Why is Using Guns to Kill Black People in Chicago Okay with Liberals.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

how did this get to a discussion about speeding above the speed limit???

Ask LexusLoser. He is the one who continually brings up posts from threads long gone.

The man obviously has some sort of man-crush on me. Out of nowhere he calls me out in post #32 in this thread bringing up some irrelevant, and incorrect, accusations. I certainly don't mind, other than I'm sure he's made derogatory comments about me in other threads in which I've never posted.

Let's move on and discuss the real issues in this thread.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Speedo, I promise I'm not "stoll debating" with you!!!!

Speedo, I'm actually not "debating" with you at all.

What's there to be "debating" about? That you are a LIAR?

Speedo, if being called a "LIAR" offends your tender sensibilities then I can provide you an option:

Any one who claims, like you did, that it is not against the law to exceed the posted speed limit UNLESS A POLICE OFFICER TELLS YOU IT'S AGAINST THE LAW ... is either ..

1. a LIAR, or

2. the DUMBEST MOTHER FUCKER ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

You pick!

Which ever one you "feel" gives you the most credibility on a hooker board! Don't make a shit to me!

May be WTF will be glad to "back you up"! He knows all about breaking laws and shit like that.

I don't mind being called a liar when it can be backed up with a mere scintilla of proof, which you have not provided, despite calling me a liar in this thread time after time.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't mind being called a liar when it can be backed up with a mere scintilla of proof, which you have not provided, despite calling me a liar in this thread time after time.

Oh, I don't have to prove anything to you! And even though you admitted you lied, you still deny it!

So, you're recanting your admission and therefore .... you ARE:

2. the DUMBEST MOTHER FUCKER ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

[garhkal]

Because a part of the discussion is about "the law" and violators of "the law." When you get some fool who actually believes ...

Quote:
"If the police accept me doing it then I don't consider it breaking the law."
... then compliance is a pipe dream.

Exactly lexus. JUST cause the dimwit cops are not enforcing it, doesn't mean its still against the law to do it.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Exactly lexus. JUST cause the dimwit cops are not enforcing it, doesn't mean its still against the law to do it.

If I read your last phrase ... you are agreeing with Speedo ...

... that as long as the cops don't see him violating laws it's not against the law for him to violate them!

You're not agreeing with that are you? If so, I'll tie to OP ...

... since the cops didn't tell Cruz not to go to the school and kill students it wasn't against the law for him to do so!!!!!!

According to Speedo's philosophy of criminal law! And he called me a "petty old man"???

According to the NSC there were about 40,000 auto accident deaths last year.

The cops didn't tell someone not to violate the provision of the traffic code that resulted in the collision that caused the death!!!! So no laws were violated in the killings!

Now, I'll address him again ... Speedo, you ARE:

2. the DUMBEST MOTHER FUCKER ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Oh, I don't have to prove anything to you! And even though you admitted you lied, you still deny it!

So, you're recanting your admission and therefore .... you ARE:

When did I say I lied????

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

If I read your last phrase ... you are agreeing with Speedo ...

... that as long as the cops don't see him violating laws it's not against the law for him to violate them!

You're not agreeing with that are you? If so, I'll tie to OP ...

... since the cops didn't tell Cruz not to go to the school and kill students it wasn't against the law for him to do so!!!!!!

According to Speedo's philosophy of criminal law! And he called me a "petty old man"???

According to the NSC there were about 40,000 auto accident deaths last year.

The cops didn't tell someone not to violate the provision of the traffic code that resulted in the collision that caused the death!!!! So no laws were violated in the killings!

Now, I'll address him again ... Speedo, you ARE:

You are so consistent. Everything you said about what I said regarding speeding is incorrect. No matter how many times I try to explain it to you, it seems you are too ignorant to understand.

The cops see me violating the posted speed limits so don't tell me they don't. I have been through MANY speed traps doing 5 miles over the posted speed limit. THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT IS NOT ENFORCED!! I have been told by EVERY police officer I have asked and they all say that I will NOT be pulled over for driving 5 MPH over the posted speed limit. In the eyes of the police who are empowered to enforce the law, I must not be breaking the law by going 5 MPH over the speed limit since they are condoning it.

I realize that this logic is a little too deep for you to understand so let's just drop the subject. You have your OPINION and I have my OPINION.

[skirtchaser79411]

THEY FUCKING KILL EACH OTHER move to chicago all the normal people stay out of the near west side
and englewood where it all goes down. it does not happen on the northside or wrigleyville or the southwest side where all the cops live

[Joslynn Smith]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Well, as I'm watching (it's hard to actually listen to her) Pelosi run her cum bucket of a mouth about "gun control," it occurred to me that if the Liberals really CARED ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE and really CARED ABOUT GATHERING UP ALL THE GUNS THAT KILL PEOPLE then Chicago would be a great place to begin:

#1: It's a Liberal stronghold and there would be much political push back, and

#2: Rumor has it they all ready have "strong" anti-gun laws locally and statewide, AND

#3: The local politicians are buddies with Obaminable AND are opposed to 2nd Amendment rights, so it really wouldn't be problem for them to start beating on doors and picking up all the guns.

But .... I suspect THE REAL REASON they don't is:

It won't work to stop the killing. It hasn't any where else in the WORLD!

I also don't expect any of the whining, little anti-gun bitches posting in here to "weigh in" on the subject, for the same reason! IT WILL PROVE THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT with their "NO GUN" policy push.

You're comparing apples to oranges. I am not anti gun but I am anti people owning assault riffles. Why do you need a weapon designed to kill a massive amount of people in split seconds? Also since you gave the lame analogy, I feel compelled to leave you with this one. "If conservatives treated school shootings like uterus' - maybe then they'd care about all the children dying inside them..." This is my first post. Is it too soon to make an abortion joke? ��

ETA- I'm not sure why my picture is at the bottom of my post. Is it supposed to be there? Be kind, I'm still learning.

[Yssup Rider]

Welcome to the forum. Don’t step in the Dipshits...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Joslynn Smith

I am not anti gun but I am anti people owning assault riffles. Why do you need a weapon designed to kill a massive amount of people in split seconds?

Primarily, the response is as to "Why do you need...."

#1: If that is directed personally toward me, I don't NEED a weapon "to kill ... people" and I don't know of "a weapon" that is legally sold to the general public that will "kill a massive amount of people in a split second," unless it perhaps is a modified pressure cooker, but if you do, please enlighten me.

#2: My studious, long term, and critical reading and research on the Constitutional right "to bear arms" has no provision in it for ANYONE to restrict the possession (or acquisition) of a FIREARM based on a 3rd party's evaluation of "need"! The only application for the word "need" might be that private citizens have THE RIGHT to possess firearms in the event the GOVERNMENT creates A NEED for private citizens to have firearms by overstepping the GOVERNMENT'S BOUNDS set for by the Constitution and the Amendments thereto.

Your picture appearing in your post is a refreshing addition.

Porque eres una mujer atractiva con un cuerpo encantador, tambien!

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by Joslynn Smith

You're comparing apples to oranges. I am not anti gun but I am anti people owning assault riffles. Why do you need a weapon designed to kill a massive amount of people in split seconds?.

You sound like you are spouting nonsense.. AN AR-15 is NOT designed to kill masses of people in a split second. THEY ARE JUST THE SAME SINGLE SHOT-SINGLE PULL OF THE TRIGGER weapons as a Browning 9MM or glock 22 pistol are.. YES they can be carrying MORE ammo in the mag than a 9mm could, if one has full 30 round mags..
BUT THAT IS NOT making them an assault weapon..

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by blueandgreen

I'm not gathering much in the way of coherency in your response, but I'll take a crack at a response anyway.

What are you trying to prove with this line of thinking? If you take it to its logical conclusion, are you advocating for stricter gun control or just trying to point at the liberals and say, "Gotcha!" It certainly seems like the latter. The gotcha moment doesn't mean anything in this context. You are just outraged to redirect attention from how little moral ground you stand on.

For someone with only 33 posts you are amazingly perceptive about LL.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

As an NRA member, CHL holder and gun owner I'd like to dispel the myth that the NRA wants crazy people and criminals to own guns.

We don't.

We want the current gun laws enforced before more are tacked on. Also, we want the current background check database accurately and timely updated.
Hard to argue with either of those points. And I agree that most NRA members I know are generally same and rational. But some of their leaders/lobbyists are less so, just as is the case with most union members vice some of their leaders/lobbyists.


It is pathetic that the NRA and lawful gun owners are being portrayed as wanting tragic school shootings. But it was OK for Obama and Holder to walk guns into Mexican drug cartels.

f more NRA members and gun owners (which I also am) would speak up as you did and push for sane enforcement--including funding for such--that is the beast way I can think of to correct how they are being represented.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by blueandgreen

I'm not gathering much in the way of coherency in your response, .....

You're from the "Midwest"?

Check with Old-T, he gets his "inside" information from camera crews while he is in "D.C." ..... errr..... whatever he pretends do to there! He'll probably know all about "it" .... he's "connected"! Just ask him.

I think he predicted HillariousNoMore's landslide victory, also.