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.
Oh word and that is what you’re putting forth as your theory of “what JFK did to make people want to kill him?” Interesting take on the conspiracy, can’t say I agree but you’re entitled to your own opinion. Personally I think he wasn’t shot at all, his head just did that.
Also, are you really comparing yourself to MLK? You definitely should stay away from guns and sharps.
Haha. No dingus I’m refuting your “point” that “I must’ve done something to deserve it” that "made these people want to kill me. Do trans people deserve it? The 4 women killed by abusive partners/day, do they deserve it? Foh.
I don’t think I made that point unless it was in another thread, sorry I’m dealing with a lot of pro gun idiots at the moment.
“What did you do to make people want to kill you” implies it.
Did I really tell you that?
Implied heavily, yes. Define “tell.”
Tell would be me writing those exact words, you even enclosed in double quotes, like you were quoting me. I literally had to scroll up and check if I had said something like that, which I didnt but apparently I implied it.
And when “quoting” me you said that those words imply something else. Can you please stop making assumptions?
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.