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.
Seriously, he usually starts threads on stuff like that!
And I don't think he'd be wrong on this one!
not really,, just when it comes up like this,, no pun intendedMy, you do think about gay sex, a lot.
Lol, the assumptions of retards hilarious. What a retard.Until we see a security video of this guy breaking in, the assumption is that he and Paul arrived together.
I agree.Just need to wait for the actual facts to figure this out, Pete.
Too early to make an educated guess as to just what went on.
Might be a Russian bot thing.Seriously, he usually starts threads on stuff like that!
And I don't think he'd be wrong on this one!
But lie about it.And I don't think he'd be wrong on this one!
your premise is a lie,, the dems dont want guns for personal defense,,But lie about it.
Like the lie that Democrats oppose citizens possessing guns for self-defense.
Here's the funny thing about all this. Had there been an armed security guard in the Pelosi home who shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would not hesitate in their rush to defend him. If, OTOH, Paul was an ordinary citizen with no fame or fortune who armed himself and shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would rush to the ramparts to denounce the fact that he had a gun in his home in the first place and that he should have relied on:Seriously, he usually starts threads on stuff like that!
And I don't think he'd be wrong on this one!
I never think of gay sex, odd, no?not really,, just when it comes up like this,, no pun intended
That is not what Jesus said.
I have firearms and have all my life since I was eight, why can't you get firearms?Here's the funny thing about all this. Had there been an armed security guard in the Pelosi home who shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would not hesitate in their rush to defend him. If, OTOH, Paul was an ordinary citizen with no fame or fortune who armed himself and shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would rush to the ramparts to denounce the fact that he had a gun in his home in the first place and that he should have relied on:
1. Running away, leaving everyone else in the house at the mercy of the assailant.
2. Calling the police and telling the assailant he's not allowed to hurt anyone until they got there.
3. Ninja martial arts moves that disarm the assailant without hurting him.
4. A large sign in his front yard declaring his home to be a gun free zone where no weapons are allowed.
I jest, but you get the point. In the anti-gun nut's mind, the rich, famous and powerful are justified to surround themselves with armed men ready and willing to shoot and kill, but it's not for an ordinary citizen to arm himself. Tell me, what's the difference? Either way, an assailant ends up perforated.
I noticed Jesus didn't follow yer advice.I've never even touched a gun in my life and I embrace Jesus and his message. I believe that "turning the other cheek" is reserved for those who are civilized and can be guilted into changing their ways. Some madman in my home armed with a weapon doesn't fall into that category.
I choose not to have them for my own reasons. I just don't believe my personal reasons should be imposed on someone else who chooses differently.I have firearms and have all my life since I was eight, why can't you get firearms?
I noticed Jesus didn't follow yer advice.
What I find so very strange about this incident is that there apparently WERE NO ARMED MEN " ready and willing to shoot and kill" at the home of the speaker of the US House.Here's the funny thing about all this. Had there been an armed security guard in the Pelosi home who shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would not hesitate in their rush to defend him. If, OTOH, Paul was an ordinary citizen with no fame or fortune who armed himself and shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would rush to the ramparts to denounce the fact that he had a gun in his home in the first place and that he should have relied on:
1. Running away, leaving everyone else in the house at the mercy of the assailant.
2. Calling the police and telling the assailant he's not allowed to hurt anyone until they got there.
3. Ninja martial arts moves that disarm the assailant without hurting him.
4. A large sign in his front yard declaring his home to be a gun free zone where no weapons are allowed.
I jest, but you get the point. In the anti-gun nut's mind, the rich, famous and powerful are justified to surround themselves with armed men ready and willing to shoot and kill, but it's not for an ordinary citizen to arm himself. Tell me, what's the difference? Either way, an assailant ends up perforated.
youre thinking about it right now because you are talking about it,,,I never think of gay sex, odd, no?
