To all Gun Grabbers

[Brain357]

You really aren't very smart. But all our mass killers agree with you so I guess you are in good company in your mind.

Which means despite your claims you cannot refute my post which was factual and more intelligent than yours.

Go get a tissue and blow your nose boy. You are out of your league

You can't seem to understand the difference between apprehending criminals and simple defense. You've already lost.

You are ignoring fact that police can only use their weapons in a defensive manner the same as anyone else which ruins your idiotic premise.

I win and you are crushed bitch

You are ignoring the fact that the police can't just let the criminal run away. Ruins your idiotic premise.

Nor can they use a lethal weapon on one running away nor can a victim but the victims need for defense is as great or greater than the cops.

Except the defender lets the criminal run away and the police have to pursue. Quite the huge difference to anyone even slightly intelligent.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You really aren't very smart. But all our mass killers agree with you so I guess you are in good company in your mind.

Which means despite your claims you cannot refute my post which was factual and more intelligent than yours.

Go get a tissue and blow your nose boy. You are out of your league

You can't seem to understand the difference between apprehending criminals and simple defense. You've already lost.

You are ignoring fact that police can only use their weapons in a defensive manner the same as anyone else which ruins your idiotic premise.

I win and you are crushed bitch

Defeating liberals in a gun debate is easier than stealing candy from a baby.
It's more like putting the baby in a rear naked choke and demanding his/hers inheritance.

You must be weaker than a baby then, cause you have nothing so far.

Ooooooooh!!
I'm truly stunned by your rebuttal!

 

[Brain357]

Police are apprehending criminals. Quite a bit different than defense obviously.

How so?

Police actually go to the crime. And when there they have to apprehend the criminals. Defenders don't look for crime and they let the criminal run away. Funny you can't see the difference.

And when they go to the crime there is usually a victim who needed the same sort of defense that the police need .

Your attempted comparisons are sensationally stupid failures.

Incidentally by definition defending does not mean letting someone run away

No, that victim was not going to apprehend criminals. Quite the imagination you have. Paranoid much?

In order for there to be any significant number of defenses it means letting someone run away. If you are claiming different then there is a lot of proof there are few defenses.

I let my home invaders run away.
Had they shown a weapon things would have turned out bad for em.

Yes I remember your imaginary story. But according to stupid here that wasn't a defense.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Which means despite your claims you cannot refute my post which was factual and more intelligent than yours.

Go get a tissue and blow your nose boy. You are out of your league

You can't seem to understand the difference between apprehending criminals and simple defense. You've already lost.

You are ignoring fact that police can only use their weapons in a defensive manner the same as anyone else which ruins your idiotic premise.

I win and you are crushed bitch

You are ignoring the fact that the police can't just let the criminal run away. Ruins your idiotic premise.

Nor can they use a lethal weapon on one running away nor can a victim but the victims need for defense is as great or greater than the cops.

Except the defender lets the criminal run away and the police have to pursue. Quite the huge difference to anyone even slightly intelligent.

The need for the same sort of defense as not which is why your argument is massively ignorant and a fucking failure.

 

[Soupnazi630]

How so?

Police actually go to the crime. And when there they have to apprehend the criminals. Defenders don't look for crime and they let the criminal run away. Funny you can't see the difference.

And when they go to the crime there is usually a victim who needed the same sort of defense that the police need .

Your attempted comparisons are sensationally stupid failures.

Incidentally by definition defending does not mean letting someone run away

No, that victim was not going to apprehend criminals. Quite the imagination you have. Paranoid much?

In order for there to be any significant number of defenses it means letting someone run away. If you are claiming different then there is a lot of proof there are few defenses.

I let my home invaders run away.
Had they shown a weapon things would have turned out bad for em.

Yes I remember your imaginary story. But according to stupid here that wasn't a defense.

And everyone can see how desperate you are to save face after posting the most massive failed comparisons in history

You really suck at this and have been owned boy

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Which means despite your claims you cannot refute my post which was factual and more intelligent than yours.

Go get a tissue and blow your nose boy. You are out of your league

You can't seem to understand the difference between apprehending criminals and simple defense. You've already lost.

You are ignoring fact that police can only use their weapons in a defensive manner the same as anyone else which ruins your idiotic premise.

I win and you are crushed bitch

You are ignoring the fact that the police can't just let the criminal run away. Ruins your idiotic premise.

Nor can they use a lethal weapon on one running away nor can a victim but the victims need for defense is as great or greater than the cops.

Except the defender lets the criminal run away and the police have to pursue. Quite the huge difference to anyone even slightly intelligent.

The police can most definitely use deadly force if the perp is armed and considered a threat to the community at large.
Running away or not.

 

[Brain357]

You can't seem to understand the difference between apprehending criminals and simple defense. You've already lost.

You are ignoring fact that police can only use their weapons in a defensive manner the same as anyone else which ruins your idiotic premise.

I win and you are crushed bitch

You are ignoring the fact that the police can't just let the criminal run away. Ruins your idiotic premise.

Nor can they use a lethal weapon on one running away nor can a victim but the victims need for defense is as great or greater than the cops.

Except the defender lets the criminal run away and the police have to pursue. Quite the huge difference to anyone even slightly intelligent.

The need for the same sort of defense as not which is why your argument is massively ignorant and a fucking failure.

Wow you are slow. Again, the defender lets the criminal run away. Rarely are shots even fired. Cop has to pursue and capture the criminal. Completely different, if only you had a brain....

 

[Brain357]

You can't seem to understand the difference between apprehending criminals and simple defense. You've already lost.

You are ignoring fact that police can only use their weapons in a defensive manner the same as anyone else which ruins your idiotic premise.

I win and you are crushed bitch

You are ignoring the fact that the police can't just let the criminal run away. Ruins your idiotic premise.

Nor can they use a lethal weapon on one running away nor can a victim but the victims need for defense is as great or greater than the cops.

Except the defender lets the criminal run away and the police have to pursue. Quite the huge difference to anyone even slightly intelligent.

The police can most definitely use deadly force if the perp is armed and considered a threat to the community at large.
Running away or not.

Of course they can, and they have to pursue the criminal. Completely different than civilian defense.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

How so?

Police actually go to the crime. And when there they have to apprehend the criminals. Defenders don't look for crime and they let the criminal run away. Funny you can't see the difference.

And when they go to the crime there is usually a victim who needed the same sort of defense that the police need .

Your attempted comparisons are sensationally stupid failures.

Incidentally by definition defending does not mean letting someone run away

No, that victim was not going to apprehend criminals. Quite the imagination you have. Paranoid much?

In order for there to be any significant number of defenses it means letting someone run away. If you are claiming different then there is a lot of proof there are few defenses.

I let my home invaders run away.
Had they shown a weapon things would have turned out bad for em.

Yes I remember your imaginary story. But according to stupid here that wasn't a defense.

Mine isnt like your story of you being a hetro male.
It's actually true.

 

[Brain357]

Police actually go to the crime. And when there they have to apprehend the criminals. Defenders don't look for crime and they let the criminal run away. Funny you can't see the difference.

And when they go to the crime there is usually a victim who needed the same sort of defense that the police need .

Your attempted comparisons are sensationally stupid failures.

Incidentally by definition defending does not mean letting someone run away

No, that victim was not going to apprehend criminals. Quite the imagination you have. Paranoid much?

In order for there to be any significant number of defenses it means letting someone run away. If you are claiming different then there is a lot of proof there are few defenses.

I let my home invaders run away.
Had they shown a weapon things would have turned out bad for em.

Yes I remember your imaginary story. But according to stupid here that wasn't a defense.

And everyone can see how desperate you are to save face after posting the most massive failed comparisons in history

You really suck at this and have been owned boy

You just ruined herewegoagains imaginary gun defense story. Sorry Here, not a defense cause you let them run away in your imagination.

 

[Brain357]

Police actually go to the crime. And when there they have to apprehend the criminals. Defenders don't look for crime and they let the criminal run away. Funny you can't see the difference.

And when they go to the crime there is usually a victim who needed the same sort of defense that the police need .

Your attempted comparisons are sensationally stupid failures.

Incidentally by definition defending does not mean letting someone run away

No, that victim was not going to apprehend criminals. Quite the imagination you have. Paranoid much?

In order for there to be any significant number of defenses it means letting someone run away. If you are claiming different then there is a lot of proof there are few defenses.

I let my home invaders run away.
Had they shown a weapon things would have turned out bad for em.

Yes I remember your imaginary story. But according to stupid here that wasn't a defense.

Mine isnt like your story of you being a hetro male.
It's actually true.

And not a defense according to soup.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You are ignoring fact that police can only use their weapons in a defensive manner the same as anyone else which ruins your idiotic premise.

I win and you are crushed bitch

You are ignoring the fact that the police can't just let the criminal run away. Ruins your idiotic premise.

Nor can they use a lethal weapon on one running away nor can a victim but the victims need for defense is as great or greater than the cops.

Except the defender lets the criminal run away and the police have to pursue. Quite the huge difference to anyone even slightly intelligent.

The need for the same sort of defense as not which is why your argument is massively ignorant and a fucking failure.

Wow you are slow. Again, the defender lets the criminal run away. Rarely are shots even fired. Cop has to pursue and capture the criminal. Completely different, if only you had a brain....

And again if the criminal is attacking a victim that victim has the same need for defense as a cop which trumps and destroys your idiotic comparison'


School would help little one you are truly foolish

 

[Soupnazi630]

And when they go to the crime there is usually a victim who needed the same sort of defense that the police need .

Your attempted comparisons are sensationally stupid failures.

Incidentally by definition defending does not mean letting someone run away

No, that victim was not going to apprehend criminals. Quite the imagination you have. Paranoid much?

In order for there to be any significant number of defenses it means letting someone run away. If you are claiming different then there is a lot of proof there are few defenses.

I let my home invaders run away.
Had they shown a weapon things would have turned out bad for em.

Yes I remember your imaginary story. But according to stupid here that wasn't a defense.

Mine isnt like your story of you being a hetro male.
It's actually true.

And not a defense according to soup.

LETTING someone run away is not a defense yet that is true you only amended it to include showing a gun after called on your stupidity

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You are ignoring fact that police can only use their weapons in a defensive manner the same as anyone else which ruins your idiotic premise.

I win and you are crushed bitch

You are ignoring the fact that the police can't just let the criminal run away. Ruins your idiotic premise.

Nor can they use a lethal weapon on one running away nor can a victim but the victims need for defense is as great or greater than the cops.

Except the defender lets the criminal run away and the police have to pursue. Quite the huge difference to anyone even slightly intelligent.

The police can most definitely use deadly force if the perp is armed and considered a threat to the community at large.
Running away or not.

Of course they can, and they have to pursue the criminal. Completely different than civilian defense.

If you're in my yard after dark after attempting to break into my home you're a dead man.
See Joe Horn. And that was in daylight.

 

[Brain357]

You are ignoring the fact that the police can't just let the criminal run away. Ruins your idiotic premise.

Nor can they use a lethal weapon on one running away nor can a victim but the victims need for defense is as great or greater than the cops.

Except the defender lets the criminal run away and the police have to pursue. Quite the huge difference to anyone even slightly intelligent.

The need for the same sort of defense as not which is why your argument is massively ignorant and a fucking failure.

Wow you are slow. Again, the defender lets the criminal run away. Rarely are shots even fired. Cop has to pursue and capture the criminal. Completely different, if only you had a brain....

And again if the criminal is attacking a victim that victim has the same need for defense as a cop which trumps and destroys your idiotic comparison'


School would help little one you are truly foolish

And the defender lets the criminal run away, police have to apprehend the criminal. This is just too easy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Stop trying to fuck with the 2nd Amendment...….we have a right to own guns...….focus on executing criminals not citizens..



Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns


and for those of you trying....he's what you need to do

This is a great ruling. While the dictators of California and corrupt Obama judges will never let it stand, this provides standing for a SCOTUS case. The 9th will overrule this decision, then off to SCOTUS.

 

[Brain357]

No, that victim was not going to apprehend criminals. Quite the imagination you have. Paranoid much?

In order for there to be any significant number of defenses it means letting someone run away. If you are claiming different then there is a lot of proof there are few defenses.

I let my home invaders run away.
Had they shown a weapon things would have turned out bad for em.

Yes I remember your imaginary story. But according to stupid here that wasn't a defense.

Mine isnt like your story of you being a hetro male.
It's actually true.

And not a defense according to soup.

LETTING someone run away is not a defense yet that is true you only amended it to include showing a gun after called on your stupidity

Wow, and Here thought he had a defense. Wow the number of defenses in this country just went down drastically. You are smart....

 

[Brain357]

Stop trying to fuck with the 2nd Amendment...….we have a right to own guns...….focus on executing criminals not citizens..



Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns


and for those of you trying....he's what you need to do

This is a great ruling. While the dictators of California and corrupt Obama judges will never let it stand, this provides standing for a SCOTUS case. The 9th will overrule this decision, then off to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has turned away many like this. Even Scalia said the 2nd has limits.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And when they go to the crime there is usually a victim who needed the same sort of defense that the police need .

Your attempted comparisons are sensationally stupid failures.

Incidentally by definition defending does not mean letting someone run away

No, that victim was not going to apprehend criminals. Quite the imagination you have. Paranoid much?

In order for there to be any significant number of defenses it means letting someone run away. If you are claiming different then there is a lot of proof there are few defenses.

I let my home invaders run away.
Had they shown a weapon things would have turned out bad for em.

Yes I remember your imaginary story. But according to stupid here that wasn't a defense.

And everyone can see how desperate you are to save face after posting the most massive failed comparisons in history

You really suck at this and have been owned boy

You just ruined herewegoagains imaginary gun defense story. Sorry Here, not a defense cause you let them run away in your imagination.

Whatever makes ya feel better pole smoker.

 

[rightwinger]

2nd amendment says nothing about high capacity magazines