the Constitution under assault and they will never stop

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by JCM800

Speaking of litter boxes....

So you've misplaced and are looking for yours, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You made your bed with your self-indicting actions and remarks favoring the violation the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, Speedy, now pull your blanket over your head and choke on your own farts.

Keep it up Sheldon. Eventually someone might even start to believe you. Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Keep it up Sheldon. Eventually someone might even start to believe you. Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

It's your ignorance that is on display, Speedy, how else could you stupidly so misunderstand IIFFY's position on this OP?

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Read the comments...

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's your ignorance that is on display, Speedy, how else could you stupidly so misunderstand IIFFY's position on this OP?

Wrong once again Sheldon. The only issue I've been discussing is the right to carry handguns OUTSIDE the home with no restrictions. The picture you cited was IIFFY's second post, which seems to me to be supporting the right to have a handgun INSIDE the home. IDIOT.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wrong once again Sheldon. The only issue I've been discussing is the right to carry handguns OUTSIDE the home with no restrictions. Which was IIFFY's first post in this thread. The picture you cited was IIFFY's second post, which seems to me to be supporting the right to have a handgun INSIDE the home. IDIOT.

You're damn liar, Speedy! Your posted you think NJ's anti-gun laws should remain unchallenged and you that voted for Odumbo who was a known anti-gun advocate.

... and only a lying, lib-retarded asshole like you, Speedy, could possibly contrive to misrepresent IIFFY's position.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Read the comments...

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're damn liar, Speedy! Your posted you think NJ's anti-gun laws should remain unchallenged and you that voted for Odumbo who was a known anti-gun advocate.

... and only a lying, lib-retarded asshole like you, Speedy, could possibly contrive to misrepresent IIFFY's position.

I'll say it once more Sheldon. You are full of shit. At least twice I've stated that I think NJ's CHL law could be found to be too restrictive. Unlike NY's which was found to be constitutional. I'll let the court decide that one. What I think should be unchallenged, and again I'll let the courts decide, is a state's right to require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. 2 totally different subjects. And as I've said MANY times, your leap from voting for Obama means supporting all of his policies is so ridiculous only an IDIOT would believe so. And you are an IDIOT>

Look, I'm done discussing this crap with you. NO ONE has stated support for you in any way. Many have come out and agree with me that you are an IDIOT. You should take that as a rejection of your points of view and simply crawl away back into your hole.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'll say it once more Sheldon. You are full of shit. At least twice I've stated that I think NJ's CHL law could be found to be too restrictive. Unlike NY's which was found to be constitutional. I'll let the court decide that one. What I think should be unchallenged, and again I'll let the courts decide, is a state's right to require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. 2 totally different subjects. And as I've said MANY times, your leap from voting for Obama means supporting all of his policies is so ridiculous only an IDIOT would believe so. And you are an IDIOT>

Look, I'm done discussing this crap with you. NO ONE has stated support for you in any way. Many have come out and agree with me that you are an IDIOT. You should take that as a rejection of your points of view and simply crawl away back into your hole.

Lies, lies and more lies from Speedy the anti-gun advocate who now deflect from his own self incriminating remarks.

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

With the left, [this is you, Speedy] ignorance is bliss.
The small minded thoughts that our founding fathers intended for the 2nd amendment to be the deciding factor of what firearm is good enough for shooting a deer is the fabrication of the ignorant left.

The left fails to mention previous firearm grabs by the government and the infringement of our Constitutional rights.

With the current administration [the Odumbo administration you helped install, Speedy] failing to enforce the law, deciding what parts of laws will be enforced, violating our Constitutional rights on a daily basis; what makes any sane person believe that the government will not continue to follow this path.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Lies, lies and more lies from Speedy the anti-gun advocate who now deflect from his own self incriminating remarks.

IDIOT. I'll let the courts decide on the issues. And I'm still waiting for someone to come forward and support your statements about my POVs. Buehler? Buehler? Anyone?

But you do have a great deal of non-support.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

IDIOT. I'll let the courts decide on the issues. And I'm still waiting for someone to come forward and support your statements about my POVs. Buehler? Buehler? Anyone?

But you do have a great deal of non-support.

They already did, Speedy. You're just too damn ignorant to comprehend what they posted.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Did you have a point? Or has your ability to comprehend dropped suddenly?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

They already did, Speedy. You're just too damn ignorant to comprehend what they posted.

IDIOT. That was D.C. v Heller. The court action that has been discussed throughout this thread is the POSSIBLE upcoming court decision on the N.J. CHL law, and whether or not CHLs in general are constitutional. IDIOT.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

IDIOT. That was D.C. v Heller. The court action that has been discussed throughout this thread is the POSSIBLE upcoming court decision on the N.J. CHL law, and whether or not CHLs in general are constitutional. IDIOT.

Did you have a point, Speedy? Or has your ability to comprehend the fact that COG disagreed with your ignorant POV not improved even on a second look?

[Yssup Rider]

Getting your ass handed to you again, Corpy?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Did you have a point, Speedy? Or has your ability to comprehend the fact that COG disagreed with your ignorant POV not improved even on a second look? BTW, Speedy:

First, you were still WRONG in citing D.C. v Heller to support your statement. IDIOT.

Regarding COG's comment, I responded with the following:

Your earlier comment:

The right to bear arms was not recognized so we can protect ourselves from criminals. It was recognized so we can protect ourselves from GOVERNMENT!

which I fully agree with but most gun rights advocates will not, but recent SCOTUS decisions have expanded the scope to include individuals' right to bear arms. If I still am not understanding the point of your original comment I apologize, Senility setting in.

COG made no comment on this post so I have to assume he was content with my response. Unlike you, COG is not an IDIOT. IDIOT.

I also responded to Jewish Lawyer's post and, again, no response so again I have to assume he was content with my response. IDIOT.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Getting your ass handed to you again, Corpy?

Fortunately for me, it is so easy to do.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, you were still WRONG in citing D.C. v Heller to support your statement. IDIOT.

Regarding COG's comment, I responded with the following:

Your earlier comment:

The right to bear arms was not recognized so we can protect ourselves from criminals. It was recognized so we can protect ourselves from GOVERNMENT!

which I fully agree with but most gun rights advocates will not, but recent SCOTUS decisions have expanded the scope to include individuals' right to bear arms. If I still am not understanding the point of your original comment I apologize, Senility setting in.

COG made no comment on this post so I have to assume he was content with my response. Unlike you, COG is not an IDIOT. IDIOT.

You're an ignorant lib-retard, Speedy. SCOTUS recognized a right guaranteed to American citizens in the Second Amendment, and COG stated as much when he disagreed with your POV. Hence, SCOTUS didn't "expand" on anything: it was a right already guaranteed, jackass.

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

I believe you when you say that!

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Fortunately for me, it is so easy to do.

Look again, Speedy, the only ass you have in your hands is your own: COD.