Hmmmm. Does the Second Amendment protect the right of all overweight white men who live with mom to own a "heart attack gun?'
Inquiring minds wish to know.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Andrew Breitbart. Still Dead.
Hmmmm. Does the Second Amendment protect the right of all overweight white men who live with mom to own a "heart attack gun?'
Inquiring minds wish to know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, it's not like Obama hasn't assassinated American citizens. Then there is the fact that 'heart attack guns' (Tazers) have killed people with heart problems. Finally, do we know if Obama has an alibi for that night?
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Here's the problem, Orlin. Tasers and dart guns leave telltale signs such as puncture wounds and/or bruising.
ReplyDeleteSeems Andrew's death was caused by more mundane means such as alcohol, cocaine, and being fat.
According to what I've seen, his toxicology screening showed no illegal drugs in his system and not enough alcohol to have made him unable to drive legally. The pictures of him don't show a man whose weight was excessive. What are you saying, Jadegold?
DeleteGood point, Obama has assassinated American citizens, just not this dude.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Jade- The answer is yes. The 2nd Amendment also protects my ray gun. Bring it on martians
ReplyDeleteJadegold, where you been? You carpet bombed one of the articles on my weblog and then disappeared. But what is it with your side and people's weight? Don't you have anything else on your minds?
ReplyDeleteThis:
ReplyDelete"Andrew Breitbart’s media empire undoubtedly posed a threat to the establishment. From the takedown of New York Rep. Anthony Weiner to the outing of the USDA’s Shirley Sherrod and very public revelations about the seamy underside of ACORN, Breitbart was considered a thorn in the side of the liberal establishment."
from the website that Jadegold linked to is stupid it should be a Poe--but it's probably not.
Anthony Weiner was an idiot--of course he was interested in girls, the opposite of the tastes of folks like Mark Foley, Larry Craig and a passel of other GOGropers.
Shirley Sherrod's lawsuit against Breitbart, for defamation, is going forward.
ACORN was defunded, which makes people like orlin sellers very happy since his latest racist heart withers when he thinks what a world run by people elected by blacks would be like.
"But what is it with your side and people's weight? Don't you have anything else on your minds?"
This is coming from a guy who keeps LYING about people like mikeb302000's non-existent desire to remove all privately held firearms from the world.
And you, Democommie, are persistently stupid about what is a lie and what is an interpretation. A conclusion based on ample evidence and on the stated hatred of firearms felt on your side is reasonable, and I'd be a fool not to draw it. Of course, you do nothing to create an atmosphere of trust between the two groups.
DeleteDc said: "ACORN was defunded, which makes people like orlin sellers very happy since his latest racist heart withers when he thinks what a world run by people elected by blacks would be like."
ReplyDeleteIs this one of your 'original thoughts'? Have you been tested for retardation? If not, you should be.
Gee, guess what, blacks voters have elected white candidates forever, even when there were black candidates running.
SSABMUD!
orlin sellers
Andrew Breitbart. Still Dead.
ReplyDeleteJadegold. Still Alive.
Mikeb. Your point?
Deleteorlin, honey, you're the one who called the president, "spearchucker", not me. As I said the other day, it's possible that you're too stupid to know that you're a racist.
ReplyDelete"And you, Democommie, are persistently stupid about what is a lie and what is an interpretation. A conclusion based on ample evidence and on the stated hatred of firearms felt on your side is reasonable, and I'd be a fool not to draw it."
Aw, Greggie, an interpretation is one of these things:
'interpretation [ɪnˌtɜːprɪˈteɪʃən]
n
1. the act or process of interpreting or explaining; elucidation
2. the result of interpreting; an explanation
3. a particular view of an artistic work, esp as expressed by stylistic individuality in its performance
4. explanation, as of the environment, a historical site, etc., provided by the use of original objects, personal experience, visual display material, etc.
5. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic an allocation of significance to the terms of a purely formal system, by specifying ranges for the variables, denotations for the individual constants, etc.; a function from the formal language to such elements of a possible world
interpretational adj."
according to this source (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/interpretation)
and, oddly enough, none of them says anything about telling a deliberate falsehood--after having been repeatedly informed as to its falseness. That sort of thing is, however defined reasonably clearly as a fucking LIE.
I am puzzled that someone who claims to be an authority on the English language can be so obtuse on its everyday usage. Well, I'n not really--that bit was just sort of a snide remark. It's really okay with me if you tell LIES all the time. I hope it's okay with you that you're being called a "LIAR" instead of an "interpreter". I think, btw, when you use the word, "interpret" that you should be using the word, "infer"; although I hasten to add that Mikeb302000's posts and comments do not imply that his prescription for limiting the carnage includes indiscriminate confiscation of privately held firearms. So, you can choose to "infer", wrongly, if you like. Since you've been told, repeatedly, that you're simply LYING when you assert that mikeb302000's "mission" is to eliminate private ownership of firearms (as recently as 48 hours ago, by mikeb302000) and bearing in mind the principle of "Occam's razor" (lex parsimoniae) I'm gonna have to go with the "LYING" thing, where your comments of such a nature are concerned.
I'm not like allathem good KKKristians who "Love the sinner, hate the sin.", I'm more like a, "Despise the LIAR, debunk the LIE", sortaguy. Carry on whining.
Democommie, take a pill and calm down. If you can prove that I've made a statement of fact that I knew to be false, I'll go away and never return. Note that you can't do that. You keep calling me a liar, but you offer no evidence. You quote the dictionary, while failing to understand that #2 and #4 apply to what I do with regard to your side's intentions. But keep ranting. You're doing us lots of good.
DeleteOh, dear, Greggie wants me to calm down, 'cuz I'm callin' him a LIAR. See, Greggie, thing is, you keep sayin' shit that simply ISN'T true. mikeb302000 has told you, several times that he is not in favor of taking everyone's gunz away. You continue, after having been informed of mikeb302000's actual stance on firearms control issues that he IS in favor of confiscating all private firearms. So, either you're too stupid to read plain english, LYING through your teeth or, and this is certainly possible, calling mikeb302000 a liar. So, which is it or you an idiot or a LIAR (I'm not ruling out that you're both).
DeleteIt's really pretty simple, chum. Stop telling lies and labelling them, afterwards as "interpretations" or "opinions". I don't actually give a flying fuck what you do, calling you a LIAR or an idiot is pretty much the only choice I see, given your indignorance and dishonesty.
Oh, btw, Greggie, your #2 and #4 defenses? horseshit.
ReplyDeleteYou don't like what mikeb302000 suggests so you LIE. Find the quote wherein mikeb302000 says that he wants to confiscate alla your penis substitutes, bring it back and show it to the rest of the class.
I think that Mikeb is unrealistic about his proposals. As far as I can tell, he wishes that guns didn't exist. He wants a dense web of regulations that would make private ownership all but impossible. He doesn't trust gun owners. But he says that he doesn't want to ban guns.
DeleteDemocommie, if you insist that we all must take whatever anyone says at face value, I have some land east of Daytona to sell you.
Greg, you're beginning to piss me off with that shit. The gun regulations I've laid out would not deprive the responsible and fit gun owners of a thing. I've shown this over and over again, yet you keep purposely mischaracterizing what I say.
DeleteLicensing, registration, background checks, how in the hell is that going to disarm good people?
Mikeb, look at Washington, D.C. That city has the restrictions that you want. Go read the series of articles, "Emily Gets a Gun." They show just how hard it is to comply with the laws there. Private citizens don't get to carry a gun legally in the District, either. Transporting one to a shooting range requires all manner of difficulties. The list goes on.
DeleteYou haven't shown how your proposals wouldn't burden us. You've claimed that repeatedly, and we've shown you how you're wrong. But one man's burden is another man's reasonable regulation, I suppose. The bottom line is that when the government issues a license for the exercise of a right, the government can take that right away. When the government has a list, the government can come after the items on that list. Background checks aren't a bad idea, but I see a great potential for abuse. Those are important reasons why I can't support your proposals.