JOHN KERRY CLAIMS ARMS TRADE TREATY WILL NOT “DIMINISH FREEDOM”

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Nice talk, rio.

Yssup you are truly a disturbed individual.
Are you that far off plumb ? Can you not see the irony in that you call out others for the very same thing that you do ? Maybe it is not hypocrisy but lunacy instead.
You need some help little buddy. Have you talked to anyone about these seperate identities that haunt you ? There must be a war inside your head. Any therapy or meds brother ?
You do have Obamenajihad Care now. It's what you wanted, you may as well make use of the care available to you.

[Yssup Rider]

LMAO @ SLOBBRIN LITE!

Psst... Spend a little time working on your "not posting like an illiterate ignorant fuck" skills. maybe you'll learn how to engage in EXCIE debate (ahem) without the unpleasant and vulgar outbursts of anger.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

maybe [sic] you'll learn how to engage in EXCIE [sic] debate (ahem) without the unpleasant and vulgar outbursts of anger.

Hilarious coming from you, insofar as you exhibit the same traits....

Additionally, from Wikipedia:

The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")[1] inserted immediately after a quoted word or passage, indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous or archaic spelling, surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription.
The notation's usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in quoted material do not arise from errors in the course of the transcription, but are intentionally reproduced, exactly as they appear in the source text. It is generally placed inside square brackets, to signal that it is not part of the quoted matter; and is traditionally printed in italics, as is customary with foreign words.
Sic may also be used derisively, to call attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes or erroneous logic.[2]

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Hilarious coming from you(sic), insofar as you exhibit the same traits....(sic)

additionally(sic), from Wikipedia(sic)

The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")[1] inserted immediately after a quoted word or passage, indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous or archaic spelling, surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription.
The notation's usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in quoted material do not arise from errors in the course of the transcription, but are intentionally reproduced, exactly as they appear in the source text. It is generally placed inside square brackets, to signal that it is not part of the quoted matter; and is traditionally printed in italics, as is customary with foreign words.
Sic may also be used derisively, to call attention to the original writer's spelling mistakes or erroneous logic.[2]

Do YOU really want to start that shit, IBHomo? Stick with calling other men "faggot." It's your safest bet.

You can't even post a superficial thread about someone's typos without committing typos yourself.

What does that make you, IBHomo?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Do YOU really want to start that shit, IBHomo? Stick with calling other men "faggot." It's your safest bet.

You can't even post a superficial thread about someone's typos without committing typos yourself.

What does that make you, IBHomo?

Please advise on where I have typos on what I wrote in post # 48 above...faggot.

Also, it wasn't about your typos. It was about your comments concerning someone else and their unpleasant vulgar outbursts and anger.

[Yssup Rider]

No comma at first "sic," use of four ellipses rather than the correct three at second "sic," no capitalization of sentence's first word at third "sic" and absence of colon at fourth "sic."

But if it wasn't about that, then why did you waste everybody's time with your niggling little post? Doesn't matter. You put your foot in your mouth yet again. And, you browned additional attention to rioseco's inability to debate without losing his temper and blurting out vulgarity and rudeness. I suppose he should thank you for that.

Here's your ass, fool. Be happy I didn't kick it with my bare fists!

Now is the time when you normally get angry and lose your cool, Dr. Banner.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No comma at first "sic," use of four ellipses rather than the correct three at second "sic," no capitalization of sentence's first word at third "sic" and absence of colon at fourth "sic."

But if it wasn't about that, then why did you waste everybody's time with your niggling little post? Doesn't matter. You put your foot in your mouth yet again. And, you browned additional attention to rioseco's inability to debate without losing his temper and blurting out vulgarity and rudeness. I suppose he should thank you for that.

Here's your ass, fool. Be happy I didn't kick it with my bare fists!

Now is the time when you normally get angry and lose your cool, Dr. Banner.

I do not concur..............faggot

[Yssup Rider]

Is that all you got? Calling me a faggot?

LMAO @ thoroughly whipped Fraud Flintstone!

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is that all you got? Calling me a faggot?

LMAO @ thoroughly whipped Fraud Flintstone!

Nig%$& please!

[Yssup Rider]

Oh, NOW you're calling me a Sch/)$&:a?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Oh, NOW you're calling me a Sch/)$&:a?

It was the urban street vernacular version of saying, "Gimme a break", perhaps combined with "up yours".

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by rioseco

Apples to oranges ? Definetely not so.

Cars,bats,knives,hammers, bricks and firearms do not kill people. No matter how you would slice it up. No matter how you would segregate it. People kill people, either consciencely or accidentally it does not matter.

If we were trying to compare firearms,cancer and heart attack deaths then you would have legitimate apples and oranges defense. Stop the denial, accept it for what it is.

Everything you mentioned except for cars are used to kill INTENTIONALLY. Cars kill by ACCIDENT. Apples and oranges. Sorry you don't see that distinction.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Everything you mentioned except for cars are used to kill INTENTIONALLY. Cars kill by ACCIDENT. Apples and oranges. Sorry you don't see that distinction.

Brother Speedy, dead is dead !
Your idea is like saying since car accidents are a not homocide we will no longer enforce traffic laws and mandate seat belts. After all, MOST deaths by vehichle are accidental.

But.....we need tighter controls because guns kill people and the deaths are usually intentional.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by rioseco

Brother Speedy, dead is dead !
Your idea is like saying since car accidents are a not homocide we will no longer enforce traffic laws and mandate seat belts. After all, MOST deaths by vehichle are accidental.

But.....we need tighter controls because guns kill people and the deaths are usually intentional.

Again, this is a thread on 2nd Amendment rights. You brought automobile deaths into the discussion and I don't think is is an applicable comparison. I was simply responding to a post on one person's opinion that there should be no gun control or minimal gun control. I disagree and point out how many homicides by handgun we have in the U.S., far more per capita than any similar country and yet we have far more guns per capita.

Your last sentence presents the problem we have IMHO. Handgun homicides in the U.S. are ridiculously high. Agree or disagree? So what can be done to reduce that number? The simple answers are more gun control or more guns on the street, depending on which side of the fence you sit. To me neither will work.

[rioseco]

Guns on the street would indicate guns possessed illegally by criminals. I am against that of course. However there are already tons of laws on the books, both federal,state and municipal that outlaw this. If criminals pay no mind to a thousand laws, do you figure that one thousand more will deter their illegal acts involving firearms. No it will not.
The Second Amendment is not a contract to be renegotiated at any time by anyone. None of the amendments are. Anti-gunners don't like death comparisons in the gun argument because it is common sense. Liberals act out of emotion and their desire to control the acts and destiny of others.

Thank you for your unselfish decision to give up even a smidgeon of your freedoms for the "greater good". Free men refuse such lunacy and will fight it at every turn.