Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    So wingnuts, how would your 'mental illness' idea of gun control work?

    Who sets the parameters and what would those parameters be?

     

    The day of Adam Lanza's murderous assault on Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mike Rogers said stricter gun control would not be an appropriate response. "The more realistic discussion," said the Republican congressman from Michigan, "is how do we target people with mental illness who use firearms?"

    ...another Republican congressman, Howard Coble of North Carolina, agreed that "it's more of a mental health problem than a gun problem right now." ...the National Rifle Association broke its silence on the Sandy Hook massacre, the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, called for "an active national database of the mentally ill."

    Psychiatrically informed policies aimed at controlling people rather than weapons are popular in the wake of mass shootings, especially among those who rightly worry that gun restrictions will unfairly burden law-abiding Americans while failing to prevent future attacks. Yet treating gun violence as "a mental health problem" presents similar dangers.

    An "active national database of the mentally ill" clearly would not have stopped Lanza, who used guns legally purchased by his mother. Even if he had bought the guns himself, it appears he would have passed a background check because did not meet the criteria for rejection.

    Federal law prohibits gun ownership by anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." Neither seems to have been the case with Lanza.

    Acquaintances reported that Lanza might have had Asperger's syndrome. That label, which soon won't even count as a mental disorder anymore, is not much more informative than saying he was a shy, socially inept loner (which people who knew him also said).

    It seems safe to assume that someone who murders randomly selected first-graders is psychologically abnormal, but that is not the same as saying that a specific "mental illness" explains his behavior. Given the subjective, amorphous nature of psychiatric diagnoses, we might as well say the devil made him do it.

    ...mental health professionals are notoriously bad at predicting which of the world's many misfits, cranks and oddballs will become violent. "Over 30 years of commentary, judicial opinion and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor," notes University of Georgia law professor Alexander Scherr in a 2003 Hastings Law Journal article. "The sharpest critique finds that mental health professionals perform no better than chance at predicting violence, and perhaps perform even worse."

    So even if the mental-health criteria for rejecting gun buyers (or for commitment) were expanded, there is little reason to think they could distinguish between future Lanzas and people who pose no threat. Survey data from the National Institute of Mental Health indicate that nearly half of all Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives. That's a pretty wide dragnet.

    Should half of us lose our Second Amendment rights, at least for the duration of whatever mental disorder (depression, anxiety, addiction, inattentiveness, etc.) afflicts us? Assuming a prescription for Prozac, Xanax or Adderall is not enough to disqualify someone from owning a gun, what should the standard be?

    Even under current law, mental illness can become a label for unconventional political beliefs. Remember Brandon Raub, the Marine Corps veteran who was forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation in Virginia last summer based on his conspiracy-minded, anti-government Facebook posts?

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2012/12/26/jacob-sullum-n1473600/page/2

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    Why don't you ask the FBI who currently does criminal AND mental health background checks for handgun license applicants and gun sales through licensed gun dealers . They obviously have some criteria as to who does and doesn't get a license.

     

    Licensed firearms dealers are required to contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to conduct a background check on potential buyers to determine whether the buyer is ineligible to purchase firearms.

    Individuals convicted of a crime that carries a prison term of one year or more are prohibited from buying handguns, as well as those who are considered fugitives from justice, are judged mentally incompetent, have a history of domestic violence or have been convicted of using or possessing illegal drugs are among the federally prohibiting criteria.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    Try and keep up.

    Psychiatrically informed policies aimed at controlling people rather than weapons are popular in the wake of mass shootings, especially among those who rightly worry that gun restrictions will unfairly burden law-abiding Americans while failing to prevent future attacks. Yet treating gun violence as "a mental health problem" presents similar dangers.

    An "active national database of the mentally ill" clearly would not have stopped Lanza, who used guns legally purchased by his mother. Even if he had bought the guns himself, it appears he would have passed a background check because did not meet the criteria for rejection.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    Try and keep up.

    An "active national database of the mentally ill" clearly would not have stopped Lanza, who used guns legally purchased by his mother. Even if he had bought the guns himself, it appears he would have passed a background check because did not meet the criteria for rejection.



    Hahaha....you are one confused individual. Obviously nothing can be done to prevent people from stealing others guns to use to kill. You do realize that right? 

    And if one isn't diagnosed with a mental disorder and/or put into the database then there is nothing a background check can do. Nothing can be done if the data isn't available. 

    But when the info is available...

    The number of gun sales in the United States that were turned down for mental health reasons has increased by nearly sixfold over the last seven years, rising from 365 in 2004 to 2,124 in 2011, according to the Government Accountability Office.

    So apparently there IS some criteria. Again....ask the FBI what that crireria is. Ok a55clown?

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    Hahaha....you are one confused individual. Obviously nothing can be done to prevent people from stealing others guns to use to kill. You do realize that right? And if one isn't diagnosed with a mental disorder and/or put into the database then there is nothing a background check can do. Nothing can be done if the data isn't available. But when the info is available... The number of gun sales in the United States that were turned down for mental health reasons has increased by nearly sixfold over the last seven years, rising from 365 in 2004 to 2,124 in 2011, according to the Government Accountability Office. So apparently there IS some criteria. Again....ask the FBI what that crireria is. Ok a55clown? 



    Geepers, you really are nothing but a anklebiting troll.

    Hey moron, who the fcuk are you supposed to be arguing with?

    Because the post already shows there are background checks and mental health criteria. Reading is fundamental dipshiite.

     

    "...nothing can be done to prevent people from stealing others guns to use to kill."

    Ya, I guess you're right. All those people who have gun safes and use them properly are just dumb and wasting their money.

     

     

    You really are a fvcking moron.

    Psychiatrically informed policies aimed at controlling people rather than weapons are popular in the wake of mass shootings, especially among those who rightly worry that gun restrictions will unfairly burden law-abiding Americans while failing to prevent future attacks.

     

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    From YOUR article, a paragraph you conveniently leave out:

    " Assuming a prescription for Prozac, Xanax or Adderall is not enough to disqualify someone from owning a gun, what should the standard be?"

    The major risk from the mentally ill is from young adults that take these drugs. What is known about how their treatment is managed? These drugs have known side effects that include a propensity to harm to others and themselves.

    Really, what is so difficult for you to understand about that?

    Here is one example:

    Prozac Suicide Warning

    Prozac is one of the few antidepressants approved for the treatment of depression in youths. Unfortunately, however, studies on children have linked the drug to increased suicidal thoughts and behavior. As a result, the FDA issued a public warning in October 2004, and two years later extended the advisory to include young adults as old as 24.

    In 2007, the FDA took an even stronger stance. The agency required antidepressant manufacturers to update existing black-box warnings about the increased risks of suicidal thoughts and behavior during initial treatment, which the FDA defined as the first one to two months.

    An FDA black-box warning is the most stringent precaution a drug can carry before it is pulled from the shelves. It takes its name from the black border that surrounds the warning information on the drug’s packaging. The agency often requires pharmaceutical companies to include a bold warning on drug packaging and patient instruction sheets if serious or life-threatening risks are associated with the drug’s use.

    At least one antidepressant can have a stimulant effect similar to amphetamines, which can lead to suicide. A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official responsible for evaluating adverse drug effects during the approval process of Prozac repeatedly warned that the drug could have this effect.

    Stimulant effects can include:

    • Hypomania/mania
    • Insomnia
    • Nervousness
    • Anxiety
    • Agitation
    • Central nervous system stimulation
    • Frequent emotional changes
    • Tremor
    • Sweating
    • Palpitation
    • Paranoia
    • Psychosis
    • Hostility
    • Euphoria

    I guess you think it is fine for menatlly ill people given drugs with these side effects is perfectly OK to own a gun, as long as it isn't an assault weapon? You are fvking crazy yourself.




     

    Ummm, hey numbnuts, is reading comprehension too hard? I did include that paragraph.

    What YOU didn't include is the context immediately before it:

    Survey data from the National Institute of Mental Health indicate that nearly half of all Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives. That's a pretty wide dragnet.

    Should half of us lose our Second Amendment rights, at least for the duration of whatever mental disorder (depression, anxiety, addiction, inattentiveness, etc.) afflicts us?   

     

    So if your using which drugs a person takes and their side effects then why are you conveniently leaving out drugs like statins? One of the most prescribed drugs in the country.

    ...people experience memory loss, report an inability to concentrate as well, and feel that they are developing Alzheimer's disease when taking statin drugs. This memory loss may be so extreme as to be amnesia that lasts for 6 to 12 hours. These types of problems are known as cognitive defects. Other people claim to experience mood swings and other behavioral changes when taking statins. These differences in behavior are not just subjective feelings on the part of the individual but tend to be corroborated by family members.

    There are cases of cognitive difficulty that have been reported to the FDA as adverse side effects to statins. A systematic review of the cases reported to the FDA determined that approximately half of the memory loss problems occurred within 60 days of starting on statin therapy, although memory problems were reported after taking a statin drug for just 5 days

     

    "I guess you think it is fine for menatlly ill people given drugs with these side effects is perfectly OK to own a gun, as long as it isn't an assault weapon? You are fvking crazy yourself."

    Just shut the fcuk up a55hole. I never said any such thing.

    Are you that much of a fvcking coward that you can't argue on the merits so you have to lie like a pieceofshit loser?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    .......another day has gone by and none of my high capacity ammo clips have escaped from my safe and caused harm......

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    .......another day has gone by and none of my high capacity ammo clips have escaped from my safe and caused harm...... 



    According to the board troll you shouldn't bother with the gun safe because...

    nothing can be done to prevent people from stealing others guns to use to kill

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

    .......another day has gone by and none of my high capacity ammo clips have escaped from my safe and caused harm...... 




    According to the board troll you shouldn't bother with the gun safe because...

     

    nothing can be done to prevent people from stealing others guns to use to kill



    Thanks for catching that. What I was meaning to say was nothing can be done about stupid a55holes who don't bother to lock up their guns

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    So wingnuts, how would your 'mental illness' idea of gun control work?

    Who sets the parameters and what would those parameters be?

     

    The day of Adam Lanza's murderous assault on Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mike Rogers said stricter gun control would not be an appropriate response. "The more realistic discussion," said the Republican congressman from Michigan, "is how do we target people with mental illness who use firearms?"

    ...another Republican congressman, Howard Coble of North Carolina, agreed that "it's more of a mental health problem than a gun problem right now." ...the National Rifle Association broke its silence on the Sandy Hook massacre, the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, called for "an active national database of the mentally ill."

    Psychiatrically informed policies aimed at controlling people rather than weapons are popular in the wake of mass shootings, especially among those who rightly worry that gun restrictions will unfairly burden law-abiding Americans while failing to prevent future attacks. Yet treating gun violence as "a mental health problem" presents similar dangers.

    An "active national database of the mentally ill" clearly would not have stopped Lanza, who used guns legally purchased by his mother. Even if he had bought the guns himself, it appears he would have passed a background check because did not meet the criteria for rejection.

    Federal law prohibits gun ownership by anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." Neither seems to have been the case with Lanza.

    Acquaintances reported that Lanza might have had Asperger's syndrome. That label, which soon won't even count as a mental disorder anymore, is not much more informative than saying he was a shy, socially inept loner (which people who knew him also said).

    It seems safe to assume that someone who murders randomly selected first-graders is psychologically abnormal, but that is not the same as saying that a specific "mental illness" explains his behavior. Given the subjective, amorphous nature of psychiatric diagnoses, we might as well say the devil made him do it.

    ...mental health professionals are notoriously bad at predicting which of the world's many misfits, cranks and oddballs will become violent. "Over 30 years of commentary, judicial opinion and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor," notes University of Georgia law professor Alexander Scherr in a 2003 Hastings Law Journal article. "The sharpest critique finds that mental health professionals perform no better than chance at predicting violence, and perhaps perform even worse."

    So even if the mental-health criteria for rejecting gun buyers (or for commitment) were expanded, there is little reason to think they could distinguish between future Lanzas and people who pose no threat. Survey data from the National Institute of Mental Health indicate that nearly half of all Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives. That's a pretty wide dragnet.

    Should half of us lose our Second Amendment rights, at least for the duration of whatever mental disorder (depression, anxiety, addiction, inattentiveness, etc.) afflicts us? Assuming a prescription for Prozac, Xanax or Adderall is not enough to disqualify someone from owning a gun, what should the standard be?

    Even under current law, mental illness can become a label for unconventional political beliefs. Remember Brandon Raub, the Marine Corps veteran who was forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation in Virginia last summer based on his conspiracy-minded, anti-government Facebook posts?

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2012/12/26/jacob-sullum-n1473600/page/2



    I'd start with Ted Nugent.



    See, this is where the elft fails.  Using your example, you take a hunter, one that you disagree with politically, and determine he is the risk.

    What this shows is that liberalsim is a mental disorder.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    So wingnuts, how would your 'mental illness' idea of gun control work?

    Who sets the parameters and what would those parameters be?

     

    The day of Adam Lanza's murderous assault on Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mike Rogers said stricter gun control would not be an appropriate response. "The more realistic discussion," said the Republican congressman from Michigan, "is how do we target people with mental illness who use firearms?"

    ...another Republican congressman, Howard Coble of North Carolina, agreed that "it's more of a mental health problem than a gun problem right now." ...the National Rifle Association broke its silence on the Sandy Hook massacre, the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, called for "an active national database of the mentally ill."

    Psychiatrically informed policies aimed at controlling people rather than weapons are popular in the wake of mass shootings, especially among those who rightly worry that gun restrictions will unfairly burden law-abiding Americans while failing to prevent future attacks. Yet treating gun violence as "a mental health problem" presents similar dangers.

    An "active national database of the mentally ill" clearly would not have stopped Lanza, who used guns legally purchased by his mother. Even if he had bought the guns himself, it appears he would have passed a background check because did not meet the criteria for rejection.

    Federal law prohibits gun ownership by anyone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution." Neither seems to have been the case with Lanza.

    Acquaintances reported that Lanza might have had Asperger's syndrome. That label, which soon won't even count as a mental disorder anymore, is not much more informative than saying he was a shy, socially inept loner (which people who knew him also said).

    It seems safe to assume that someone who murders randomly selected first-graders is psychologically abnormal, but that is not the same as saying that a specific "mental illness" explains his behavior. Given the subjective, amorphous nature of psychiatric diagnoses, we might as well say the devil made him do it.

    ...mental health professionals are notoriously bad at predicting which of the world's many misfits, cranks and oddballs will become violent. "Over 30 years of commentary, judicial opinion and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor," notes University of Georgia law professor Alexander Scherr in a 2003 Hastings Law Journal article. "The sharpest critique finds that mental health professionals perform no better than chance at predicting violence, and perhaps perform even worse."

    So even if the mental-health criteria for rejecting gun buyers (or for commitment) were expanded, there is little reason to think they could distinguish between future Lanzas and people who pose no threat. Survey data from the National Institute of Mental Health indicate that nearly half of all Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives. That's a pretty wide dragnet.

    Should half of us lose our Second Amendment rights, at least for the duration of whatever mental disorder (depression, anxiety, addiction, inattentiveness, etc.) afflicts us? Assuming a prescription for Prozac, Xanax or Adderall is not enough to disqualify someone from owning a gun, what should the standard be?

    Even under current law, mental illness can become a label for unconventional political beliefs. Remember Brandon Raub, the Marine Corps veteran who was forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation in Virginia last summer based on his conspiracy-minded, anti-government Facebook posts?

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2012/12/26/jacob-sullum-n1473600/page/2



    I'd start with Ted Nugent.



    See, this is where the elft fails.  Using your example, you take a hunter, one that you disagree with politically, and determine he is the risk.

    What this shows is that liberalsim is a mental disorder.



    I recently watched a video clip on YouTube of the latest NRA convention. I was amused by all of the pot bellied, tobacco chewing, gap-toothed looking, baseball cap wearing wingnuts. And that was just the women!



    Why don't you post that clip?  I am sure we would all benefit.

    Somehow, I don't know, call it a hunch, you never saw such a clip.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    You are an idiot. Typical leftwing moonbat that wants to argue about guns when there are other things you could do easily that would be more effective. You might as well be pulling the trigger yourself. I was not talking about the side effects of drugs. I was talking about the known side effects of psychotropic drugs on YOUNG ADULTS. Side effects are also different than  a BLACK BOX WARNING you moron. There is no point talking to you if you equate the side effects of statins with those of psychotropic drugs. You are just totally clueless. I never said you said that it was OK for people on pyschotropic drugs to own a gun as long as it wasn't an assault weapon. BUT THAT IS THE RESULT OF YOUR LOGIC (such as it is).




    You're a typical fvcking wingnut coward.

     

    You just want to take one small sliver of drugs and their side effects while ignoring all other drugs and all other side effects. What the fcuk is that point of that exercise in ignorance?

    What good is arguing one small subsection of drugs while there are hundreds of drugs that induce paranoia or memory loss or Alzheimers? So you think that just ignoring those drugs will just magically make the effects go away? MORON!!!

    What a fvcking ignorant argument.

     

    Hey ya fvcking ideological imbecile. Read the fvcking article!!!

    Survey data from the National Institute of Mental Health indicate that nearly half of all Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives. That's a pretty wide dragnet.

    Should half of us lose our Second Amendment rights, at least for the duration of whatever mental disorder (depression, anxiety, addiction, inattentiveness, etc.) afflicts us? Assuming a prescription for Prozac, Xanax or Adderall is not enough to disqualify someone from owning a gun, what should the standard be?  

    Hey a55hat, this article is from a whacko wingnut echo chamber!!!

     

    And this is how much of a pieceofshit coward you are:

    I never said you said that it was OK for people on pyschotropic drugs to own a gun as long as it wasn't an assault weapon.

    POST #1: I guess you think it is fine for mentally ill people given drugs with these side effects is perfectly OK to own a gun, as long as it isn't an assault weapon

     

    My gawd you're a fvcking lying sackofshit COWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

     

    Well, there's you of course...

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Well, there's you of course...



    To Late.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    Did you think that I actually read your moronic theads, SfBs?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 12-Angry-Men. Show 12-Angry-Men's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Did you think that I actually read your moronic theads, SfBs?



    And yet, here you are, posting in a thread you didn't read.

    Gawd you wingnuts are such fvcking ironic cowards.

     

    Carry on. I'm sure you'll continue to post in threads you don't read.

    That is, after all, why you idiots are so fvcking ignorant to begin with.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Did you think that I actually read your moronic theads, SfBs?




    And yet, here you are, posting in a thread you didn't read.

     

    Gawd you wingnuts are such fvcking ironic cowards.

     

    Carry on. I'm sure you'll continue to post in threads you don't read.

    That is, after all, why you idiots are so fvcking ignorant to begin with.



    More tough talk from the guy hiding behind his keyboard. You are the biggest coward on BDC. 
    I have repeatedly invited the BDC regulars to meet in public to debate these topics and not once have you accepted the offer. We all know it's because you'd be a MUCH different person face to face. You wouldn't talk the way you do sitting behind your keyboard. To be fair...you're not the only coward on BDC. So you got that going for you.....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    Oh my gawd, I'm being insulted by an ignorant troll. How can i possibly go on?

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    I most definately agree that drugs like Prozac and Ritilin are way over prescribed to kids.

    There

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Did you think that I actually read your moronic theads, SfBs?




    And yet, here you are, posting in a thread you didn't read.

     

    Gawd you wingnuts are such fvcking ironic cowards.

     

    Carry on. I'm sure you'll continue to post in threads you don't read.

    That is, after all, why you idiots are so fvcking ignorant to begin with.



    More tough talk from the guy hiding behind his keyboard. You are the biggest coward on BDC. 
    I have repeatedly invited the BDC regulars to meet in public to debate these topics and not once have you accepted the offer. We all know it's because you'd be a MUCH different person face to face. You wouldn't talk the way you do sitting behind your keyboard. To be fair...you're not the only coward on BDC. So you got that going for you.....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     



    I'll accept your offer to meet in public. Name the place. I like McGreevy's. I no longer live near Boston, but am in the area every now and then.



    When will you be in the area again? McGreevy's isn't all that convenient but I can probably make it happen. Just depends when. Right now I'm in middle of my coaching season so have very limited time to myself. Season will be over mid Feb and will have plenty of free time then.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Did you think that I actually read your moronic theads, SfBs?




    And yet, here you are, posting in a thread you didn't read.

     

    Gawd you wingnuts are such fvcking ironic cowards.

     

    Carry on. I'm sure you'll continue to post in threads you don't read.

    That is, after all, why you idiots are so fvcking ignorant to begin with.



    More tough talk from the guy hiding behind his keyboard. You are the biggest coward on BDC. 
    I have repeatedly invited the BDC regulars to meet in public to debate these topics and not once have you accepted the offer. We all know it's because you'd be a MUCH different person face to face. You wouldn't talk the way you do sitting behind your keyboard. To be fair...you're not the only coward on BDC. So you got that going for you.....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     



    I'll accept your offer to meet in public. Name the place. I like McGreevy's. I no longer live near Boston, but am in the area every now and then.



    When will you be in the area again? McGreevy's isn't all that convenient but I can probably make it happen. Just depends when. Right now I'm in middle of my coaching season so have very limited time to myself. Season will be over mid Feb and will have plenty of free time then.

     



    Cool. We can talk or "put em up", LOL. It's your call. I'd rather talk because I'm too old for the fighting. I may be in the area sometime this summer. Not for sure. 

     



    Fighting? Oh god no...too old for that as well. No, the real purpose is to see who is real and who isn't. I know someone like 12-angry would NEVER act the way he does on here in person. So basically calling people like him out. 

    We can meet wherever. I don't like in city either so I'm all for another location in the burbs. Do you live in MA?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink2. Show WhichOnesPink2's posts

    Re: Who Is Too Unbalanced to Be Armed?

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

    Did you think that I actually read your moronic theads, SfBs?




    And yet, here you are, posting in a thread you didn't read.

     

    Gawd you wingnuts are such fvcking ironic cowards.

     

    Carry on. I'm sure you'll continue to post in threads you don't read.

    That is, after all, why you idiots are so fvcking ignorant to begin with.



    More tough talk from the guy hiding behind his keyboard. You are the biggest coward on BDC. 
    I have repeatedly invited the BDC regulars to meet in public to debate these topics and not once have you accepted the offer. We all know it's because you'd be a MUCH different person face to face. You wouldn't talk the way you do sitting behind your keyboard. To be fair...you're not the only coward on BDC. So you got that going for you.....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     



    I'll accept your offer to meet in public. Name the place. I like McGreevy's. I no longer live near Boston, but am in the area every now and then.



    When will you be in the area again? McGreevy's isn't all that convenient but I can probably make it happen. Just depends when. Right now I'm in middle of my coaching season so have very limited time to myself. Season will be over mid Feb and will have plenty of free time then.

     



    Cool. We can talk or "put em up", LOL. It's your call. I'd rather talk because I'm too old for the fighting. I may be in the area sometime this summer. Not for sure. 

     



    Fighting? Oh god no...too old for that as well. No, the real purpose is to see who is real and who isn't. I know someone like 12-angry would NEVER act the way he does on here in person. So basically calling people like him out. 

    We can meet wherever. I don't like in city either so I'm all for another location in the burbs. Do you live in MA?



    I'm from RI, but haven't lived their for years. If it's at least near Boston, that would be great.



    You near Newport? Meet at West Deck!!! Used to love going there.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts