33
   

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

 
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 09:07 pm
@oralloy,
This **** just went right over your head. Today in this age idiots running around with guns on their hips dont encourage freedom. It encourages idiots like you to pull them when you perceive something that you think is a threat to you like some teenage kid with a soda and a bag of chips. You are dog **** crazy along with a bunch of others on this site.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2013 09:21 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
that you think is a threat to you like some teenage kid with a soda and a bag of chips.


You mean the poor kid who attacked Zimmerman and was pounding his head into the sidewalk while carrying a bag of chips and a can of soda?

The same one who had been bragging over all the fights he had enjoyed giving involved in by text messages that poor kid?

Interesting concept that if you buy a bag of chips and a soda that means that you are entitle to try to killed someone on your way home and the person you had attacked have no right of self defense.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 04:48 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
This **** just went right over your head. Today in this age idiots running around with guns on their hips dont encourage freedom. It encourages idiots like you to pull them when you perceive something that you think is a threat to you like some teenage kid with a soda and a bag of chips. You are dog **** crazy along with a bunch of others on this site.

You Freedom Haters don't get to violate the rights of us Americans. Deal with it.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 09:04 am
Well we just heard from two of the bat **** crazy gun nuts about freedom to kill whom ever they want. How about the freedom to live without worry about getting shot in the back by some gun nut.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 09:05 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

This **** just went right over your head.


That makes a change, usually it comes out of his mouth.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 09:31 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Well we just heard from two of the bat **** crazy gun nuts about freedom to kill whom ever they want. How about the freedom to live without worry about getting shot in the back by some gun nut.


Howabout the freedoms to have the means for my wife and my step daughters to protected themselves from rapists and or killers just to start with when walking to their cars at night?

Hell it gone so crazy in England that women are not even allowed to have small containers of pepper spray or any other similar devices.

It seem the welfare and safety of rapists even from having pepper spray in their eyes out weight the welfare of the UK women.

Sorry but my wife have the right to have the means to protected herself even if people like you are more concern about the welfare of the predators and their "rights" to prey on all of us in safety.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 10:11 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Well we just heard from two of the bat **** crazy gun nuts about freedom to kill whom ever they want. How about the freedom to live without worry about getting shot in the back by some gun nut.

You Freedom Haters sure do whine when you aren't allowed to violate anyone's civil rights.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 04:09 pm
@BillRM,
So you and oralboy consider me a predator. And just how did you come up with that bit of wisdom. Is it the fact I dont agree with your bat **** crazy gun ideas? Be careful what you advocate. Some other gun nut might decide that the fact youve got a gun strapped to your hip makes you the predator and shoots you in the back because they feel threatened.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 04:19 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
So you and oralboy consider me a predator


No I never said that I said that you are far more concern about the welfare of predators then the welfare of the rest of us, such as my wife going to her car on a dark parking lot.

You wish to keep muggers and rapists and other such safe from anyone having the means to protected themselves.

The level of such craziness had reach it peak in the UK where women are not even allowed to have the token means of protecting themselves such as pepper spray.

The welfare and the safety of predators are your first concern from your own statements.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 08:23 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
So you and oralboy consider me a predator.

I have no idea whether you're a predator, but you're a Fascist who is too stupid to do anything other than spew frustrated name-calling whenever you fail in your efforts to stamp out freedom (failure which is guaranteed: America will never allow you to stamp out our freedom).

I wouldn't mind seeing you dragged off to Guantanamo for a few decades of indefinite detention and maybe some waterboarding. It might make you a better person.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Jun, 2013 09:00 pm
@RABEL222,
Actually, it makes them think their penis is bigger! LOL
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 12:05 am
@cicerone imposter,
To these two left is right up is down. Neither one has the brains to do anything but twist what is said to suit their ideas. None of the things they attribute to me has been said by me. They both would lie on a stack of bibles while claiming to be true Christians. I would rather be compared to Hitler than either of these hypocrites.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 09:07 am
@RABEL222,
LOl you position had been clear you do not wish citizens to have the means and the right of defending themselves if they are attacked by predators.



parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 09:18 am
@BillRM,
There are some flaws in your logic Bill.

It appears you WANT people to be attacked so the can defend themselves.
If someone is 1/2 as likely to be attacked wouldn't they be safer than someone armed who is twice as likely to be attacked?
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 09:51 am
@parados,
Quote:
It appears you WANT people to be attacked so the can defend themselves.


Having a fire extinguisher at hand does not imply that I wish to have a fire in my home or in my car and having the ability to defend myself and for my wife and step daughters to have the same abilities does not mean that I wish them to ever be attack anymore then I wish to have a fire.

There are fires and there are attacked by predators on people just going about their businesses.

Quote:
f someone is 1/2 as likely to be attacked wouldn't they be safer than someone armed who is twice as likely to be attacked?


How does that work? If you have a fire extinguisher in your home you are more likely to have a house fire or if you are armed you are more likely to be attacked for some reason?

cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 09:57 am
@BillRM,
Your logic is flawed. It's more likely that an individual with a gun is more likely to attack. A person without a gun can only use his physical prowess - for self defense.
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 10:11 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Your logic is flawed. It's more likely that an individual with a gun is more likely to attack. A person without a gun can only use his physical prowess - for self defense.
I'll sell you one of these beauties if you want:
http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/neologist/UnitedCutleryM48c.jpg
Good to see you back , CI. How was your trip?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 11:31 am
@neologist,
And, pray-tell, who carries around anything resembling that in public? You do have an over-flow of imagination! I've 'never' seen anybody carry such a thing in my life. LOL
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 01:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Y
Quote:
our logic is flawed. It's more likely that an individual with a gun is more likely to attack. A person without a gun can only use his physical prowess - for self defense.


LOL you think that no matter what the laws happen to be that a criminal will not get a gun in the US to prey on people if he wish to?

The only thing that the laws can do is to interfere with citizens having means of defensing themselves not the criminals being armed or not armed.

Next most males do not need any weapons to imposed their will on unarmed women not even a knife and that is half of the population that you wish to be at the mercy of the criminal predators by telling them that they can not be armed for self defense.

I had sadly seen the results of muggers beating up women I known without any weapon but their bare hands. Lucky none of them had died just spend a week or so in the hospital.

Once more your concerns seems to be the safety and the well being of the predators not the rest of us.



cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 01:42 pm
@BillRM,
Not only is your logic flawed, but so is your thinking on most issues.

You're a waste of time.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 04:39:05