Surprised this hasn't been posted yet....

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The 5 inch/54 that went off when I was working on the Captain's gig hurt much worse. The alarm failed to sound.

But I'm more interested in Speedie's confession that he arrives home with a hardon when he rides a bicycle. That almost sounds painful. Also there is that delusion of him having corrected me "several" times. So I take it you smoke when you ride?

Let's see -- you were WRONG when you stated that Pelosi, Holder, Feinstein, and Cuomo have made statements that they support total gun bans.

You stated that the reason that James Holmes chose the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado to do his killing was because it was a gun-free zone. WRONG. He chose it because it was showing the movie "The Dark Knight Rises".

You were WRONG when you stated that I advocated new gun control laws. Admitted it yourself.

I'm sure I could find more incorrect statements made by you and corrected by me if I go back further in time.

I think you are a little too interested in what gives me a hardon. You need to get a life outside of the ECCIE forum. 7 of the last 20 threads on The Political Forum have been started by YOU. I think I know what gives you a hardon.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I think you are a little too interested in what gives me a hardon. You need to get a life outside of the ECCIE forum. 7 of the last 20 threads on The Political Forum have been started by YOU. I think I know what gives you a hardon.

You better watch out Speedy...JD will be pm'ing you to go bike riding with him!

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Let's see -- you were WRONG when you stated that Pelosi, Holder, Feinstein, and Cuomo have made statements that they support total gun bans. They have all supported partial gun bans and any idiot fails to know their ultimate goal whether they plainly state it or not.

You stated that the reason that James Holmes chose the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado to do his killing was because it was a gun-free zone. WRONG. He chose it because it was showing the movie "The Dark Knight Rises". That is only your inference. I never said otherwise.

You were WRONG when you stated that I advocated new gun control laws. Admitted it yourself. I should have been more clear. YOU did not state that you wanted new gun laws but you implied with almost every posting that you thought there were too many guns and too many people carrying guns. That only leaves one to think that you want fewer of each and the only way to achieve that was more laws. No, you (like a lawyer or politician) never said it but you sure as hell implied it. If only you were honest enough to admit it to us and yourself.

I'm sure I could find more incorrect statements made by you and corrected by me if I go back further in time.

I think you are a little too interested in what gives me a hardon. You need to get a life outside of the ECCIE forum. 7 of the last 20 threads on The Political Forum have been started by YOU. I think I know what gives you a hardon.

Maybe nothing gives me a hardon anymore. Don't worry about my life because yours in going to suck when you don't get your way. And your interest in my interest makes you sound too much like EVA.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Maybe nothing gives me a hardon anymore. Don't worry about my life because yours in going to suck when you don't get your way. And your interest in my interest makes you sound too much like EVA.

Are you talking about someone else's JUNK again, JDIdiot?

Don't like it when your bullshit gets totally exposed, do you?

Maybe you ought to start backing up your opinions with facts, or learn to write in such a way that you don't expose your horrendous brilliance to bullshit ratio.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Let's see -- you were WRONG when you stated that Pelosi, Holder, Feinstein, and Cuomo have made statements that they support total gun bans. They have all supported partial gun bans and any idiot fails to know their ultimate goal whether they plainly state it or not.

Does not matter what you think might happen in the future. The FACT is that they have never said what you stated they said. So you are WRONG.

You stated that the reason that James Holmes chose the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado to do his killing was because it was a gun-free zone. WRONG. He chose it because it was showing the movie "The Dark Knight Rises". That is only your inference. I never said otherwise.

You've got to be kidding me!!

Here is your statement from YOUR thread "Let's find out where we all stand", post #119:

"Like the theater killer in Colorado. There were other theaters, closer theaters, but he picked that one which promoted the fact that it was a "gun free zone".

YOUR words. He chose the theater because it was the one that was a "gun free zone".

You were WRONG when you stated that I advocated new gun control laws. Admitted it yourself. I should have been more clear. YOU did not state that you wanted new gun laws but you implied with almost every posting that you thought there were too many guns and too many people carrying guns. That only leaves one to think that you want fewer of each and the only way to achieve that was more laws. No, you (like a lawyer or politician) never said it but you sure as hell implied it. If only you were honest enough to admit it to us and yourself.

Approximately 40% of the homes in the U.S. have a handgun in it. That is their choice. Too many? I simply don't care if people decide to have a gun in their home. All I have stated is the FACT that a gun in the home leads to more deaths and injury of innocent people than it does in stopping someone from committing a crime inside the home.

I have disputed the statement you made that "More handguns lead to less crime", which, BTW is an opinion even though you stated it to be a fact. Simply can't be proven one way or the other. If it could be proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that more handguns led to less crime, I would more than likely support more handguns.

Approximately 3% of eligible Texans have CHLs. Again, I simply don't care if a person decides to get a CHL and legally carry a concealed handgun. I have never even come close to stating that there are too many people walking around carrying handguns. The only thing I want to see in this regard is that a CHL is required to carry a concealed handgun and minimal requirements are in place to ensure that the carrier knows how to handle the weapon and when it should and should not be used. But before you go off and say "See, you want more gun control laws", let's let each state decide the issue for itself.

Here are some more examples of times I've proven you WRONG:

1. Your statement: "As for your signs. It is impossible for a private entity to create a law prohibiting guns. They can only put up signs expressing their desires." Totally WRONG in Texas. A sign can be put up which, if meeting specific requirements, legally prohibits handguns.

2. What is very interesting is your statement above followed this statement by you earlier in the thread: "Get out once in a while. Most malls are "gun free" zones. Whether they enforce it or not is the question but the placard will be on the door."

So you are either WRONG in stating "most malls are gun free zones" if your statement in #1 is correct because the malls are NOT gun free zones if they can't legally be declared gun free zones by using a sign. Or your statement in #1 is WRONG if signs can legally declare malls to be gun free zones.

Feel free to choose which of your 2 statements is WRONG.

And as a final note, your definition of the term "turn on" to be exclusively sexually oriented is also WRONG.

Definition of TURN ON

transitive verb1
: to activate or cause to flow, operate, or function by or as if by turning a control <turn the water on full> <turn on the power>

2
a : to cause to undergo an intense often visionary experience by taking a drug; broadly : to cause to get high
b : to move pleasurably <rock music turns her on>; also : to excite sexually
c : to cause to gain knowledge or appreciation of something specified <turned her on to ballet>

intransitive verb
: to become turned on
— turn–on noun

Examples of TURN ON

1. <unsurprisingly, the fanboys were turned on by the movie's amazing special effects and slam-bang plot>
2. <would you turn on the TV?>

Related to TURN ON

Synonymscharge, electrify, excite, exhilarate, galvanize, intoxicate, pump up, titillate, thrillPretty much how I feel when I go out riding. I am exhilarated, excited, pumped up, sometimes intoxicated, certainly charged -- and turned on.

[Old-T]

Speed,

You should know by now that nothing turns off logical thought quicker than the topic of guns. The gun nuts all firmly believe that if you don't loudly support the right of almost anyone to own almost any weapon with no rules, no paperwork, so sanity--well, then you must want to lock up all their guns. Even when they had a poll asking posters whether HERE how they felt, there were more in favor of INCREASED regulation than DECREASED--but some on here wave that away as irreverent.

Well, ALMOST nothing. There is evolution/creationism I guess.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Let's see -- you were WRONG when you stated that Pelosi, Holder, Feinstein, and Cuomo have made statements that they support total gun bans. They have all supported partial gun bans and any idiot fails to know their ultimate goal whether they plainly state it or not.

Does not matter what you think might happen in the future. The FACT is that they have never said what you stated they said. So you are WRONG.

Do they or do they not support a lot more gun control? We can argue how much but what they have supported so far in their careers shouts that they would like to ban guns.

You stated that the reason that James Holmes chose the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado to do his killing was because it was a gun-free zone. WRONG. He chose it because it was showing the movie "The Dark Knight Rises". That is only your inference. I never said otherwise.

You've got to be kidding me!!

Here is your statement from YOUR thread "Let's find out where we all stand", post #119:

"Like the theater killer in Colorado. There were other theaters, closer theaters, but he picked that one which promoted the fact that it was a "gun free zone".

YOUR words. He chose the theater because it was the one that was a "gun free zone".

Read it again without the blinders. He did indeed pick the once that advertised that it was a gun free zone. I didn't say it was the only reason but it was the one he picked and it was the one that said it was gun free. You're just wrong.

You were WRONG when you stated that I advocated new gun control laws. Admitted it yourself. I should have been more clear. YOU did not state that you wanted new gun laws but you implied with almost every posting that you thought there were too many guns and too many people carrying guns. That only leaves one to think that you want fewer of each and the only way to achieve that was more laws. No, you (like a lawyer or politician) never said it but you sure as hell implied it. If only you were honest enough to admit it to us and yourself.

Approximately 40% of the homes in the U.S. have a handgun in it. That is their choice. Too many? I simply don't care if people decide to have a gun in their home. All I have stated is the FACT that a gun in the home leads to more deaths and injury of innocent people than it does in stopping someone from committing a crime inside the home.

I have disputed the statement you made that "More handguns lead to less crime", which, BTW is an opinion even though you stated it to be a fact. Simply can't be proven one way or the other. If it could be proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that more handguns led to less crime, I would more than likely support more handguns.

Approximately 3% of eligible Texans have CHLs. Again, I simply don't care if a person decides to get a CHL and legally carry a concealed handgun. I have never even come close to stating that there are too many people walking around carrying handguns. The only thing I want to see in this regard is that a CHL is required to carry a concealed handgun and minimal requirements are in place to ensure that the carrier knows how to handle the weapon and when it should and should not be used. But before you go off and say "See, you want more gun control laws", let's let each state decide the issue for itself.

You can talk a lot (and I didn't even have to read it) but it is obvious that you support more gun control laws (not crime laws). You are just smart enough to not directly say it. Ask anyone who has read your stuff where they think you lie on the topic.

Here are some more examples of times I've proven you WRONG:

1. Your statement: "As for your signs. It is impossible for a private entity to create a law prohibiting guns. They can only put up signs expressing their desires." Totally WRONG in Texas. A sign can be put up which, if meeting specific requirements, legally prohibits handguns.

Not in Missouri or Kansas. You need to get out of the state of denial and Texas some more.

2. What is very interesting is your statement above followed this statement by you earlier in the thread: "Get out once in a while. Most malls are "gun free" zones. Whether they enforce it or not is the question but the placard will be on the door."

So you are either WRONG in stating "most malls are gun free zones" if your statement in #1 is correct because the malls are NOT gun free zones if they can't legally be declared gun free zones by using a sign. Or your statement in #1 is WRONG if signs can legally declare malls to be gun free zones.

Feel free to choose which of your 2 statements is WRONG.

And as a final note, your definition of the term "turn on" to be exclusively sexually oriented is also WRONG.

Definition of TURN ON

transitive verb1
: to activate or cause to flow, operate, or function by or as if by turning a control <turn the water on full> <turn on the power>

2
a : to cause to undergo an intense often visionary experience by taking a drug; broadly : to cause to get high
b : to move pleasurably <rock music turns her on>; also : to excite sexually
c : to cause to gain knowledge or appreciation of something specified <turned her on to ballet>

intransitive verb
: to become turned on
— turn–on noun

Examples of TURN ON

1. <unsurprisingly, the fanboys were turned on by the movie's amazing special effects and slam-bang plot>
2. <would you turn on the TV?>

Related to TURN ON

Synonymscharge, electrify, excite, exhilarate, galvanize, intoxicate, pump up, titillate, thrillPretty much how I feel when I go out riding. I am exhilarated, excited, pumped up, sometimes intoxicated, certainly charged -- and turned on.

Finally, I am not going to respond to your personal perversions. They are yours, just keep them to yourself.... and wash your bicycle off.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Speed,

You should know by now that nothing turns off logical thought quicker than the topic of guns. The gun nuts all firmly believe that if you don't loudly support the right of almost anyone to own almost any weapon with no rules, no paperwork, so sanity--well, then you must want to lock up all their guns. Even when they had a poll asking posters whether HERE how they felt, there were more in favor of INCREASED regulation than DECREASED--but some on here wave that away as irreverent.

Well, ALMOST nothing. There is evolution/creationism I guess.

And you should admit that the gun grabbers ignore history, civil rights, and common sense when they advocate restricting gun rights. What did we hear in Colorado last year? A legislater who said that a woman who was raped that she would have been no better off with a gun. Another legislater who said that a person using a gun to defend against home invastion violated the rights of the invader??? Both have since been removed from office. How about the gun grabber who cannot understand the difference between semi and full auto fire weapons? There is rank stupidity on the left side of the street.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And you should admit that the gun grabbers ignore history, civil rights, and common sense when they advocate restricting gun rights. What did we hear in Colorado last year? A legislater who said that a woman who was raped that she would have been no better off with a gun. Another legislater who said that a person using a gun to defend against home invastion violated the rights of the invader??? Both have since been removed from office. How about the gun grabber who cannot understand the difference between semi and full auto fire weapons? There is rank stupidity on the left side of the street.

There are idiots on both sides of the debate. Has anyone knocked on your door demanding tour firearms lately? Spell check would help your posts.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And you should admit that the gun grabbers ignore history, civil rights, and common sense when they advocate restricting gun rights. What did we hear in Colorado last year? A legislater who said that a woman who was raped that she would have been no better off with a gun. Another legislater who said that a person using a gun to defend against home invastion violated the rights of the invader??? Both have since been removed from office. How about the gun grabber who cannot understand the difference between semi and full auto fire weapons? There is rank stupidity on the left side of the street.

I completely agree that the LWWs are equally clueless and dangerous. The two you describe are completely wrong on those points. I would like to see more screening, registration, and personal responsibility for gun ownership. More training on using them properly/safely. But I am not at all for restricting sane gun ownership.

There is rank stupidity on both ends of the spectrum.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Do they or do they not support a lot more gun control? We can argue how much but what they have supported so far in their careers shouts that they would like to ban guns.

Still does not matter. You were WRONG when they said they wanted a total ban on handguns.

Read it again without the blinders. He did indeed pick the once that advertised that it was a gun free zone. I didn't say it was the only reason but it was the one he picked and it was the one that said it was gun free. You're just wrong.

Still does not matter. You said, plain and clear, he picked the theater he did because it was a gun free zone. You can't prove that the theater being a gun free zone came into play AT ALL. Once again you are WRONG.

You can talk a lot (and I didn't even have to read it) but it is obvious that you support more gun control laws (not crime laws). You are just smart enough to not directly say it. Ask anyone who has read your stuff where they think you lie on the topic.

Are you REALLY that dumb? Hard to believe. You simply can't stop trying to read between the lines and believe what you want to. Since you are accusing me of something, I'm sure you can back up your loud mouth with facts. What additional gun control laws would I like to see on the books? We've already been down this path before and you admitted you were WRONG. Now are you going to tell us you were WRONG when you admitted you were WRONG? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Not in Missouri or Kansas. You need to get out of the state of denial and Texas some more.

You really are that dumb. I never said anything about any state other than Texas. Didn't have to in order to prove you WRONG when you made your statement. A sign CAN legally ban handguns. Wouldn't matter if the 49 states other than Texas are like Missouri and Kansas. You are WRONG.

It is obvious that Old-T is correct.

[Yssup Rider]

It looks like fucking Christmas around here.

JDIdiot -- you continue to sidestep, dodge and deflect from your obviously us researched bullshit.

Why not concede and move on?

Lying about what you meant and thought when you wrote arguments you obviously couldn't back up is a true sign of DIPSHITTERY.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Speed,

You should know by now that nothing turns off logical thought quicker than the topic of guns. The gun nuts all firmly believe that if you don't loudly support the right of almost anyone to own almost any weapon with no rules, no paperwork, so sanity--well, then you must want to lock up all their guns. Even when they had a poll asking posters whether HERE how they felt, there were more in favor of INCREASED regulation than DECREASED--but some on here wave that away as irreverent.

Well, ALMOST nothing. There is evolution/creationism I guess.

don't forget women's reproductive rights.

[Mr MojoRisin]

The more I watch this video of this girl shooting this Uzi the more I find wrong with this whole thing. The sound of this Uzi just doesn't sound quite right to me. I've never shot an Uzi but I have fired MP5's since they are both 9MM they should sound similar. Also this girl is about five feet tall maybe 5'2 she is firing this Uzi at chest level not even looking through the sights and her single shot hits over the target instead of low, what's even stranger than that is I never saw a round being ejected from the gun for the next round to be fired. Even though the picture quality isn't the greatest it's still sharp enough to be able to detect a round being detected. After several viewings of her firing that single round there just isn't the presence of a round being ejected. If Iam wrong then that is one unique Uzi.

Jim

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

There are idiots on both sides of the debate. Has anyone knocked on your door demanding tour firearms lately? Spell check would help your posts.

I have a new pair of glasses that really suck at close in things. Does that make you smile that I can't see the fucking screen?