Maryland House Democrats introduced a controversial gun safety bill requiring gun owners to forfeit their ability to wear or carry without firearm liability insurance.
Introduced by Del. Terri Hill, D-Howard County, the legislation would prohibit the “wear or carry” of a gun anywhere in the state unless the individual has obtained a liability insurance policy of at least $300,000.
"A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.
You’ve really never seen anyone rephrase an implication as if it were a quote? It’s a frequent occurrence in online arguments, I thought everyone was used to it by now.
Was the absolutely clear implication that “whosoever has people who wish to attack them deserves it.”
I just noticed however when hunting down the quote that it wasn’t you that posted it, but ragingrobot or whatever his name was. You simply attached yourself on to that point, so while you didn’t say it yourself you are backing that up. That however would be the implication to which I previously referred, my mistake for the slight identity mixup, but you started in, after a few back and forth with the robot, with:
Soooo DUH I thought you were the same guy I had been talking to. But nonetheless, you’ve chosen to attach yourself to arguing his implication in his stead, as he neglected to continue when I pointed out quite succinctly that “not everyone who was murdered ‘did something shitty that made people want to kill them.’” You instead take this to mean I think I’m like MLK simply because I pointed out that he didn’t “do something shitty that made people want to kill him,” which is proposterous. Unless you believe civil rights advocacy is itself “a shitty thing that made people want to kill him” I suppose.
So I didn’t say that, not something that implied that. That’s when you apologies for a small mistake, it happens to everyone but no you actually doubling down… mate really, stop putting words in my mouth, and then make up things based on words that I didn’t say if you want to reply to the other person just do it
No, he did and you hopped in throwing punches for him, so you are working in concert even if he was the one who actually said it. I said my bad for the mixup, but why then do you continue to fight for him? Surely you could have made a mistake as well and missed that comment, why not say “oh sorry no I don’t actually agree with that I was asking about MLK because I thought logically of course you must think you’re MLK if you invoke his name as ‘one undeserving of his fate.’”
I’d rather you just go away than reply, frankly, because this entire time you’ve contributed a total of 0% to the argument. You came in, said “you think you’re like mlk” (paraphrasing, sue me, on mobile), and I thought you were the guy I was actually talking to, and all we’ve done since then is argue wether or not you’re the guy who said it during which you neglected to say “actually that was ragingrobot and while I don’t agree with that I was simply curious about my obviously stupid question meant only to troll.”
Feel free to fuck off anytime or start contributing to the actual argument, but the one we’ve been having is over.
You need help mate, you are not well. And stay away from firearms.
No u.