Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[KNB]

Do any of you know what your guns are for? "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".

Go down the list of how America is no longer free. US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?

The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.

The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.

Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.

Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.

And? Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?

So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?

 

[kaz]

Do any of you know what your guns are for? "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".

Go down the list of how America is no longer free. US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?

The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.

The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.

Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.

Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.

And? Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?

So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?

The pen is mightier than than the sword, and the Internet rules them all. I'm dong exactly that.

 

[KNB]

Yeah, your internet is stopping war crimes. Good job.

By the way, the NSA is spying on you against the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. Isn't it ironic that gun lovers say that the 2nd Amendment is to protect your other rights, but here is a big tyrannical government violating the US Constitution so the brave gun-loving pussies hide behind their computers.

Because you cowardly pussies are the frontline of defense against government tyranny, then it's no wonder why the government has become so tyrannical.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, your internet is stopping war crimes. Good job.

By the way, the NSA is spying on you against the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. Isn't it ironic that gun lovers say that the 2nd Amendment is to protect your other rights, but here is a big tyrannical government violating the US Constitution so the brave gun-loving pussies hide behind their computers.

Because you cowardly pussies are the frontline of defense against government tyranny, then it's no wonder why the government has become so tyrannical.

War crimes? Where did that come up in the conversation? As for the rest, can you translate that from paranoid and delusional into English?



I recognize it's laced with sarcasm, but it's too incoherent to address.

 

[Pogo]

And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either. That's my point.

And people don't do things like target practice or hunt for the purpose of shooting anyone either.

Non sequitur. I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there. I'm defining terms. Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

Let's go to the video tape

Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is

Touchdown, two point conversion.

Horseshit. Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation. Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" means?

I'm afraid you just ran the ball into your own end zone. Not sure you even get a PAT when you do that. I believe that's called a "safety". And 2 points to me. Again. 4 x 2 = 8. Good game plan.

Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian

LOL, half vegetarian. That's like being half pregnant. Dude, if you eat meat, you are not half vegetarian, you are NOT vegetarian. Vegetarians don't eat meat.

No shit, Sherlock.

I wasn't going to go into detail; I was simply accommodating your completely irrelevant tangent on vegetarianism (which you brought up, not me). If you must know I simply don't eat anything that has a mother. Not for that reason, but that's what it works out to. There's a term for that; I don't know what it is and I don't really care so take your half-assed tangents and bite me.

And so we have it. Hunters are making their animals into a "victim." You're civilized. Other people kill your food for you, carve it up, and you get your animal flesh in nice little plastic wrapped packages as if it's not an animal that you're eating. But for someone to shoot their own food, oh, unsavory.

I don't know if it's 'unsavory' or not; we were describing the function of a firearm. I used "victim" because we don't have the word "shootee". Dumbass.
Once again, I challenged you to show where the value judgement is; once again you failed.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Show me how guns were not invented for the purpose of making war.

They are used for collecting, hunting, sporting (skeet, trap, ...) as well as self defense. None of those were war. The original purpose is irrelevant, so I'm not going to research that for you. Your argument is the equivalent that Teflon was invented for space, which proves that it's not used in cookware. No, it doesn't.

No, it isn't. Now you're trying to compare a material with an instrument it's made from?

A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat. But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting. Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives. Period. I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it. Doesn't change what it's designed for.

And just to entertain your bullshit logic, nor does it mean that the material (wood, analagous to your teflon) was developed for any of these purposes. That's absurd.

It's pretty clear you're not here for any kind of answers on the topic, even when such answers are offered. You're just here to bullshit people with irrelevant tangents on vegetarianism and teflon. That's why this thread is a waste of time; as soon as it threatens to go somewhere you're ready to shoot any answers down.

Enjoy your self-absorbed wankfest then. It's a waste of time.

 

[kaz]

Horseshit. Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation. Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" means?

So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment. Seriously?

No shit, Sherlock.

I wasn't going to go into detail; I was simply accommodating your completely irrelevant tangent on vegetarianism (which you brought up, not me).

Tangent? You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim. I was showing your hypocrisy. It worked.

And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything. It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."

If you must know I simply don't eat anything that has a mother. Not for that reason, but that's what it works out to. There's a term for that; I don't know what it is and I don't really care so take your half-assed tangents and bite me.

OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."

A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat. But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting. Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives. Period. I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it. Doesn't change what it's designed for.

Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was. It matters what the user's intent is. If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc. It's fun.

If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah. No one is into that, it's sick. Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user. Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs. If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.

You just don't know what you're talking about. And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening. Your ignorance is willful.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Horseshit. Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation. Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" means?

So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment. Seriously?

No shit, Sherlock.

I wasn't going to go into detail; I was simply accommodating your completely irrelevant tangent on vegetarianism (which you brought up, not me).

Tangent? You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim. I was showing your hypocrisy. It worked.

And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything. It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."

If you must know I simply don't eat anything that has a mother. Not for that reason, but that's what it works out to. There's a term for that; I don't know what it is and I don't really care so take your half-assed tangents and bite me.

OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."

A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat. But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting. Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives. Period. I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it. Doesn't change what it's designed for.

Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was. It matters what the user's intent is. If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc. It's fun.

If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah. No one is into that, it's sick. Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user. Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs. If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.

You just don't know what you're talking about. And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening. Your ignorance is willful.

He tries to use semantics to claim he is not against firearms. He seems afraid to admit what he means.

 

[Pogo]

Horseshit. Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation. Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" means?

So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment. Seriously?

No shit, Sherlock.

I wasn't going to go into detail; I was simply accommodating your completely irrelevant tangent on vegetarianism (which you brought up, not me).

Tangent? You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim. I was showing your hypocrisy. It worked.

And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything. It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."

If you must know I simply don't eat anything that has a mother. Not for that reason, but that's what it works out to. There's a term for that; I don't know what it is and I don't really care so take your half-assed tangents and bite me.

OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."

A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat. But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting. Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives. Period. I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it. Doesn't change what it's designed for.

Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was. It matters what the user's intent is. If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc. It's fun.

If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah. No one is into that, it's sick. Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user. Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs. If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.

You just don't know what you're talking about. And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening. Your ignorance is willful.

I just checked in to see if you suffered a moment of lucidity but once again you find yourself unable to deal with what I post and feel compelled to rewrite. Obviously you have no clue how to engage in discussion honestly. I've said nothing about "what anyone thinks". You are a dishonest hack bent on nothing but contrarianism and when that fails, inserting words into others' mouths. That's why you're thread is a failure.

Enjoy your Peter Principle paean to self-indulgence. Too wanky for me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Horseshit. Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation. Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" means?

So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment. Seriously?


Tangent? You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim. I was showing your hypocrisy. It worked.

And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything. It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."


OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."

A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat. But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting. Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives. Period. I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it. Doesn't change what it's designed for.

Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was. It matters what the user's intent is. If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc. It's fun.

If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah. No one is into that, it's sick. Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user. Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs. If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.

You just don't know what you're talking about. And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening. Your ignorance is willful.

I just checked in to see if you suffered a moment of lucidity but once again you find yourself unable to deal with what I post and feel compelled to rewrite. Obviously you have no clue how to engage in discussion honestly. I've said nothing about "what anyone thinks". You are a dishonest hack bent on nothing but contrarianism and when that fails, inserting words into others' mouths. That's why you're thread is a failure.

Enjoy your Peter Principle paean to self-indulgence. Too wanky for me.

firearm violence has dropped in the last 20 years by 69 percent murders are down by over 7000 a year and you still claim firearms are an epidemic of violence. And then you play semantics and try to pretend you are not for less firearms in society.

Pathetic indeed. Go ahead and run away.

 

[kaz]

Horseshit. Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation. Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" means?

So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment. Seriously?


Tangent? You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim. I was showing your hypocrisy. It worked.

And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything. It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."


OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."

A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat. But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting. Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives. Period. I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it. Doesn't change what it's designed for.

Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was. It matters what the user's intent is. If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc. It's fun.

If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah. No one is into that, it's sick. Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user. Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs. If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.

You just don't know what you're talking about. And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening. Your ignorance is willful.

I just checked in to see if you suffered a moment of lucidity but once again you find yourself unable to deal with what I post and feel compelled to rewrite. Obviously you have no clue how to engage in discussion honestly. I've said nothing about "what anyone thinks". You are a dishonest hack bent on nothing but contrarianism and when that fails, inserting words into others' mouths. That's why you're thread is a failure.

Enjoy your Peter Principle paean to self-indulgence. Too wanky for me.

So again, that actually sounds good to you? You are actually eight, aren't you?

 

[P@triot]

Do any of you know what your guns are for? "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".

Go down the list of how America is no longer free. US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?

Thank you for illustrating just how significantly the Dumbocrats have trampled on our 2nd Amendment rights....

 

[P@triot]

Do any of you know what your guns are for? "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".

Go down the list of how America is no longer free. US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?

The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.

The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.

Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.

Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.

And? Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?

So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?

Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous asshole trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?

 

[Bumberclyde]

The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.

The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.

Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.

Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.

And? Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?

So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?

Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous asshole trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?

He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.

 

[kaz]

And? Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?

So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?

Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous asshole trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?

He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.

LOL, from the mouths of babes ... typically comes babble ... and this is no exception.

How you doing with the war on poverty?

 

[hunarcy]

Yeah, your internet is stopping war crimes. Good job.

By the way, the NSA is spying on you against the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. Isn't it ironic that gun lovers say that the 2nd Amendment is to protect your other rights, but here is a big tyrannical government violating the US Constitution so the brave gun-loving pussies hide behind their computers.

Because you cowardly pussies are the frontline of defense against government tyranny, then it's no wonder why the government has become so tyrannical.

Odd how you are trying to incite violence when the circumstances are that we build awareness and draw support.

It's as if you are trying to create a situation where you can vilify people who aren't villains. Makes you...evil.

 

[P@triot]

Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous asshole trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?

He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.

LOL, from the mouths of babes ... typically comes babble ... and this is no exception.

How you doing with the war on poverty?

 

[P@triot]

And? Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?

So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?

Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous asshole trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?

He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.

Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...

Yes folks, [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really is this fuck'n stupid....

 

[P@triot]

Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous asshole trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?

He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.

Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...

Yes folks, [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really is this fuck'n stupid....

Hey bumbler - what have you got now junior? Because you're stupidity just got you bent over in front of the world

 

[Bumberclyde]

Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous asshole trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?

He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.

Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...

Yes folks, [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really is this fuck'n stupid....

Don't shhot the messenger, you folks weren't able to figure what he meant so I told you. You have a right to take down your tyrannical government through the 2nd and you're not using it. Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?

 

[P@triot]

He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.

Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...

Yes folks, [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really is this fuck'n stupid....

Don't shhot the messenger, you folks weren't able to figure what he meant so I told you. You have a right to take down your tyrannical government through the 2nd and you're not using it. Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?

Neither. I've already explained this once junior. But, apparently you are a bit slow, so I'll explain it again....

Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous asshole trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?