Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Now in typical fashion he will spew some nonsensical phlegm about me because I pointed out his pattern--even though it has been obvious to all sentient posters for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
What's noteworthy, Old-Twerp, is how your ignorant-ass chooses to ignore the number of posts made by your lib-retarded consorts while ignorantly trying to make a straw man issue out of the number of posts.
Poor old IB. So predictable. So myopic. So missing the forest for the grass, much less the trees.
You're a liar, Speedy! You've already endorsed the very restrictive gun control measures in New York and New Jersey, and you're on record for allowing more restrictive laws where the existing laws don't meet with your ignorant approval, Speedy:
Never said otherwise about NY. They have gun control laws and enforcement of those laws that seem to be working. Have never said anything about NJ other than the law suit being brought forward. I do think it is very possible that the CHL law in NJ could be too restrictive. However, your statement was "You ignorantly demand more laws and restrictions." And I repeat, find ANYWHERE, where I have asked for more laws and restrictions. You are so dumb you don't even know what you've written.
Another ridiculous quote from IBANIDIOT:
Meanwhile Speedy, you leave it up in the air as to "who" determines "what" basic understanding "means", and you are on the record as insisting such laws be put in place where they do not exist.
Your sentence is so grammatically incorrect that I find it very difficult to understand. States are given much latitude in creating laws concerning gun control. Very few gun control laws are federally driven. If people find the laws in affect to be possibly unconstitutional, they have the right to fight the laws in our court system. And again, I challenge you to back up your statement "you are on the record as insisting such laws be put in place where they do not exist."
Yes, I most certainly did make this statement, and I stand beside this and the other statements you cited:
"I disagree 100% with Wyoming not requiring CHLs to those who want to carry concealed handguns."
But to interpret this and the other statements as insisting that Wyoming re-institutes a law requiring a CHL to carry a concealed handgun is a stretch that only an idiot like you could make. Wyoming has the freedom to do away with their law requiring CHLs. I could not care less what the state of Wyoming does or does not do. I fully support laws that are on the books, but whether I agree with them is totally different. Hopefully that is a distinction that even you our resident IDIOT can understand.
Never said otherwise about NY. They have gun control laws and enforcement of those laws that seem to be working. Have never said anything about NJ other than the law suit being brought forward. I do think it is very possible that the CHL law in NJ could be too restrictive. However, your statement was "You ignorantly demand more laws and restrictions." And I repeat, find ANYWHERE, where I have asked for more laws and restrictions. You are so dumb you don't even know what you've written.
Another ridiculous quote from IBANIDIOT:
Meanwhile Speedy, you leave it up in the air as to "who" determines "what" basic understanding "means", and you are on the record as insisting such laws be put in place where they do not exist.
Your sentence is so grammatically incorrect that I find it very difficult to understand. States are given much latitude in creating laws concerning gun control. Very few gun control laws are federally driven. If people find the laws in affect to be possibly unconstitutional, they have the right to fight the laws in our court system. And again, I challenge you to back up your statement "you are on the record as insisting such laws be put in place where they do not exist."
Yes, I most certainly did make this statement, and I stand beside this and the other statements you cited:
"I disagree 100% with Wyoming not requiring CHLs to those who want to carry concealed handguns."
But to interpret this and the other statements as insisting that Wyoming re-institutes a law requiring a CHL to carry a concealed handgun is a stretch that only an idiot like you could make. Wyoming has the freedom to do away with their law requiring CHLs. I could not care less what the state of Wyoming does or does not do. I fully support laws that are on the books, but whether I agree with them is totally different. Hopefully that is a distinction that even you our resident IDIOT can understand.
You're a lying SOB, Speedy, your remarks delineating your POV supporting more laws and favoring laws such as those in New York and New Jersey were directly quoted! BTW, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that the states cannot abridge that right. And everyone knows you lack reading skills, Speedy. That's evident from your ignorant misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.
You're a lying SOB, Speedy, your remarks delineating your POV supporting more laws and favoring laws such as those in New York and New Jersey were directly quoted! BTW, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that the states cannot abridge that right. And everyone knows you lack reading skills, Speedy. That's evident from your ignorant misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.
Prove it. Show me the exact statements I made INSISTING or even ASKING FOR additional laws to be instituted. That certainly is not found in any of the statements you cited in your last note . I distinctly said I "disagreed" with Wyoming doing away with the CHL requirement. NOWHERE did I ask for it to be reinstituted IDIOT.
Second, I've told you from Day 1, it does NOT matter at all how YOU interpret the 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment I'm sure that each of the 50 states has at least a handful of gun control laws in affect in their state. You not only lack reading skills but also the inability to understand reality in the U.S. as it relates to gun control laws.
Prove it. Show me the exact statements I made INSISTING or even ASKING FOR additional laws to be instituted. That certainly is not found in any of the statements you cited in your last note . I distinctly said I "disagreed" with Wyoming doing away with the CHL requirement. NOWHERE did I ask for it to be reinstituted IDIOT.
Second, I've told you from Day 1, it does NOT matter at all how YOU interpret the 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment I'm sure that each of the 50 states has at least a handful of gun control laws in affect in their state. You not only lack reading skills but also the inability to understand reality in the U.S. as it relates to gun control laws.
You were correctly quoted at #165, Speedy; wherein, you made it obvious you are for more laws restricting the right of citizens to bear arms. BTW, Speedy, you never commented on the eleven shootings in Chicago Saturday night ... do you ignorantly think the shooters had CHL permits, Speedy?
You were correctly quoted at #165, Speedy; wherein, you made it obvious you are for more laws restricting the right of citizens to bear arms. BTW, Speedy, you never commented on the eleven shootings in Chicago Saturday night ... do you ignorantly think the shooters had CHL permits, Speedy?
First, IDIOT, I did not comment on the shootings in Chicago because your citing of the article was totally irrelevant. This is a discussion on whether or not states have the right to implement laws requiring a CHL to carry a concealed handgun. Whether or not the shooters had CHL permits is 100% irrelevant. I would bet the ranch that the answer is no. How does that change anything in this discussion?
And I NEVER said I was not correctly quoted by you in #165. But what you can't understand is that NOWHERE in any of those statements am I insisting or asking for additional gun control laws be put into place. Once again, back up your statements. So far you've been unable to do so. Can't show me where I support more laws such as those in NY and NJ. Can't show me where I ever said I've supported Obama's gun control proposals. Can't show me where I support Nancy Pelosi or other Democrats simply because I voted for Obama. Can't show me where I've ever said that criminals do not follow the law. The list goes on and on of statements that you've attributed to me that you simply have fabricated in your own mind. IDIOT.
First, IDIOT, I did not comment on the shootings in Chicago because your citing of the article was totally irrelevant. This is a discussion on whether or not states have the right to implement laws requiring a CHL to carry a concealed handgun. Whether or not the shooters had CHL permits is 100% irrelevant. I would bet the ranch that the answer is no. How does that change anything in this discussion?
And I NEVER said I was not correctly quoted by you in #165. But what you can't understand is that NOWHERE in any of those statements am I insisting or asking for additional gun control laws be put into place. Once again, back up your statements. So far you've been unable to do so. Can't show me where I support more laws such as those in NY and NJ. Can't show me where I ever said I've supported Obama's gun control proposals. Can't show me where I support Nancy Pelosi or other Democrats simply because I voted for Obama. Can't show me where I've ever said that criminals do not follow the law. The list goes on and on of statements that you've attributed to me that you simply have fabricated in your own mind. IDIOT.
Your position is that more laws and regulations are the fantasy solution to assuage your paranoia, Speedy; so, the shootings in Chicago Saturday night are relevant because they illustrate just how ignorant your POV -- as quoted in #165 -- is, Speedy.
Your position is that more laws and regulations are the fantasy solution to assuage your paranoia, Speedy; so, the shootings in Chicago Saturday night are relevant because they illustrate just how ignorant your POV -- as quoted in #165 -- is, Speedy.
Uh-oh. Your stupidity is showing again. Can't prove me wrong as I can you, so now I'm paranoid. All you have to do is show me one statement I've made that supports your statements about me. And you can't do it. Chicago is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. IDIOT.
It's your stated position that you are afraid of other citizens -- obvious paranoia -- exercising their Second Amendment rights, Speedy.
Finally got something right. A very minor point when compared to all the other allegations you've made about me and my beliefs. Wrong everywhere else but yes, I worry that people who own handguns do not know what they are doing when they use them. Just recently (10/13/2013) a man (Fred Yazdi) who lives about 5 miles from me was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Middle of the night and he hears someone outside on his property. Goes out and shoots the guy 3 times, killing him. Did not understand that he was not allowed to shoot someone who was simply on his property. He will have a long time to ponder his lack of knowledge of the law when using a handgun for his "protection".
So yes, I want people who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, a right that I largely agree with but not without restrictions at times, to understand, for not only my safety but for their own safety, how and when to use their weapon.
(Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims. Videos linked or embedded may contain foul language and violence.)
Ten years ago, the media in Louisville, Ky., could have gotten away with reporting this weekend’s events this way: A group of 10 “roving teens got into a fight with two girls … then it happened a few more times over two hours.”
But now, less than 24 hours after a mob of 30 black people roamed through the city’s downtown Saturday, beating, laughing, destroying property, sending three seriously hurt people to the hospital and walking away laughing, outraged citizens in Louisville are asking two questions: Why is black mob violence such a problem? And when is local media going to start telling the truth about it?
Samantha Craven saw one of the attacks: “I seriously just witnessed a man get beat (almost) to death on Broadway right by 4th street live,” she wrote at the WAVE-TV News site. “He was jumped by AT LEAST 30 kids!! There was blood everywhere. … This is the craziest s— I’ve ever seen in my life! I’m shaking. … I wanna cry.”
Later, via email, Craven described the attackers as black and added, “As we drove away, we noticed the group still walking laughing and carrying on a few blocks down.”
WHAS-TV News described one of the assaults as a “fight.” But it was hardly that.
“It was a group of black teens,” said Craig Roberts of Louisville. “Wonder why they won’t mention that.”
Black mobs routinely terrorize cities across the country, but the media and government are silent. Read the detailed account of rampant racial crime in “White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.”
The first beat-down happened at the popular Big Four Bridge, a converted railroad trestle that is now a bike and pedestrian attraction at the recently redeveloped Louisville Waterfront Park area.
Amy Reid described what happened to her father, mother and children.
“These incidents actually started around 7 p.m. when these vicious little hoodlums attacked my 61-year-old father on the Big Four Bridge, in front of my mother and two small children, while they screamed for help and he pleaded for them to stop,” Reid posted in the comments section of the Louisville Courier-Journal. “Bystanders just stood and watched it happen, no one would help. Louisville Metro Police arrived and would not let them file a report and would not help them get off the bridge to their car safely! My girls are still traumatized and cannot understand why someone would want to hurt their grandpa.”
Reid’s family had to walk past their laughing attackers to return to their car.
Some of the violence took place in and around the parking lot of the Courier-Journal. The black mob vandalized several cars there. It is not clear if anyone was working at the Courier-Journal then, because the newspaper added few details of the violence to its initial reports.
Or if the editors knew, they did not say.
Former Louisville Police Detective Dale Rhodes has a hunch which it is. He took to Facebook to put the racial violence in perspective after the paper removed his initial comments. Black-on-white crime is a fact of life in Louisville, he says. As is its denial.
“Over a period of about five weeks (I think in the summer of 1990) there were at least 20 incidents where white people were assaulted by a gang of blacks numbering anywhere from 5 to 15,” Rhodes wrote. “Many of the victims were severely beaten, some left for dead and others left with life-long, career-ending injuries. All the incidents involved black-on-white crime, every single one. Yet we were ordered, if asked, to tell reporters and the media there was no evidence to indicate these crimes were racially motivated. I personally witnessed commanding officers being far less than truthful with the media regarding these incidents.”
Even a cursory check of Google reveals the black mob violence and black-on-white crime in Louisville never really stopped since then.
“The incidents to which I refer are just the tip of the iceberg,” said the former police officer.
Writing in the Louisville Examiner in 2011, Thomas McAdam exposed Louisville’s dirty little secret: “Sadly, this idyllic urban oasis is fast devolving into a target-rich environment for roving bands of thugs. … The dirty little secret that City Hall wants to hide from the public is the fact that Waterfront Park is not a very safe place for families, particularly after dark.”
McAdam went on to describe an incident where 200 black people beat a disabled person at a bus stop after a minor league baseball game. The man went to the hospital with a fractured skull.
“But just how dangerous is it down at Waterfront Park?” McAdam asks. We may never know because “city officials hide the dangers from the public.”
Today, however, there are too many victims, too many witnesses, too many videos and too many people who want answers for that to continue forever.
Even so, some in Louisville are determined to ignore the racial violence.
“Black mob violence trend,” snarked James Kemp at the Courier-Journal. “Fox News much?”
Others chirped in with accusations of racism for those who noticed the black-on-white crime.
But more and more people in Louisville are less and less willing to accept how newspapers, TV stations, police officials and liberal activists refuse to confront the reality of black mob violence and black-on-white crime.
“Notice our police chief will address this Monday – after the really important stuff like the NCAA tournament is over for the week,” said one Louisville resident and WND reader. “Make sure you read the comments with each article. Interesting, I think, how Louisville residents have a more realistic stance on what is happening.”
And that cannot come too soon for some.
“It’s happening,” said Morris Willis. “And if you deny it, ignore it or try to hide it, the end result will be violent retaliation by those who feel victimized or fear being victims.”
Black mobs routinely terrorize cities across the country, but the media and government are silent. Read the detailed account of rampant racial crime in “White Girl Bleed A Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.”
Finally got something right. A very minor point when compared to all the other allegations you've made about me and my beliefs. Wrong everywhere else but yes, I worry that people who own handguns do not know what they are doing when they use them. Just recently (10/13/2013) a man (Fred Yazdi) who lives about 5 miles from me was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Middle of the night and he hears someone outside on his property. Goes out and shoots the guy 3 times, killing him. Did not understand that he was not allowed to shoot someone who was simply on his property. He will have a long time to ponder his lack of knowledge of the law when using a handgun for his "protection".
So yes, I want people who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, a right that I largely agree with but not without restrictions at times, to understand, for not only my safety but for their own safety, how and when to use their weapon.
And exactly how do you imagine your fantasy laws and regulations (that disarm law-abiding citizens and deny them their rights) would be any different and more *effective* than the laws Chicago -- where eleven people were shot this past Saturday night -- already has, Speedy?
Wow, IIFFy, reading what you post in a thread on the Constitution I think I finally figured out what your point is! Sorry it has taken me so long to grasp your intent. You should have just come out and said you are advocating for the repeal of the 13th amendment. You and Massa IB must be wetting your pants in anticipation.
