37
   

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:13 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Oralboy


I know you're not smart enough to make an intelligent argument, but pipe down with the name-calling.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:17 am

Woollard Case Update

According to Wikipedia, oral arguments before the appeals court will be around October 23-26.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woollard_v._Sheridan
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:23 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Can you point out any facts that I got wrong?
Okay, it might be the fault of US-educational system that you'd no idea about Vikings/Normen.

But you certainly know nothing but the name 'Saxon' about their history.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:28 am
@oralloy,
oralboy wrote:
but pipe down with the name-calling.


Guardian cartoonist draws David Cameron with a condom over his head. One day Cameron was stupid enough to ask Bell to stop drawing him like that. It was at that point Bell knew he was getting to him.

Is this your Cameron moment Oralboy?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:50 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Okay, it might be the fault of US-educational system that you'd no idea about Vikings/Normen.


I am aware that both were Germanic peoples who attacked England at various points in history. One conquered. The other mostly pillaged.



Walter Hinteler wrote:
But you certainly know nothing but the name 'Saxon' about their history.


I am aware that they are another Germanic tribe that attacked and conquered England.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:54 am
@oralloy,
That just shows how very little you know. Lots of Northern England was settled by Vikings long before the Norman invasion.

oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:54 am
@izzythepush,
izzytheNazi wrote:
oralloy wrote:
but pipe down with the name-calling.


Guardian cartoonist draws David Cameron with a condom over his head. One day Cameron was stupid enough to ask Bell to stop drawing him like that. It was at that point Bell knew he was getting to him.

Is this your Cameron moment Oralboy?


Look, I know you stupid people try to scrounge out a fake sense of self-worth by engaging in petty name-calling. But all you really do is demonstrate that you are too stupid to do anything else.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:57 am
@izzythepush,
izzytheNazi wrote:
That just shows how very little you know.


You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own ignorance.



izzytheNazi wrote:
Lots of Northern England was settled by Vikings long before the Norman invasion.


Pipe down dummy. Leave the thinking to us smart people.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:01 am
@oralloy,
I wouldn't call you stupid if it weren't true, but that alone wouldn't justify it. You're a thoroughly unpleasant individual with genocidal fantasies. You are very ignorant of a wide range of issues, see things in black and white terms, and are overly reliant on a few well worn phrases because you have a very limited vocabulary.

Talking to you is like talking to a backward child.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:09 am
@oralloy,
oralboy wrote:
izzythereallycoolguywhomakesOralboylooklikearighttwat wrote:
Lots of Northern England was settled by Vikings long before the Norman invasion.


Pipe down dummy. Leave the thinking to us smart people.


Quote:
The Danelaw, as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (also known as the Danelagh; Old English: Dena lagu; Danish: Danelagen), is a historical name given to the part of England in which the laws of the "Danes" held sway and dominated those of the Anglo-Saxons. It is contrasted with "West Saxon law" and "Mercian law". The term has been extended by modern historians to be geographical. The areas that comprised the Danelaw are in northern and eastern England. The origins of the Danelaw arose from the Viking expansion of the 9th century, although the term was not used to describe a geographic area until the 11th century. With the increase in population and productivity in Scandinavia, Viking warriors, having sought treasure and glory in the nearby British Isles, "proceeded to plough and support themselves", in the words of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for the year 876.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danelaw

There you go **** for brains, proof that parts of England were settled by the Vikings (Danes) long before 1066. Are you going to provide proof they didn't? No, because you've got **** for brains.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:24 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

I am aware that both were Germanic peoples who attacked England at various points in history. One conquered. The other mostly pillaged.
Quote:
Norman, member of those Vikings, or Norsemen, who settled in northern France (or the Frankish kingdom), together with their descendants. The Normans founded the duchy of Normandy and sent out expeditions of conquest and colonization to southern Italy and Sicily and to England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.

The Normans (from Nortmanni: “Northmen”) were originally pagan barbarian pirates from Denmark, Norway, and Iceland who began to make destructive plundering raids on European coastal settlements in the 8th century. ... ... ...
Source: Britannica.com

Quote:
Viking, also called Norseman or Northman, member of the Scandinavian seafaring warriors who raided and colonized wide areas of Europe from the 9th to the 11th century and whose disruptive influence profoundly affected European history. These pagan Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish warriors were probably prompted to undertake their raids by a combination of factors ranging from overpopulation at home to the relative helplessness of victims abroad. ... ... ...
Source: Britannica.com


oralloy wrote:
I am aware that they are another Germanic tribe that attacked and conquered England.
The Saxons were a 'union' of several tribes, most notably the Chauci, Angrivarii, Cherusci, ... ... . Others like Bardowici, Wigmodi, Bortharii ... only 'remembered' during the wars with the Franks that they were 'Saxons'.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:24 am
@izzythepush,

scroll, scroll, scroll....
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:25 am
@izzythepush,

scroll, scroll, scroll....
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:34 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The Saxons were a 'union' of several tribes, most notably the Chauci, Angrivarii, Cherusci, ... ... . Others like Bardowici, Wigmodi, Bortharii ... only 'remembered' during the wars with the Franks that they were 'Saxons'.


I might be a Frank. My ancestors came from a part of Germany once called Franconia (hope I'm spelling that right).

I gather that what was once Franconia is now the Nuremberg Metropolitan Area.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:48 am
@oralloy,
That would be modern Frankonia, part of the state of Bavaria (Nürnberg being in administrative region of Middle Franconia).
The Franks came from western Europe (hence: "France"). About 800 they were as far east as the Weser river.

Due to my family name, you can get that my paternal family is Saxon (Dithmar von Hinthlere being the first known on written documents in 1287), originally Bructeri (who became from 500 onwards mainly influenced by the Franks ... and tributary to them).
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 02:19 pm
@McTag,
Quote:
Still on with the "freedom" shite. It must give a great sense of freedom knowing that anyone you happen to meet might be carrying a gun.

And after the shooting of Sen Gifford, sales of handguns spiked. That's fear and paranoia, not "freedom".

You are quite right--oralloy isn't talking about "freedom" at all when he's speaking about his need to have a gun. It's all about his fear and paranoia. He's irrationally afraid of the government, fearful of his fellow citizens, fearful about even crossing the border and being in Canada without his gun.

The gun doesn't make oralloy "free", it's his necessary security blanket, his tranquilizer, his crutch, because he is too hobbled by fear, suspicion, and anxiety to manage without it. Millions of little old ladies manage their daily lives without needing to carry a gun--which is more than oralloy can apparently do. In fact, the overwhelming number of people in this country don't carry guns, or even own one, nor do they wish to, nor do they see them as any sort of necessity, which puts oralloy in the distinct minority--Gallup finds that only 34% of all Americans personally own a gun, and the National Opinion Research Center reported that in 2010 only 20.8% of individuals claimed personal gun ownership. So, he's certainly not speaking for all Americans, since most apparently feel "free" to go about their daily lives without the need for a gun.

Oralloy is a sad little victim, both of his own paranoid fears and the propaganda of the NRA, but, because he can't acknowledge that, he rather childishly attacks the anti-gun policies, and the people, of other countries, like Great Britain, because they don't share his paranoid attitudes. He simply can't imagine people going about their lives without the anxieties that hobble him, so he has to find some way to degrade them, insult them, because, if he didn't do that, he'd have to admit that those same people have a sense of adequacy, and trust, that he just doesn't have--they aren't crippled by the same fears he has, they aren't afraid to walk around unarmed. And, most of all, part of what oralloy can't admit, is that these people don't live in a country plagued by gun violence, like the good old USA. Their children aren't getting killed by stray bullets while playing in a park, or sleeping in their beds, or when sitting on their front porch. They enjoy a sense of serenity about such things that oralloy just can't fathom.

Guns don't make oralloy "free"--his gun is a constant reminder of all the things he fears.



oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 03:08 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
You are quite right--oralloy isn't talking about "freedom" at all when he's speaking about his need to have a gun.


Stop pretending that I share your serf mentality. I've never once talked about needing a gun.

"Need" is totally irrelevant when it comes to a free American choosing to exercise their rights.



firefly wrote:
fearful about even crossing the border and being in Canada without his gun.


Hardly fearful. It was just creepy being in a place where there is no freedom.

Chicago is the same way, but we're only a year or two from the Supreme Court ruling that large cities in America have to allow people to carry guns in public.



firefly wrote:
The gun doesn't make oralloy "free",


True. But freedom allows me to carry guns in public.



firefly wrote:
nor do they see them as any sort of necessity, which puts oralloy in the distinct minority


Again you try to impose your serf mindset on me.

I have consistently argued that your babbling about "necessity" is irrelevant. So stop pretending that your "necessity babbling" is something that I accept as a valid premise.



firefly wrote:
Oralloy is a sad little victim, both of his own paranoid fears and the propaganda of the NRA,


I am hardly a victim of the NRA. The NRA are wonderful people who protect me from freedom-hating vermin like you.



firefly wrote:
but, because he can't acknowledge that, he rather childishly attacks the anti-gun policies, and the people, of other countries, like Great Britain, because they don't share his paranoid attitudes.


While I am indeed horrified but the lack of freedom that monsters like you have imposed in other countries, I am not attacking them.

I am, instead, telling you freedom hating vermin that America will not be giving up our freedom no matter how much you whine and lie and engage in name-calling.



firefly wrote:
He simply can't imagine people going about their lives without the anxieties that hobble him, so he has to find some way to degrade them, insult them, because, if he didn't do that, he'd have to admit that those same people have a sense of adequacy,


Excuse me, but I am not going about degrading and insulting people. And you are.

But it is an interesting explanation, because you certainly are an inadequate little freak.



firefly wrote:
And, most of all, part of what oralloy can't admit, is that these people don't live in a country plagued by gun violence, like the good old USA.


Liar. I admit that freely. I just also note the lack of any relevance.



firefly wrote:
Guns don't make oralloy "free"


But freedom allows me to carry a gun when I go about in public.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 03:53 pm
@oralloy,

firefly wrote:
You are quite right--oralloy isn't talking about "freedom" at all when he's speaking about his need to have a gun.
oralloy wrote:

Stop pretending that I share your serf mentality.
I've never once talked about needing a gun.

"Need" is totally irrelevant when it comes to a free American choosing to exercise their rights.
It is a Bill of Rights,
not a bill of NEEDS.





David

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 04:04 pm

I 'm looking forward to the 2nd Amendment Foundation 's Gun Rights Policy Conference
in Orlando, Florida beginning on Friday September 28!


That shud be a lot of fun. Alan Gura, Esq is expected to speak.
He was successful in both the cases of D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290 (2008)
and McDONALD v. CHICAGO, 561 US 3025 (2010)

He said that he is litigating some other significant appeals, sub judice.





David
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 04:09 pm
@oralloy,
Oh.. so Obama tried to ban conceal and carry by NOT introducing any legislation to do so.
 

Related Topics

Information About Denver, CO. Wanted - Discussion by Aldistar
Maryjane - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Car Services to Airport? - Discussion by Steve Spencer
Expressmens Union Denver, Colo - Question by deegeez
So, do you think this is demonic? - Discussion by ossobuco
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2022 at 04:33:36