guns. In America I think we should legalize drugs, and we would be more free if we did, on which issue we are less free than Amsterdam.
Cool, you are lucky you have the freedom to do so. 
Well that’s what the 2nd Amendment is for. Even most people without guns agree.
Yeah, even among a majority of democrats.
Shooting’s a pretty big part of my life, so there aren’t any unarmed societies I would personally consider free. If I liked smoking pot more than shooting I might prefer somewhere else. They say Northern Europe is a good place to live, which for most is probably great so long as no massacres start up. France and Germany seemed cool when I visited there, but they are allowed at least some guns.
I re-iterate, they’re riding Moron High’s short bus.
Have you read your cite? The similarities in communication aren’t the same things you’ve suggested you see in my writing. So far as OCD affects communication, it’s largely the same as other anxiety disorders, rather than developmental disorders. Abnormal speech or writing patterns aren’t as a rule something you get with OCD; you just tend not to talk at all, if there is a problem there.
That said, it’s also worth noting that communication problems arising from developmental disorders don’t turn on and off. Saying that you perceive my writing as being akin to someone with Aspergers’ at one point and not so much at another point doesn’t really work for the purposes of diagnosis. It’s not something that comes and goes like that.
I have to confess, i’m surprised you still think this. As i’ve said, I have been evaluated by psychiatrists. If you’re putting your own opinion above people who work professionally in the field, should we be assuming that you’re as willing to do so as on a general basis?
Edit: Haha, your link is quite literally the very first term that pops up if you just type “OCD aspergers” into Google.
Edit edit: Your Rasmussen link is likewise the second result (And the first on your side) for “guns protect tyranny”. Likewise your Somalia quote is the first for “somalia gun law” which agrees with you. It’s also a link to a message board post; i’d hold that against you, but considering the others it seems fairly likely that you read the Google page summary and just immediately copy-pasted. That’s some fairly depressingly unrigorous standards you have there, mate.
Do you have anxiety as you wrote that? Cause it don’t read like it.
Sure I’ll put my opinion above shrinks. They make A LOT of mistakes. You should read this: House of Cards: Dawes, Robyn: 9780684830919: Amazon.com: Books
A little professor like yourself should love it.
Yeah, apparently that’s how similar they are. I got you thinking don’t I?
How hard do you expect me to work for you losers? No charge for the diagnosis. Get a 2nd opinion and let me know if I’m right.
What makes you think it’s not you on the bus?
Because I can you boarding it with every post you write. The bus driver has to keep reminding you that the back row is not a bathroom.