The scope? This is new.
No, see below.
No,
Yes, see above.
our discussion was about Marina, and Love Field vs rifle range. Your posts revealed what is known. You have zero knowledge about what you were posting about. Nothing more. This latest post is proof.
As I've already pointed out (as did Michael Capasse) Marina has zero credibility, so you can keep discussing Love Field and dry firing until the sun burns out. Good luck.
Dryfiring is very valuable to learning to shoot properly. Major Anderson testified as to dryfiring in the Marine Corp.
Oswald already knew how to shoot properly; he was an ex-marine.
You obviously have fond memories of your discussion with Richard about the scope. Good for you, but in reality, it is nothing more than trying to change course on the discussion which shows you have absolutely no idea about what you are posting.
I will make it very clear-- I had not part of your scope nonsense. Could not have cared less.
TS “As I've already pointed out (as did Michael Capasse) Marina has zero credibility” Marina does not have credibility? Seriously two guys with zero credibility themselves claim someone else has no credibility. How does that work? How many times do you get caught piling on the BS yourself before you become an authority on when someone has no credibility?
Better yet in your mind what makes you an authority on it.
“Oswald already knew how to shoot properly; he was an ex-marine.”
Not according to you. Talk about no credibility you posted earlier the marines were supposed to supply him with a carcano and teach him so he could learn.
Now here you are presenting yourself as an authority on it on how much LHO knew and why the Marine Corp and the rest of the world is all wrong about dryfiring.
Recent Posts
