Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested

[shanek]

Of course, that's why terrorists attacked the U.S. Navy Destroyer Cole

Oh, yes, that's right, they did bravely hijack the Cole and take it to....oh, no, wait, they blew it up; they didn't even get on board.

and the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut,

Um, that was a truck that just drove in and blew up.

clearly no good chance of the Navy and Marines resisting.

No, there wasn't, not with the way they applied the attacks. And neither of these was a hijacking. Invalid (and rather desperate) comparisons.

 

[shanek]

You are clearly deluded. You are completely out there, shanek. You have lost contact with reality.

And this is the most effective rebuttal to that data that Claus can muster. Pathetic, really...

And where can we read about this "MO"? Got a URL?

Just look at the history of their attacks. They never attack where people have a chance of responding.

Could it be that they simply wanted to bring down the plane, wherever it may crash?

You're delusional! There is NO ONE doubting that they hijacked the planes SPECIFICALLY to crash them into the WTC and the Pentagon. The fourth flight that crashed on its own was a FAILURE of the terrorists' plans.

 

[shanek]

Yep. Shoot the pilot.

Nope. Still got a co-pilot. And if the pilots are armed, lotsa luck to you.

 

[shanek]

I'm sure these people are thrilled to learn that.

No, wait. They are dead!

Are you HONESTLY saying that explosive decompression caused that crash???

Your ability to deny reality is astounding...

 

[shanek]

No source is needed, simply comon sense. First you shot the pilot then you shot the copilot. Voila, one plain crash coming up.

Which is going to be extremely difficult if they're both armed. Whichever one you shoot first, the other is likely to get you.

 

[shanek]

By your reasoning, you could just as easily say that bank robberies were relatively low before the introduction of safes.

No, I couldn't, as the data don't show a sharp rise in bank robberies coinciding with the introduction of safes.

[pathetic personal insults deleted]

 

[DavidJames]

No, there wasn't, not with the way they applied the attacks. And neither of these was a hijacking. Invalid (and rather desperate) comparisons.

I'm sorry, then instead of saying

"they don't attack areas where people can have a good chance of resisting."

you should have said:

"they don't hijack planes with the intent to fly them where people can have a good chance of resisting."

Then, later when you said:

"Just look at the history of their attacks. They never attack where people have a chance of responding."

You should again have clarified you were only speaking of a very small and specific type of terrorist attack, and not make such a broad statement.

You really need to be more clear when you make comments.

 

[Kerberos]

Which is going to be extremely difficult if they're both armed. Whichever one you shoot first, the other is likely to get you.

Who says there's only one hijacker?

 

[CFLarsen]

And this is the most effective rebuttal to that data that Claus can muster. Pathetic, really...

Which, as you know, is a lie. Shame on you.

Just look at the history of their attacks. They never attack where people have a chance of responding.

"Let's roll". No guns needed.

You're delusional! There is NO ONE doubting that they hijacked the planes SPECIFICALLY to crash them into the WTC and the Pentagon. The fourth flight that crashed on its own was a FAILURE of the terrorists' plans.

In the 9-11 attack, the hijackers tried something we had never seen before: Passenger planes used as missiles. What's next? Hey, they'll take as many as they can, as spectacularly as possible, and one way of doing that is to crash a plane. Especially if they are allowed to have firearms!

Now, can I see a description of that MO, please?

 

[CFLarsen]

Nope. Still got a co-pilot. And if the pilots are armed, lotsa luck to you.

You think this will stop 5, 6, 7, 10 terrorists? Don't you understand that these people don't care if they die? They will stop at nothing. No amount of armed pilots will prevent them.

 

[Suddenly]

Which is going to be extremely difficult if they're both armed. Whichever one you shoot first, the other is likely to get you.

1) Automatic weapons

2) Reaction time

 

[Mr Manifesto]

No, I couldn't, as the data don't show a sharp rise in bank robberies coinciding with the introduction of safes.

[pathetic personal insults deleted]

You didn't read the rest of the post, and those weren't 'personal insults'. Your party currently has a genuine inability to grapple with reality. That is why it is going to be treated, unless radical reforms are made within LP, as a ratbag party.

You're going to make a lousy politician unless you start listening to what voters think. Here we ar-re!

And before you start saying I'm not from the US so my vote doesn't mean anything, just remember this thread, and the responses made by people who believe in the right to bear arms.

 

[shanek]

I'm sorry, then instead of saying

"they don't attack areas where people can have a good chance of resisting."

you should have said:

"they don't hijack planes with the intent to fly them where people can have a good chance of resisting."

Actually, it should be "They don't attack in ways that open themselves up to resistance."

You really need to be more clear when you make comments.

I will endeavor to do so.

 

[shanek]

Who says there's only one hijacker?

Who says the pilots are the only ones armed? Who says they're just going to be allowed to waltz into the cockpit?

 

[shanek]

Which, as you know, is a lie. Shame on you.

You have never presented anything else. Where's YOUR examination of the data? I gave you the source; you have access to the same data I used.

"Let's roll". No guns needed.

Yeah, and everybody died. Doesn't exactly support your point.

[Claus's typical avoiding the issue deleted as it's obviously hopeless]

 

[shanek]

You think this will stop 5, 6, 7, 10 terrorists? Don't you understand that these people don't care if they die?

Don't you understand that these people do care if they succeed?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, and everybody died. Doesn't exactly support your point.

Yes, it does! It is possible to stop terrorists - even armed - with nothing at all. The terrorists did not reach their target (presumably the White House or Capitol). You have admitted that they failed.

[Claus's typical avoiding the issue deleted as it's obviously hopeless]

You are avoiding the issues, shanek.

Can I see that description of the MO, yes or no?

 

[CFLarsen]

Don't you understand that these people do care if they succeed?

Sure, they care: That's why they try to do as much damage as they possibly can. A plane with just 5 armed terrorists can take the plane down in no time, anywhere, at any time - simply because they have no regard for their own lives.

They will not stop at anything, shanek. Even getting killed is an honor to them. Allowing people to board a plane with their firearms is a sure way to have a lot of planes crash.

 

[Sushi]

Sure, they care: That's why they try to do as much damage as they possibly can. A plane with just 5 armed terrorists can take the plane down in no time, anywhere, at any time - simply because they have no regard for their own lives.

They will not stop at anything, shanek. Even getting killed is an honor to them. Allowing people to board a plane with their firearms is a sure way to have a lot of planes crash.

If the airlines think so, they could very well make a no-guns policy.

 

[varwoche]

Who says there's only one hijacker?

Further, what measures will be implemented to allow aboard the law-abiding gun toters, but deny the bad guys?

This paints a comical image of a plane full of armed passengers reaching for their respective pieces with every bump or sound.