74 school shootings since Sandy Hook. More dead today.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's been proven that this thread's OP was bogus and fallacious, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM; hence, the digressions and asides served to enhance rather than degrade this thread's value, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

Bogus or fallacious? You can't have both, Mr. Redundancy!

Who proved that it was bogus? Who proved it fallacious? And how? Whirly's gun lobby blather? Try again! You're wrong for a change and making shit up again, Mr. Woolworth's GED scholar.

Besides, IBIdiot, you don't get to determine what enhances a thread's value. However, you ALWAYS manage to degrade it.

Finally, point out my lies in this thread. Indicate any cum-gobbling, as you so eloquently put it. Grow the fuck up or step the fuck off, asshole. You're a broken record.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

#1: The OP was "lying" only if you believe that parking lots, suicides, drug related killings at school, gang related killings at school, and many more word games are not REALLY school shootings. One poster on here even wants to discount a shooting if it was planned with high powered rifles from across the street "off school property" but still aimed at students.

Typical pathetic Gun Thumper BS (yes, it does qualify as Thumping, because some of you nuts take your guns as a religious experience, and as I have said on numerous occasions Thumping has nothing to do with WHICH religion someone is Thumping about.)

#2: You now advocate lies, deception, and hijacking as justified tools of your trade? No surprise, but just surprised that you admit it.

Only liars like you, Old Twerp, would even begin to try to claim that suicides, drug and gang violence, etc., are similar to what transpired at Sandy Hook.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Bogus or fallacious? You can't have both, Mr. Redundancy!

Who proved that it was bogus? Who proved it fallacious? And how? Whirly's gun lobby blather? Try again! You're wrong for a change and making shit up again, Mr. Woolworth's GED scholar.

Besides, IBIdiot, you don't get to determine what enhances a thread's value. However, you ALWAYS manage to degrade it.

Finally, point out my lies in this thread. Indicate any cum-gobbling, as you so eloquently put it. Grow the fuck up or step the fuck off, asshole. You're a broken record.

CNN says both of you moronic jackasses are full of hooey, and CNN says your OP is bogus and fallacious, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

A closer look: How many Newtown-like school shootings since Sandy Hook?

(CNN) -- After Tuesday's shooting at an Oregon high school, many media outlets, including CNN, reported that there have been 74 school shootings in the past 18 months.
That's the time period since the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were shot to death.

The statistic came from a group called Everytown for Gun Safety, an umbrella group started by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a passionate and public advocate of gun control.

Without a doubt, that number is startling.

So on Wednesday, CNN took a closer look at the list, delving into the circumstances of each incident Everytown included.
Everytown says on its web site that it gleans its information from media reports and that its list includes school shootings involving a firearm discharged inside or on school grounds, including assaults, homicides, suicides and accidental shootings.

CNN determined that [only] 15 of the incidents Everytown included were situations similar to the violence in Newtown or Oregon -- a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us...ber/index.html



BTW, "hasa diga", you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[Yssup Rider]

That doesn't debunk the statement, dick wipe. Nor does it change the fact or diminish the number of firearm incidents at schools since Sandy Hook.

That just says it's not the same kind of shooting as Sandy Hook.

why do you constantly try to justify your ignorant, racist, anti-American positions?

Does that make you more popular at the up home?

For a change, Corpy wallows in bullshit!

It looks like you're throwing out a big "TOUGH SHIT, IT WAS THE SHOOTER'S RIGHT" to all the families of the dead children.

Is that what you're doing, IBIdiot? Prove otherwise.

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Uh, WTF are you talking about? When did I say anything about Citizen's United?

Please provide the link to my post so I can try to remember professing a belief, as you put it.

Where did I whine about Heller? Again, post a link to my post whining about Heller.

You're making things up again, you dumb Okie!

It suits you.

So, since you appear to be trying to claim you weren't against the Citizen's United ruling or the Heller ruling, does that mean you support a corporation's right to free speech, and a citizen's right to be armed to defend themselves outside the home?? Don't want you to later claim you never supported those rulings, just like you are now claiming to have never been against them.

Or is this more of you changing position every time you are caught out?? Yep, changing position all the time does "suit you" Yssup.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

So, since you appear to be trying to claim you weren't against the Citizen's United ruling or the Heller ruling, does that mean you support a corporation's right to free speech, and a citizen's right to be armed to defend themselves outside the home?? Don't want you to later claim you never supported those rulings, just like you are now claiming to have never been against them.

Or is this more of you changing position every time you are caught out?? Yep, changing position all the time does "suit you" Yssup.

That's not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth and then asking me to defend them. I never was part of any of those discussions. So what's your point? Are you a used car salesman?

You're dumber than you write.

You never denied that you hated Negros, Mexicans and other khaki peoples. Please quote a previous post of yours indicating that you don't hate Negroes, Mexicans and other khaki peoples.

Fucking ignorant idiot!

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That's not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth and then asking me to defend them?

You're dumber than you write.

STFU while grown folks are talking, idiot!

"Grown folks talking"?? Is that what you call terms like "dick n wipe" or "Corp wallows in bullshit"?? Is that what I must devolve down to in order to join your "grown up talk" rather than facts and figures?

For the record, I asked if your position was to oppose the Citizen's United or Heller rulings and you claimed you'd never made such claims. Since i have no desire to wade through the muck and name calling you consider "grown folks talk", I asked if your claim that you never posted that you opposed those decisions meant you supported them. So, instead of me trying to guess, why don't you simply state, yes or no, do you support the Citizen's United and Heller decisions... with out all the B'S so called "grown up talk"??

[Yssup Rider]

For the record, you did NOT ask those questions until you accused me of supporting one side or ther other. You just assumed they were my position, and you shot your ignorant mouth off. it's pretty fucking plain for everybody to see, dipshit.

In other words, you got nothing.

Just making up shit.

WOW! Such a surprise.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The thing is Speedy, the last rulings are the ones that matter: e.g., DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. "The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states." (2010)

IDIOT. YOU LOST. Those cases only affected one's rights to own handguns INSIDE the home. SCOTUS refused to hear the case which would have allowed carrying of concealed guns OUTSIDE the home without a CHL. YOU LOST.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That is YOUR declared position, Speedy. YOU admitted YOU are voting for dim-retards -- YOUR representatives in government -- who seek to abridge the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, Speedy.

FINALLY, you got something right. If you interpret the 2nd Amendment as the right for ANYONE to carry ANY weapon at ANYTIME in ANYPLACE, then YES, I support those who will abridge that interpretation.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Quick question Speedy. How many Amendments in the Bill of Rights as originally passed when the country was founded. Or, said another way.. In what year was the 14th amendment ratified and made part of the Constitution? Here's a hint. The 14th Amendment was not passed in 1790 when the Constitution was officially ratified. So how do you claim the 14th Amendment somehow overrules or supercedes the Second??

14th Amendment was passed in 1868. It supersedes ANY prior amendment that it might affect.

Perfect example. The 18th Amendment, passed in 1918, outlawed alcohol. The 21st Amendment, passed in 1933, repealed the 18th Amendment. Which came first? Which one matters?

The Constitution was passed in 1790 as you said. The SOLE purpose of amendments to the Constitution are to overrule or supersede what was written, or not written, in the Constitution.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

FINALLY, you got something right. If you interpret the 2nd Amendment as the right for ANYONE to carry ANY weapon at ANYTIME in ANYPLACE, then YES, I support those who will abridge that interpretation.

What are you saying?!?! How can you possibly object to a skinhead with a fully automatic weapon and a sign that says "I'm here to help Darwin along" from walking across the street from a school? Haven't you been reading? Even if he DOES get off 80 or 200 rounds and kills a bunch if 6 year olds that's not REALLY a school shooting. And how dare you impinge upon his rights! Next thing you will want to do is limit his right to mount a GAU-8 on his car. You despicable heathen!

(Keep up the good fight--fortunately there is a greater concentration of Wackos here then in the real world.)

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

really? we all await Speedy to post ANY study that proves his point.

I don't have to prove anything. FACT -- the U.S. has at least double the homicides as other industrialized countries. Everything points to the income demographic as the reason why, income inequality to be exact. If you like, I will point out several articles which point this out.

To compare the U.S. to countries like South Africa and Jamaica and say "We aren't so bad off. Look at their homicide rates" is a ridiculous comparison.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

FINALLY, you got something right. If you interpret the 2nd Amendment as the right for ANYONE to carry ANY weapon at ANYTIME in ANYPLACE, then YES, I support those who will abridge that interpretation.

+1

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

IDIOT. YOU LOST. Those cases only affected one's rights to own handguns INSIDE the home. SCOTUS refused to hear the case which would have allowed carrying of concealed guns OUTSIDE the home without a CHL. YOU LOST.

What you stupidly fail to acknowledge, Speedy, is that those SC rulings ruled against laws that made it illegal to have guns in the home; thus, setting you and your ilk on your heels in your attempt to abridge the rights of other law-abiding American citizens. You lost, Speedy!

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

FINALLY, you got something right. If you interpret the 2nd Amendment as the right for ANYONE to carry ANY weapon at ANYTIME in ANYPLACE, then YES, I support those who will abridge that interpretation.

You're a liar, Speedy, because you constantly advocate for restrictions like those imposed on New Yorkers, and New York City gun owners are in a legal "Catch 22" situation: they can own a gun if they have a permit. They can have a permit if they prove they go to the range and practice, but then NY laws limit the gun owner's ability to transport their weapons to a range. So you can take your lib-retard restrictions and go screw yourself, Speedy.

Originally Posted by Old-T

What are you saying?!?! How can you possibly object to a skinhead with a fully automatic weapon and a sign that says "I'm here to help Darwin along" from walking across the street from a school? Haven't you been reading? Even if he DOES get off 80 or 200 rounds and kills a bunch if 6 year olds that's not REALLY a school shooting. And how dare you impinge upon his rights! Next thing you will want to do is limit his right to mount a GAU-8 on his car. You despicable heathen!

(Keep up the good fight--fortunately there is a greater concentration of Wackos here then in the real world.)

One day, Old Twerp, you should be so lucky as to meet this figment of your imagination so that he will make you right with the world, you stupid mope.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't have to prove anything. FACT -- the U.S. has at least double the homicides as other industrialized countries. Everything points to the income demographic as the reason why, income inequality to be exact. If you like, I will point out several articles which point this out.

To compare the U.S. to countries like South Africa and Jamaica and say "We aren't so bad off. Look at their homicide rates" is a ridiculous comparison.

In one post, Speedy, and in true, dim-retard style, you say the U.S. is demographically similar to other industrialized countries, and then you argue that the disparity in income makes the U.S. demographically unlike other industrialized countries.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

14th Amendment was passed in 1868. It supersedes ANY prior amendment that it might affect.

Perfect example. The 18th Amendment, passed in 1918, outlawed alcohol. The 21st Amendment, passed in 1933, repealed the 18th Amendment. Which came first? Which one matters?

The Constitution was passed in 1790 as you said. The SOLE purpose of amendments to the Constitution are to overrule or supersede what was written, or not written, in the Constitution.

You just underscored your stupidity, Speedy. The 14th Amendment didn't "supersede" any one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, Speedy, it "amended" the Constitution to make those amendments even more formidable: including the Second Amendment.

Further, Speedy, it's been primarily in the 20th century, since 1925, that the Supreme Court began to interpret the 14th Amendment as extending and making the Bill of Rights applicable to the states as well as to the federal government.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

+1

[Yssup Rider]

IBIdiot comes in, barfs on the board and stupidly, ignorantly, dumbly and falsely puts words on people's mouths without substantiation, reference or other redundancy, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND BLA BLA BLA.