doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com For SKB and Keith only.....

You simpleton you......

Your partial quote is telling of what a deceptive low life you really are. Here is the whole quote:

" Actually you had stated first that the incident in New Zealand happened in spite of the registration of guns there. I told you guns were not registered in New Zealand. Turns out neither statement is 100% true but I was much closer than you since only 3% of the guns in New Zealand were registered at the time of the incident. "



You said guns were registered and I replied they were not. I never said NO GUNS. I simply replied to your blanket statement and then clarified. You are a LYING WEASEL and you know it.

How many other forum members have you hacked Willie?

Five Lies you have now been caught telling in a single day.

And such a fragile ego too. A delicate flower. You act like the beta male that you are. What a Pu$$y you are.

Steve

"The attacks happened in spite of gun registration" is what you stated.

Does that mean some, all or no guns? For that to be a factually correct statement it would need to mean SOME. Some guns at the time were registered, 3% while 97% were not. I replied using the exact same terminology you used, simply guns. My statement that guns are not registered, meaning some or actually the vast majority of guns(97%), was correct. I never once used the term NO GUNS. So apparently in your twisted mind it was to be understood as SOME GUNS for YOUR statement but NO GUNS for my statement.

You could not be more a deceptive weasel if you tried William.

Yes, that is true. Then you told us "there is no GUN REGISTRATION IN NEW ZEALAND"... and you repeated it here this morning:



All that other twisting and squirming is just making you look more and more mentally ill.

I have grass to cut. I can't waste all damn day arguing with a mentally ill lying idiot.

"The attacks happened in spite of gun registration" is what you stated.

Does that mean some, all or no guns? For that to be a factually correct statement it would need to mean SOME. Some guns at the time were registered, 3% while 97% were not. I replied using the exact same terminology you used, simply guns. My statement that guns are not registered, meaning some or actually the vast majority of guns(97%), was correct. I never once used the term NO GUNS. So apparently in your twisted mind it was to be understood as SOME GUNS for YOUR statement but NO GUNS for my statement.

You could not be more a deceptive weasel if you tried William.

I NEVER SAID NO GUN REGISTRATION BUT USED THE SAME TERMINOLOGY AS YOU did you LYING LOW LIFE.

You have already lost the argument William. You have been caught LYING 5 times in this thread alone.

"The attacks happened in spite of gun registration" is what you stated.

Does that mean some, all or no guns? For that to be a factually correct statement it would need to mean SOME. Some guns at the time were registered, 3% while 97% were not. I replied using the exact same terminology you used, simply guns. My statement that guns are not registered, meaning some or actually the vast majority of guns(97%), was correct. I never once used the term NO GUNS. So apparently in your twisted mind it was to be understood as SOME GUNS for YOUR statement but NO GUNS for my statement.

You could not be more a deceptive weasel if you tried William.