mnealtx 0 #101 April 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteLame and ignorant simultaneously. True, but we keep hoping that you'll come around. Figure a few million residents of Chicago are happier now than they were a couple years ago. Not the exercise of civil liberties he likes to see, but that's just too bad, isn't it. Yeah, I guess we must have missed the part where Heller and McDonald were about attempts to overturn the parts of GCA 68 describing who is allowed to purchase, and not about un-constitutional bans.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #102 April 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLame and ignorant simultaneously. True, but we keep hoping that you'll come around. Figure a few million residents of Chicago are happier now than they were a couple years ago. Not the exercise of civil liberties he likes to see, but that's just too bad, isn't it. Yeah, I guess we must have missed the part where Heller and McDonald were about attempts to overturn the parts of GCA 68 describing who is allowed to purchase, and not about un-constitutional bans. I have no problem with sane, law abiding people owning and carrying guns, and you cannot find a single post where I have written otherwise.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 April 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLame and ignorant simultaneously. True, but we keep hoping that you'll come around. Figure a few million residents of Chicago are happier now than they were a couple years ago. Not the exercise of civil liberties he likes to see, but that's just too bad, isn't it. Yeah, I guess we must have missed the part where Heller and McDonald were about attempts to overturn the parts of GCA 68 describing who is allowed to purchase, and not about un-constitutional bans. I have no problem with sane, law abiding people owning and carrying guns, and you cannot find a single post where I have written otherwise. *yawn* Come up with some new lines, John.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #104 April 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLame and ignorant simultaneously. True, but we keep hoping that you'll come around. Figure a few million residents of Chicago are happier now than they were a couple years ago. Not the exercise of civil liberties he likes to see, but that's just too bad, isn't it. Yeah, I guess we must have missed the part where Heller and McDonald were about attempts to overturn the parts of GCA 68 describing who is allowed to purchase, and not about un-constitutional bans. I have no problem with sane, law abiding people owning and carrying guns, and you cannot find a single post where I have written otherwise. *yawn* Come up with some new lines, John. Interpretation - you (and keldiver) cannot find a single post that supports your persistent strawman.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #105 April 9, 2011 We just need to somehow segway to talking about the debt, healthcare and religion and this can be the all purpose thread... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 April 9, 2011 QuoteInterpretation - you (and keldiver) cannot find a single post that supports your persistent strawman. And just what strawman did kelp or myself supposedly cast out this time, perfesser? Specific examples, thanks. Speaking of strawmen, when are you going to provide posts from myself, JR, kelpdiver, Kennedy, etc that supports your persistent strawman that we (to quote you, upthread) "dismiss the deaths of many innocent people because YOU want to play with a gun." Specific quote here, as well.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #107 April 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteInterpretation - you (and keldiver) cannot find a single post that supports your persistent strawman. And just what strawman did kelp or myself supposedly cast out this time, perfesser? Specific examples, thanks. Speaking of strawmen, when are you going to provide posts from myself, JR, kelpdiver, Kennedy, etc that supports your persistent strawman that we (to quote you, upthread) "dismiss the deaths of many innocent people because YOU want to play with a gun." Specific quote here, as well. You didn't even bother to read THIS thread, did you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #108 April 10, 2011 Quote You didn't even bother to read THIS thread, did you? Interpretation - you cannot find a single post that supports your persistent strawman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #109 April 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>and you fully support removing constitutional rights so as you feel good about >your agenda Supreme Court already did that, so I imagine that he feels good about the Supreme Court's agenda. (Might be vice versa but I doubt it.) No not really but I am not surprised you would spin it this way It's not "spin" to say that the Supreme Court's decision on the meaning of the Constitution carries more weight than yours. In fact, yours carries no weight at all in this context. Yet another spin round Nicely done But I would expect no less from someone who is not honest about his desires to ban guns from those who he thinks should not have guns Which is nearly everybody"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #110 April 10, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Lame and ignorant simultaneously. True, but we keep hoping that you'll come around. Figure a few million residents of Chicago are happier now than they were a couple years ago. Not the exercise of civil liberties he likes to see, but that's just too bad, isn't it. Yeah, I guess we must have missed the part where Heller and McDonald were about attempts to overturn the parts of GCA 68 describing who is allowed to purchase, and not about un-constitutional bans. I have no problem with sane, law abiding people owning and carrying guns, . Keep saying that John Maybe even you will believe it some day"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #111 April 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>and you fully support removing constitutional rights so as you feel good about >your agenda Supreme Court already did that, so I imagine that he feels good about the Supreme Court's agenda. (Might be vice versa but I doubt it.) No not really but I am not surprised you would spin it this way It's not "spin" to say that the Supreme Court's decision on the meaning of the Constitution carries more weight than yours. In fact, yours carries no weight at all in this context. Yet another spin round Nicely done But I would expect no less from someone who is not honest about his desires to ban guns from those who he thinks should not have guns Which is nearly everybody I only want felons and nutcases denied guns. Don't judge others by yourself.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #112 April 10, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >and you fully support removing constitutional rights so as you feel good about >your agenda Supreme Court already did that, so I imagine that he feels good about the Supreme Court's agenda. (Might be vice versa but I doubt it.) No not really but I am not surprised you would spin it this way It's not "spin" to say that the Supreme Court's decision on the meaning of the Constitution carries more weight than yours. In fact, yours carries no weight at all in this context. Yet another spin round Nicely done But I would expect no less from someone who is not honest about his desires to ban guns from those who he thinks should not have guns Which is nearly everybody I only want felons and nutcases denied guns. Don't judge others by yourself. Yaaaaa rightIt is your process to define nutcases that hangs your ass out for all to see"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #113 April 10, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >and you fully support removing constitutional rights so as you feel good about >your agenda Supreme Court already did that, so I imagine that he feels good about the Supreme Court's agenda. (Might be vice versa but I doubt it.) No not really but I am not surprised you would spin it this way It's not "spin" to say that the Supreme Court's decision on the meaning of the Constitution carries more weight than yours. In fact, yours carries no weight at all in this context. Yet another spin round Nicely done But I would expect no less from someone who is not honest about his desires to ban guns from those who he thinks should not have guns Which is nearly everybody I only want felons and nutcases denied guns. Don't judge others by yourself. Yaaaaa rightIt is your process to define nutcases that hangs your ass out for all to see It is YOU who thinks "nearly everybody" falls into the category of nutcase or felon. You have a very poor opinion of your fellow Americans.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #114 April 10, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >and you fully support removing constitutional rights so as you feel good about >your agenda Supreme Court already did that, so I imagine that he feels good about the Supreme Court's agenda. (Might be vice versa but I doubt it.) No not really but I am not surprised you would spin it this way It's not "spin" to say that the Supreme Court's decision on the meaning of the Constitution carries more weight than yours. In fact, yours carries no weight at all in this context. Yet another spin round Nicely done But I would expect no less from someone who is not honest about his desires to ban guns from those who he thinks should not have guns Which is nearly everybody I only want felons and nutcases denied guns. Don't judge others by yourself. Yaaaaa rightIt is your process to define nutcases that hangs your ass out for all to see It is YOU who thinks "nearly everybody" falls into the category of nutcase or felon. You have a very poor opinion of your fellow Americans. You sure are desperate to spin this other you you wanting to ban guns dude"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #115 April 10, 2011 Quote You sure are desperate to spin this other you you wanting to ban guns dude I can see why you want nutcases to have easy access to guns?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #116 April 11, 2011 Quote Quote You sure are desperate to spin this other you you wanting to ban guns dude I can see why you want nutcases to have easy access to guns? Really? How?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
