If you're going to quote me, I'd appreciate it if you'd address what I said instead of just using me as an attention grabber for some tangent idea you have because you don't draw much of an audience on your own.

I talked about everyday people holding leftist extremist views, not "elites."

I talked about people who reneged on agreements, those who incite them to do so and those who engage in deceitful practices in matters of grave importance, not people who simply diss others.

When people are hit, they have a Constitutional right to hit back to protect themselves. To categorize that as poor behavior you'd have to demonstrate that they willfully used excessive force. That the initial aggressor simply got hurt doesn't constitute excessive force. Any innocent bystanders hurt are the responsibility of the initial aggressor who is the one that chose the venue.

You're nowhere near knowledgeable enough to grasp these concepts which is why I must point out, as I have done before, reading comprehension HM.

I've seen things like leftist extremists standing just outside the property line of a county fairgrounds, video recording the license plates of cars turning onto the fairgrounds where a sportsman's show was being held; because, firearms were also being sold there. They intended to post the images on any public media that would let them in addition to circulating them among other leftist extremist groups. That wasn't just dissing people, that was criminal conduct and they were arrested.

The underhanded practices of some leftist extremist low-lives (notice I've been saying low-lives and not "elites") may not fall to the level of criminal conduct; but, it still has consequences. Those consequences were to alienate the people who might have been able to help save school children's lives. Now we'll never know. Stupid is as stupid does.

There was a game show from about 1974 on this afternoon. They said they polled 100 people if they thought citizens should be able to arm themselves for protection in dangerous areas. They didn't say where the 100 people were polled. Hollywood Studio audience? Native Californians? Tourists? Who knows?

But the answer was 52 out of 100 felt citizens should have the right to arm themselves. Methinks that's askew for 1974. :eyebrow:

nope, nobody wants to take my coach gun...
 

Only one who famous for his profanity would take cheapshots at the Parkland students. But that is the type of person who needs an assault weapon to enlarge his penis. No profanity and no insult. That is where this need for big guns comes from. Same emotions justify attacking the victims.

This is not about a second amendment. Anyone is protected by a .22 six shooter. Nobody needs military weapons to defend himself. Otherwise we have also justified the need for 155 mm howitzers and grenade launchers. But a .22 that no longer inspires sexual emotions with the usual henry quick insults.

"Only one who famous for his profanity..."

Yeah, I'm pretty fuckin' good at cussin'.

#

"...would take cheapshots at the Parkland students."

Don't know how pointin' out the true agenda of cocksuckers like youself is a shot at the kids (who incidentally 'are' kids...they should be tended to, not catered to).

#

"But that is the type of person who needs an assault weapon to enlarge his penis."

My dick is just the right size, thank you very much, and I see you've expanded 'assault weapon' to include double-barreled shotguns (which is what a coach gun is). That's how it goes with you shits.

#

"No profanity and no insult."

Fuck you, nimrod (two birds, one sentence).

#

"That is where this need for big guns comes from."

No. Currently the 'need' for my coach gun is to shoot assholes who come lookin' to take my coach gun.

#

"Same emotions justify attacking the victims."

Yeah, I didn't attack the victims.

#

"This is not about a second amendment."

You're right about that. My gun is mine cuz 'I' say it is, not cuz of words on paper, or someone's interpretation of those words.

#

"Anyone is protected by a .22 six shooter."

Till like-minded pussies like yourself decide to classify them as 'assault weapons'.

#

"Nobody needs military weapons to defend himself."

Not your fuckin' call.

Anywho, my coach gun is not a millitary weapon, so: fuck you.

#

"Otherwise we have also justified the need for 155 mm howitzers and grenade launchers. But a .22 that no longer inspires sexual emotions with the usual henry quick insults."

Buddy, if I wanted a bazooka, and I could find one, and I could meet the price, then absolutely I would have a bazooka. Thing is: all I need is my nice lil coach gun, a thing even Smokin' Joe Biden approves of, so...

Fuck you, tw...fuck you hard and long...with a red, foot-long strap-on...worn by whatever fellow traveller you like.

Wait a minute... why do you need a strap-on? :lol:

Cuz I'm not fuckin' him, but one of his comrades might.

You interested in the job?

Kind of you to offer, but no thank you. ;)

I can only guess, henry quirk, that you are a liberal in disguise. Your strange and illogical arguments seemed designed to drive people away from your point of view.

Pete,

Just call me Henry.

Now, what's illogical about my arguments (which aren't really arguments but just an extended fuck you to that dumbass, tw)?

"Kind of you to offer, but no thank you."
 

Meh...suit yourself.

That is the poor behavior I referred to. If someone might have been able to save schools children's lives, but didn't because they were just SOOOO annoyed at liberals, it's not the liberals who are the problem.

I don't have enough free time for that. >>

Brandolini's Law AKA The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

"I don't have enough free time for that."
 

Yeah, sure.

Wanna sell me the Golden Gate too?

#

"If someone might have been able to save schools children's lives, but didn't because they were just SOOOO annoyed at gun owners, it's not the gun owners who are the problem."

There...reads better now...reads 'true'.