Shame on you, mikeb302000. You know that Stewart and Costas and, and, and anyone else that HATEZ TEH GUNZ AND WANTS TO CONFISCATE ALL OF THEM FROM EVERYBODY are just media whores and paid agents of the Sorobamaborg! Why can't we have some fair and balanced reporting on the issues from decent, GOD fearin' MurKKKans like Seannie and Teddyteabagz and Friends of FuckTheNews'Corpse and Greta VanSusteren, and Laure Ingraham and allathem other selfless, hardworkin' professionals that work tirelessly for next to nothin', just to the REAL unvarnished truth out!!
Everyone knows that gun owners wear seat belts because they are looking to crash into someone, not to protect themselves from someone driving on the freeway at 75mph while texting.
Your "analogy" has, near as I can tell, nothing to do with the Stewart video. Yup; just finished watching it again and didn't see any mention of automobiles, never mind seatbelts.
People are free to talk about any subject they wish, and we're free to disagree. That's America. That's the individual right to free expression. (Aimed at E.N. there.) What the gun control freaks are learning here is that they have little support in this country.
Greg, didn't you watch the video. The gun-rights folks don't seem to agree with your assessment of America. They want to silence people like Bloomberg because he spoke too soon or because some of his fellow-mayors are white collar criminals or any other excuse they can think of.
I did watch the video. Bloomingbutt isn't just speaking. He's the mayor of a city that all but bans good citizens from owning firearms legally. He wants new laws to push the same rules on the whole country. That's more than just expressing an opinion.
And yes, Mayors Against Guns is filled with corrupt politicians. There are enough felons in that group to make me think that they want to keep me from having a gun because it would be unfair for me to have something that the law bars them from having.
Actually, yes, it's quite simple and easy to read, just as you are, quite simple and easy to read.
You had no point, shit for brains. You strung a number of words together and thought, "Fuck, this is AWESOME, I need to hit send, before the drool shorts out the keyboard.
"And you want an honest debate on the subject after a post full of drivel barely worthy of Jr. High school?"
I can't say what they write in Jr. High these days, Jim, all of my friends are adults. As for an "honest debate" that will never happen when gunzloonz like Greggie and Orloony deliberatley lie about the desires of people who want some sort of sane and sensible regulations re: firearms possession and call them gunzhaterz and confiscaterz. Sorry, bub, you're side started the pissing contest.
BTW, that NRA Kool-Aid that Weenie's been havin' alla you fellers drink--does it taste a little, y'know, "yeasty?".
Democommie, I recall trying to be civil here when I first started visiting. That was until you and Laci and Dog Gone demonstrated that civil discourse with your side is largely impossible.
Once again, you claim that I lie. You have yet to prove that, but I'll address what you're trying to say here. I do believe that the gun control side wants to eliminate all privately owned firearms. You may deny that, but any rational person who looks at the totality of proposals offered here would come to the conclusion that hardly anyone would be able to own a gun legally under that system. Making something legal, but so hard to obtain that few can do it may not be, strictly speaking, a ban, but it's close enough for everyday use.
On another point, two persons convinced me to be in favor of gun rights. One was a student whose argument essay on the subject quoted such Constitutional law scholars as Laurence Tribe of Harvard saying that if one right in the Bill of Rights can be ignored, all of them can. The other was a colleague. He's as left-wing economically as Dog Gone. Note that Wayne LaPierre isn't one of those two.
Seriously, potty mouth with a diaper on, you can't understand that people carry for the same reason they use seat belts. One can only conclude you are still in the larval stage of mental development.
We talked about guns twenty years ago. Talked us into allowing an assault weapons ban, and a bunch of other communist infringements on citizens' rights. Gave it ten years, didn't do a single bit of good, not a single life saved. NOT ONE. We're not talking about guns any more, everything's been said and you were proven to be wrong, as usual. Discussion is permanently over.
Shame on you, mikeb302000. You know that Stewart and Costas and, and, and anyone else that HATEZ TEH GUNZ AND WANTS TO CONFISCATE ALL OF THEM FROM EVERYBODY are just media whores and paid agents of the Sorobamaborg! Why can't we have some fair and balanced reporting on the issues from decent, GOD fearin' MurKKKans like Seannie and Teddyteabagz and Friends of FuckTheNews'Corpse and Greta VanSusteren, and Laure Ingraham and allathem other selfless, hardworkin' professionals that work tirelessly for next to nothin', just to the REAL unvarnished truth out!!
ReplyDeleteAnd you want an honest debate on the subject after a post full of drivel barely worthy of Jr. High school?
DeleteThe Obama Culture is making Stewart look stupid.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows that gun owners wear seat belts because they are looking to crash into someone, not to protect themselves from someone driving on the freeway at 75mph while texting.
orlin sellers
Orloon:
ReplyDeleteYu rilly need tu git yur nekboltz titend, dood!
Your "analogy" has, near as I can tell, nothing to do with the Stewart video. Yup; just finished watching it again and didn't see any mention of automobiles, never mind seatbelts.
WTF do you smoke? a '75 Ford Pinto?
DC, sorryyouaretoostupidtounderstandthepointIwasmakingyoushouldhavenoproblemreadingthissinceitisinyourlanguageofnotknowinghowtouseakeyboardcorrectlyorhowtospeelorhowtoseparatewords.
Deleteorlin sellers
People are free to talk about any subject they wish, and we're free to disagree. That's America. That's the individual right to free expression. (Aimed at E.N. there.) What the gun control freaks are learning here is that they have little support in this country.
ReplyDeleteGreg, didn't you watch the video. The gun-rights folks don't seem to agree with your assessment of America. They want to silence people like Bloomberg because he spoke too soon or because some of his fellow-mayors are white collar criminals or any other excuse they can think of.
DeleteI did watch the video. Bloomingbutt isn't just speaking. He's the mayor of a city that all but bans good citizens from owning firearms legally. He wants new laws to push the same rules on the whole country. That's more than just expressing an opinion.
DeleteAnd yes, Mayors Against Guns is filled with corrupt politicians. There are enough felons in that group to make me think that they want to keep me from having a gun because it would be unfair for me to have something that the law bars them from having.
You are going to a comedian to support your position now? wow..
ReplyDeleteHe's more than a comedian.
DeleteOrloonz:
ReplyDeleteActually, yes, it's quite simple and easy to read, just as you are, quite simple and easy to read.
You had no point, shit for brains. You strung a number of words together and thought, "Fuck, this is AWESOME, I need to hit send, before the drool shorts out the keyboard.
"And you want an honest debate on the subject after a post full of drivel barely worthy of Jr. High school?"
I can't say what they write in Jr. High these days, Jim, all of my friends are adults. As for an "honest debate" that will never happen when gunzloonz like Greggie and Orloony deliberatley lie about the desires of people who want some sort of sane and sensible regulations re: firearms possession and call them gunzhaterz and confiscaterz. Sorry, bub, you're side started the pissing contest.
BTW, that NRA Kool-Aid that Weenie's been havin' alla you fellers drink--does it taste a little, y'know, "yeasty?".
Democommie, I recall trying to be civil here when I first started visiting. That was until you and Laci and Dog Gone demonstrated that civil discourse with your side is largely impossible.
DeleteOnce again, you claim that I lie. You have yet to prove that, but I'll address what you're trying to say here. I do believe that the gun control side wants to eliminate all privately owned firearms. You may deny that, but any rational person who looks at the totality of proposals offered here would come to the conclusion that hardly anyone would be able to own a gun legally under that system. Making something legal, but so hard to obtain that few can do it may not be, strictly speaking, a ban, but it's close enough for everyday use.
On another point, two persons convinced me to be in favor of gun rights. One was a student whose argument essay on the subject quoted such Constitutional law scholars as Laurence Tribe of Harvard saying that if one right in the Bill of Rights can be ignored, all of them can. The other was a colleague. He's as left-wing economically as Dog Gone. Note that Wayne LaPierre isn't one of those two.
Seriously, potty mouth with a diaper on, you can't understand that people carry for the same reason they use seat belts. One can only conclude you are still in the larval stage of mental development.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
We talked about guns twenty years ago. Talked us into allowing an assault weapons ban, and a bunch of other communist infringements on citizens' rights. Gave it ten years, didn't do a single bit of good, not a single life saved. NOT ONE. We're not talking about guns any more, everything's been said and you were proven to be wrong, as usual. Discussion is permanently over.
ReplyDeleteHow would you possibly know if not a single life was saved? Stop repeating the NRA talking points and think. You cannot prove a negative like that.
Delete