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!
Your statement, Speedy, you own it -- now prove it!
You're the Kool Aid sotted fool that lives in fear and who is decrepitly insecure about someone else having and exercising rights you don't approve of, Speedy.
First, prove what? That you are an ignorant, senile, decrepit old gun monger. That needs no proof after your many posts that place you in that category. What else?
Second, you have made it quite clear that you are one of the few out there who would be happiest with absolutely no gun control at all. Your definition of 2nd Amendment rights. You probably want the freedom for any person to carry any weapon at any time in any place.
Third, you as a gun owner want all the rights. You simply don't care about rights of others as long as you have your rights. You are happy as long as you can have every weapon known to mankind to protect yourself because YOU live in fear that the criminals out there are out to get you. I simply want some protection against armed idiots like you.
First, prove what? That you are an ignorant, senile, decrepit old gun monger. That needs no proof after your many posts that place you in that category. What else?
Second, you have made it quite clear that you are one of the few out there who would be happiest with absolutely no gun control at all. Your definition of 2nd Amendment rights. You probably want the freedom for any person to carry any weapon at any time in any place.
Third, you as a gun owner want all the rights. You simply don't care about rights of others as long as you have your rights. You are happy as long as you can have every weapon known to mankind to protect yourself because YOU live in fear that the criminals out there are out to get you. I simply want some protection against armed idiots like you.
You're a paranoid, Kool Aid sotted fool that lives in fear someone else, somewhere, has and exercises rights you don't approve of, Speedy. Why should anyone worry about your paranoia when you and your Kool Aid lib-retarded ilk ex post facto seek to create and pass laws making heretofore legal property illegal, Speedy? You and your delusively paranoid ilk keep making more excuses why it's necessary to confiscate private property, and you need to be stopped by a Supreme Court ruling settling this matter.
First, prove what? That you are an ignorant, senile, decrepit old gun monger. That needs no proof after your many posts that place you in that category. What else?
Second, you have made it quite clear that you are one of the few out there who would be happiest with absolutely no gun control at all. Your definition of 2nd Amendment rights. You probably want the freedom for any person to carry any weapon at any time in any place.
Third, you as a gun owner want all the rights. You simply don't care about rights of others as long as you have your rights. You are happy as long as you can have every weapon known to mankind to protect yourself because YOU live in fear that the criminals out there are out to get you. I simply want some protection against armed idiots like you.
Spot on.
It is amazing how the RWWs cannot see the most basic point: EVERY freedom for one person impinges upon someone else in some way. It never is about complete freedom, but rather about balancing freedoms. Your freedom to smoke wherever you want impinges upon my freedom to breath clean air wherever I want. Your freedom to own property impinges upon my freedom to hike across your property.
Unfortunately the Wackos on both fringes always find a way to claim that the freedom THEY support is more better than the opposing one. Gun ownership/registration/limitation is precisely one of these. And you are correct, some nuts would like to own their own Stingers, tanks, and nukes.
But generally (not always, but far more often) it is the RWWs who argue--essentially--"I got mine first, and now it's my goal to keep you from getting yours". White land owning males gave the vote to white land owning males. Those with money wanted to charge people to vote because that would keep them in power. Those who grabbed the land from the native people now want to scream about "confiscating private property". Etc.
After all, what does the word "conservative" mean?
You just happen to be arguing with one of the more bellicose, arrogant, illogical ones. Don't expect him to change, or to EVER acknowledge that he was ever wrong, no matter how much incontrovertible evidence you might find to the contrary. He has an amazing propensity to totally ignore any inconvenient facts or logic.
It is amazing how the RWWs cannot see the most basic point: EVERY freedom for one person impinges upon someone else in some way. It never is about complete freedom, but rather about balancing freedoms. Your freedom to smoke wherever you want impinges upon my freedom to breath clean air wherever I want. Your freedom to own property impinges upon my freedom to hike across your property.
Unfortunately the Wackos on both fringes always find a way to claim that the freedom THEY support is more better than the opposing one. Gun ownership/registration/limitation is precisely one of these. And you are correct, some nuts would like to own their own Stingers, tanks, and nukes.
But generally (not always, but far more often) it is the RWWs who argue--essentially--"I got mine first, and now it's my goal to keep you from getting yours". White land owning males gave the vote to white land owning males. Those with money wanted to charge people to vote because that would keep them in power. Those who grabbed the land from the native people now want to scream about "confiscating private property". Etc.
After all, what does the word "conservative" mean?
You just happen to be arguing with one of the more bellicose, arrogant, illogical ones. Don't expect him to change, or to EVER acknowledge that he was ever wrong, no matter how much incontrovertible evidence you might find to the contrary. He has an amazing propensity to totally ignore any inconvenient facts or logic.
If you want to read something illogical, inane and off-topic, Old-Twerp, re-read your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJ7
After all, what does the word "conservative" mean?
over the last 5 years it means IDIOT
The real "idiots" over the last 5 years voted for Odumbo, CBJ7: that includes you!
More clever than your inane rant about post-Elizabethan American history, Old-Twerp.
Why yes, look at that! Another example of two-faced logic. On one hand, the constitution written in the 1700s is inviolate. But pointing out things that occurred at that time and later is--in IB's view--inane.
By the way, as a literature major (I think I remember you claiming that), you should be able to tell I was not ranting about post-Elizabethan American history, I was using historical facts to rant about RWWs like you. A very different thing.
Why yes, look at that! Another example of two-faced logic. On one hand, the constitution written in the 1700s is inviolate. But pointing out things that occurred at that time and later is--in IB's view--inane.
By the way, as a literature major (I think I remember you claiming that), you should be able to tell I was not ranting about post-Elizabethan American history, I was using historical facts to rant about RWWs like you. A very different thing.
The reason the Constitution was written, Old-Twerp, was to preclude whimsical, ad hoc rule by governors and kings.
BTW, Old-Twerp, it was Asians, the Turkoman and the Mongols, who militantly forced their will on Europeans and cut off European trade with China; thus, forcing Europeans -- "whites" -- to turn westward and subsequently leading to a collision of cultures in the New World. Further, Old-Twerp, the Iroquois were more than happy to align themselves with the British to fight against their traditional Algonquin enemies.
You're a paranoid, Kool Aid sotted fool that lives in fear someone else, somewhere, has and exercises rights you don't approve of, Speedy. Why should anyone worry about your paranoia when you and your Kool Aid lib-retarded ilk ex post facto seek to create and pass laws making heretofore legal property illegal, Speedy? You and your delusively paranoid ilk keep making more excuses why it's necessary to confiscate private property, and you need to be stopped by a Supreme Court ruling settling this matter.
Once again idiot, I have never made any statements about confiscating private property nor making legal property illegal. When will you learn how to read? Why do you have a gun in your home? Paranoia that someone will break into your home. Why do you have a gun in your car? Paranoia that someone will try to carjack your car. Why do you feel a need to carry a concealed handgun? Paranoia that the guy approaching you is intent on robbing you. So who's the paranoid person?
It is amazing how the RWWs cannot see the most basic point: EVERY freedom for one person impinges upon someone else in some way. It never is about complete freedom, but rather about balancing freedoms. Your freedom to smoke wherever you want impinges upon my freedom to breath clean air wherever I want. Your freedom to own property impinges upon my freedom to hike across your property.
Unfortunately the Wackos on both fringes always find a way to claim that the freedom THEY support is more better than the opposing one. Gun ownership/registration/limitation is precisely one of these. And you are correct, some nuts would like to own their own Stingers, tanks, and nukes.
But generally (not always, but far more often) it is the RWWs who argue--essentially--"I got mine first, and now it's my goal to keep you from getting yours". White land owning males gave the vote to white land owning males. Those with money wanted to charge people to vote because that would keep them in power. Those who grabbed the land from the native people now want to scream about "confiscating private property". Etc.
After all, what does the word "conservative" mean?
You just happen to be arguing with one of the more bellicose, arrogant, illogical ones. Don't expect him to change, or to EVER acknowledge that he was ever wrong, no matter how much incontrovertible evidence you might find to the contrary. He has an amazing propensity to totally ignore any inconvenient facts or logic.
Once again idiot, I have never made any statements about confiscating private property nor making legal property illegal. When will you learn how to read? Why do you have a gun in your home? Paranoia that someone will break into your home. Why do you have a gun in your car? Paranoia that someone will try to carjack your car. Why do you feel a need to carry a concealed handgun? Paranoia that the guy approaching you is intent on robbing you. So who's the paranoid person?
Collecting historical memorabilia -- including guns -- is a hobby, you paranoid lib-retard. Firing those guns is also part of that hobby, you feeble, paranoid lib-retard. Hunting is also a hobby, you paranoid cretin. One usually transports weapons in one's vehicle when one goes hunting or to shoot at the range, you paranoid moron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
I agree with everything you've said.
You accede to the post of one who suggests that confiscation is acceptable, but yet you lyingly and hypocritically claim you don't harbor those same sentiments. Lay in your piss and quake, you miserable, paranoid cretin: your neighbor might have a gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
As usual, an absolutely brilliant retort.
Oh, and you think Old-Twerp's rant on post-Colombian settlement in the New World was on point and relevant to the subject at hand, you paranoid, piss-in-your-pants moron?
