Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nah, bigrebnc is what he is: a loon. He can do it here if he wishes. He can never win.
We had a preset date and place too debate you failed to show up
You had a preset date that I declined.
The fact is: you get paid for doing this, and you would have got paid even more doing it in the Bull Ring. So when I kicked your ass (inevitable) you still would have got paid more.
Do it here, bigreb, and I will kick your ass. I always have.
You won in your mind. I declined, which meant there was no debate. Typical reactionary coward.
Why would I be afraid after I have kicked your ass every time.
Folks, the way to beat bigrebnc is to use his print sources. He can't use them correctly because he can't understand them. Simply read them and pull them apart. He fails every time.
For instance, ask him what "infringe" means in the 2d Amendment in relation to "well-regulated". It is not what he thinks it means. It has nothing to do with the feds taking arms at all.
You won in your mind. I declined, which meant there was no debate. Typical reactionary coward.
You declined? You mean you ran away scared to debate me.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
Why would I be afraid after I have kicked your ass every time.
Folks, the way to beat bigrebnc is to use his print sources. He can't use them correctly because he can't understand them. Simply read them and pull them apart. He fails every time.
For instance, ask him what "infringe" means in the 2d Amendment in relation to "well-regulated". It is not what he thinks it means. It has nothing to do with the feds taking arms at all.
The bull ring is the place set a side to debate certain subjects. We had a preset date and time too meet.
You don't want too debate there because it's more controlled and you can't troll in that forum like you do in the other forum. You don't want too debate there because you know I would defeat you very badly.
Now I'll give you the last word, because I'm not going too derail this thread anymore than I already have.
This is between me and Jake, please do not derail this thread anymore than what I already have.You won in your mind. I declined, which meant there was no debate. Typical reactionary coward.
You declined? You mean you ran away scared to debate me.
The purpose of the 2nd Amend is to preserve the capacity of the state to create a well regulated militia. The methodology employed to do this was to protect a preexisting individual right to have and use arms for individual purposes such as self defense. In this way the framers of the 2nd knew that a large portion of the population would not only have arms but be familiar with their use so that in the event of an emergency a well regulated militia could easily and quickly be organized from their midst.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
Anything else?
This is between me and Jake, please do not derail this thread anymore than what I already have.You declined? You mean you ran away scared to debate me.
The purpose of the 2nd Amend is to preserve the capacity of the state to create a well regulated militia. The methodology employed to do this was to protect a preexisting individual right to have and use arms for individual purposes such as self defense. In this way the framers of the 2nd knew that a large portion of the population would not only have arms but be familiar with their use so that in the event of an emergency a well regulated militia could easily and quickly be organized from their midst.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
Anything else?
Nah, bigrebnc is what he is: a loon. He can do it here if he wishes. He can never win.
We had a preset date and place too debate you failed to show up
You had a preset date that I declined.
The fact is: you get paid for doing this, and you would have got paid even more doing it in the Bull Ring. So when I kicked your ass (inevitable) you still would have got paid more.
Do it here with Board as judge, bigreb, and I will kick your ass. I always have.
Seems to me that rather than trying to raise awareness of the brutually obvious capabilities of a firearm, you should seek raise awareness of the dangers of living the morally depraved "inner city lifestyle" itself.No weakness at all, that is exactly my premise. People are inherently stupid, I have no problem with that assesment.
Seems to me that rather than trying to raise awareness of the brutually obvious capabilities of a firearm, you should seek raise awareness of the dangers of living the morally depraved "inner city lifestyle" itself.No weakness at all, that is exactly my premise. People are inherently stupid, I have no problem with that assesment.
But the culture of violence mixed with the culture of guns is obviously a deadly combanation. The morally depraved inner city lifestyle is not a choice for many kids currently living in it. I just think that that culture glorifies the use of guns and the laws that are out there make it extremely easy to get their hands on one.
-------------------------------Seems to me that rather than trying to raise awareness of the brutually obvious capabilities of a firearm, you should seek raise awareness of the dangers of living the morally depraved "inner city lifestyle" itself.No weakness at all, that is exactly my premise. People are inherently stupid, I have no problem with that assesment.
But the culture of violence mixed with the culture of guns is obviously a deadly combanation. The morally depraved inner city lifestyle is not a choice for many kids currently living in it. I just think that that culture glorifies the use of guns and the laws that are out there make it extremely easy to get their hands on one.
-------------------------------Seems to me that rather than trying to raise awareness of the brutually obvious capabilities of a firearm, you should seek raise awareness of the dangers of living the morally depraved "inner city lifestyle" itself.
But the culture of violence mixed with the culture of guns is obviously a deadly combanation. The morally depraved inner city lifestyle is not a choice for many kids currently living in it. I just think that that culture glorifies the use of guns and the laws that are out there make it extremely easy to get their hands on one.
the culture of guns if there is such a thing is peaceful
between by brothers and sisters and our adult kids
we have in the upwards range of 300 + firearms
yet not one criminal use with one
which laws would make it harder for the criminal elements of Chicago
to get guns considering guns are banned in the city
-------------------------------But the culture of violence mixed with the culture of guns is obviously a deadly combanation. The morally depraved inner city lifestyle is not a choice for many kids currently living in it. I just think that that culture glorifies the use of guns and the laws that are out there make it extremely easy to get their hands on one.
the culture of guns if there is such a thing is peaceful
between by brothers and sisters and our adult kids
we have in the upwards range of 300 + firearms
yet not one criminal use with one
which laws would make it harder for the criminal elements of Chicago
to get guns considering guns are banned in the city
That argument is sort of null because while they are banned in the city, they arent in the sate of Illinois. They are easy to get in a southern suburbs and thats where the majority of them come from. Just because guns are banned in the city doesnt mean they are hard to get.
