Sure I can.
You are under a misunderstanding. They were legally purchased in New Zealand. They were NOT purchased in Australia.
No they weren’t. I never said they were purchased in Australia either. I said the shooter was from Australia. Why don’t you want to answer the question? Or is it simply that you can’t?
In the quote above you said “with guns he never purchased in New Zealand”. The guns used were purchased in NZ.
No they weren’t. You really are clueless.
Are you saying the guns WERE NOT purchased in NZ?
4 were. Online. Where were the rest bought?
Well, lookie there. Isn’t that odd? Does a Russian national mail ordering guns in the US make that a purchase “in the US?” Somebody’s being misled here. Again.
With what words? The only effective way (in 90% of situations) to stop a man with a gun is to have your own gun.
Without the second amendment the first is basically toothless.
The 2nd amendment delusion is simply that… a delusion.
It’s pretend force.
I was referring to govt tyranny.
Try again; you have failed to prove anything thus far.
Just proved you have no idea what you’re talking about. As usual.
A very typical response: you fail to prove your point; so you revert to abuse.
Rather than just toss out repeated denials of the truth about the uniformity of political philosophy between your major Parties, how about addressing the specific request for details that I posted to you in post #1364?
Of course if you cannot explain the difference, then I suppose that your current tact of petulantly spewing generalizations that have nothing to do with the subject is probably your best course of action.
They (NZ) should have banned Australians, not guns, if they wanted to prevent a repeat of the shooting. It’s obvious that that is where the problem is, given the fact that no New Zealander has ever committed such a crime.
With what? Your peewee baseball bat?
By an Australian.
That’s what Cornwallis said.
So that’s the only way to fight tyranny?
I guess we could annoy it to death.
1 Like
