Something you will not find on MSNBS or see AL Sharpton address.

[Asclepias]

The wild west wasn't like the movies nor the way you think it was.

Contrary to popular perception, the Old West was much more peaceful than American cities are today.

Yeah OK. If everyone had a gun the people in the story would have been shot instead of hit with a brick. A person intending to do you harm is not going to give you the opportunity to pull out your gun and shoot them first.

No not necessarily but feel free to speculate.

I believe when a person that is armed is faced with an equally armed person, both would be hesitant to draw first.

Somebody that is stupid like you would believe that. I told you to stop dreaming about Clint Eastwood movies. If I intend to shoot someone I'm not going to give them a chance to shoot me. What a dream world you live in.

 

[Asclepias]

I know that each time Sharpton was on the wrong side of justice.

Sorry but the only thing you know is that you have an opinion. Your opinion is practically worthless as everyone knows. Regardless you still are defending a stupid position. Why would Sharpton get involved if there was no miscarriage of justice? Hopefully you figured out what that meant by now.

Facts are a bitch. Google Sharpton's role in each case and see who's side he was on. He damn sure wasn't on the side of justice.

In the Brawley case Sharpton along with two others were successfully sued for defamation, and were ordered to pay $345,000 in damages.

You are one stupid fuck. Show me where the miscarriages of justice were in any of these events?

Brawley fabricated a story about six white men including police officers of raping her. The Grand Jury determined she lied.

No miscarriage of justice there!!

The Duke lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape by Crystal Mangum and Sharpton was on the wrong side of that issue as well as the Martin case.

Where are the miscarriages of justice??

It doesnt matter who side he was on. You are one illiterate fuck. I said specifically he only spoke out in cases where there was a miscarriage of justice. You need to use google and found out his role. I already know.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yeah OK. If everyone had a gun the people in the story would have been shot instead of hit with a brick. A person intending to do you harm is not going to give you the opportunity to pull out your gun and shoot them first.

No not necessarily but feel free to speculate.

I believe when a person that is armed is faced with an equally armed person, both would be hesitant to draw first.

Somebody that is stupid like you would believe that. I told you to stop dreaming about Clint Eastwood movies. If I intend to shoot someone I'm not going to give them a chance to shoot me. What a dream world you live in.

You use speculation and I'm the one dreaming.


You don't have the wherewithal to shoot anyone.

 

[OriginalShroom]

There is seldom a reason for an armed citizen walking the streets in a modern industrialized nation.
2 I can think of are security/LEOs..and a person carrying a large quantities of valuable items (cash/gold/gems/documents).

And that would be it.

Those that feel they need firearms for the home, should be allowed to own handguns and rifles.

Fact is, the amount of gun owners is declining in this country. However, the people that do own guns are buying ALOT of them.

And they are using them..generally to injure or kill innocent people.

So you wouldn't want any one in your family to be able to protect themselves from a mob like this? You'd rather them be beaten with bricks and rocks?

Ain't you something special to be related to. Personally, I would want my wife to be able to pull a gun and shoot someone attacking her like this.

You shouldn't be so scary. It will give you ulcers. If everyone carried a gun it would be like the wild west. There is a reason that period of time in our country has passed on. it wasnt cool like a clint eastwood movie.

I have news for you.. I have been carrying a weapon since the late 80's in one form or another. Concealed Carry is up across the country. Just recently a Conceal Carry helped Store Security at a Home Depot when a homeless shoplifter was attacking them with a used needle.

No shots fired. No one killed. Your "Wild West" scenario just isn't coming true.

 

[Asclepias]

No not necessarily but feel free to speculate.

I believe when a person that is armed is faced with an equally armed person, both would be hesitant to draw first.

Somebody that is stupid like you would believe that. I told you to stop dreaming about Clint Eastwood movies. If I intend to shoot someone I'm not going to give them a chance to shoot me. What a dream world you live in.

You use speculation and I'm the one dreaming.


You don't have the wherewithal to shoot anyone.

Real life experience is not speculation. You probably only have the guts to shoot stray dogs so I can see why you would think others would lack a spine like you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Sorry but the only thing you know is that you have an opinion. Your opinion is practically worthless as everyone knows. Regardless you still are defending a stupid position. Why would Sharpton get involved if there was no miscarriage of justice? Hopefully you figured out what that meant by now.

Facts are a bitch. Google Sharpton's role in each case and see who's side he was on. He damn sure wasn't on the side of justice.

In the Brawley case Sharpton along with two others were successfully sued for defamation, and were ordered to pay $345,000 in damages.

You are one stupid fuck. Show me where the miscarriages of justice were in any of these events?

Brawley fabricated a story about six white men including police officers of raping her. The Grand Jury determined she lied.

No miscarriage of justice there!!

The Duke lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape by Crystal Mangum and Sharpton was on the wrong side of that issue as well as the Martin case.

Where are the miscarriages of justice??

It doesnt matter who side he was on. You are one illiterate fuck. I said specifically he only spoke out in cases where there was a miscarriage of justice. You need to use google and found out his role. I already know.

Sure it does.

On one side is justice on the other side is injustice.

He was on the wrong side.

There was no miscarriage of justice in any of those cases. Two girls fabricated stories and the accused were found to be innocent. Justice prevailed.

Trayvon attacked a man and paid the ultimate price. A jury found Zimmerman innocent of any wrong doing. Justice prevailed.


So again I asked. Where are the miscarriages of justice in any of these cases?


His role? His role was sticking up for two lying women and siding with a teenage thug.

Mangum is in prison, Brawley is finally paying the man she falsely accused of rape $627 per month and Trayvon is pushing up daisies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Somebody that is stupid like you would believe that. I told you to stop dreaming about Clint Eastwood movies. If I intend to shoot someone I'm not going to give them a chance to shoot me. What a dream world you live in.

You use speculation and I'm the one dreaming.


You don't have the wherewithal to shoot anyone.

Real life experience is not speculation. You probably only have the guts to shoot stray dogs so I can see why you would think others would lack a spine like you.

No dumbass it's speculation saying that if they had a gun they would have used it.

 

[Asclepias]

So you wouldn't want any one in your family to be able to protect themselves from a mob like this? You'd rather them be beaten with bricks and rocks?

Ain't you something special to be related to. Personally, I would want my wife to be able to pull a gun and shoot someone attacking her like this.

You shouldn't be so scary. It will give you ulcers. If everyone carried a gun it would be like the wild west. There is a reason that period of time in our country has passed on. it wasnt cool like a clint eastwood movie.

I have news for you.. I have been carrying a weapon since the late 80's in one form or another. Concealed Carry is up across the country. Just recently a Conceal Carry helped Store Security at a Home Depot when a homeless shoplifter was attacking them with a used needle.

No shots fired. No one killed. Your "Wild West" scenario just isn't coming true.

Your admission that you have CC since the 80's only reaffirms you are a chicken that is afraid of your own shadow. Of course that is unless your occupation requires you carry one. Guns belong at home for home defense in the unlikely scenario of an emergency. Let me know when most of population is walking around with guns. By that time I probably wont have to tell you i told you so. i will be self evident.

 

[Asclepias]

You use speculation and I'm the one dreaming.


You don't have the wherewithal to shoot anyone.

Real life experience is not speculation. You probably only have the guts to shoot stray dogs so I can see why you would think others would lack a spine like you.

No dumbass it's speculation saying that if they had a gun they would have used it.

Just like its dreaming to say they wouldn't. How can you prove you are correct?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Real life experience is not speculation. You probably only have the guts to shoot stray dogs so I can see why you would think others would lack a spine like you.

No dumbass it's speculation saying that if they had a gun they would have used it.

Just like its dreaming to say they wouldn't. How can you prove you are correct?

I can't nor can you. That was the point.

 

[Sallow]

And there are those on the left who claim that there is no reason for a person to carry a gun to protect themselves.

And they want to limit the number of rounds that gun can have.

There is seldom a reason for an armed citizen walking the streets in a modern industrialized nation.
2 I can think of are security/LEOs..and a person carrying a large quantities of valuable items (cash/gold/gems/documents).

And that would be it.

Those that feel they need firearms for the home, should be allowed to own handguns and rifles.

Fact is, the amount of gun owners is declining in this country. However, the people that do own guns are buying ALOT of them.

And they are using them..generally to injure or kill innocent people.

So you wouldn't want any one in your family to be able to protect themselves from a mob like this? You'd rather them be beaten with bricks and rocks?

Ain't you something special to be related to. Personally, I would want my wife to be able to pull a gun and shoot someone attacking her like this.

When I was about 9 my martial arts instructor told me "Never pick up anything you can't eat".

Later I started picking up women.

Especially ones in Red Hoods.

 

[Sallow]

You shouldn't be so scary. It will give you ulcers. If everyone carried a gun it would be like the wild west. There is a reason that period of time in our country has passed on. it wasnt cool like a clint eastwood movie.

The wild west wasn't like the movies nor the way you think it was.

Contrary to popular perception, the Old West was much more peaceful than American cities are today.

Yeah OK. If everyone had a gun the people in the story would have been shot instead of hit with a brick. A person intending to do you harm is not going to give you the opportunity to pull out your gun and shoot them first.

The "Old" West was sparsely populated and populated with a lot of crazies.

It was VERY violent.

There just weren't as many incidents..because there weren't that many people.

 

[Asclepias]

No dumbass it's speculation saying that if they had a gun they would have used it.

Just like its dreaming to say they wouldn't. How can you prove you are correct?

I can't nor can you. That was the point.

Yeah but I can. I have history on my side. Thats why you have to have a permit to carry a gun. They dont want everyone shooting each other. Are you really that stupid?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The wild west wasn't like the movies nor the way you think it was.

Contrary to popular perception, the Old West was much more peaceful than American cities are today.

Yeah OK. If everyone had a gun the people in the story would have been shot instead of hit with a brick. A person intending to do you harm is not going to give you the opportunity to pull out your gun and shoot them first.

The "Old" West was sparsely populated and populated with a lot of crazies.

It was VERY violent.

There just weren't as many incidents..because there weren't that many people.

Bullshit!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Just like its dreaming to say they wouldn't. How can you prove you are correct?

I can't nor can you. That was the point.

Yeah but I can. I have history on my side. Thats why you have to have a permit to carry a gun. They dont want everyone shooting each other. Are you really that stupid?

No you can't.

I know you think you can but you can't.

I have to have a permit because that's what the law requires.

over 6 million Americans have concealed carry permits. Are they all out shooting each other?

Yes you really are that stupid.

 

[Asclepias]

Facts are a bitch. Google Sharpton's role in each case and see who's side he was on. He damn sure wasn't on the side of justice.

In the Brawley case Sharpton along with two others were successfully sued for defamation, and were ordered to pay $345,000 in damages.

You are one stupid fuck. Show me where the miscarriages of justice were in any of these events?

Brawley fabricated a story about six white men including police officers of raping her. The Grand Jury determined she lied.

No miscarriage of justice there!!

The Duke lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape by Crystal Mangum and Sharpton was on the wrong side of that issue as well as the Martin case.

Where are the miscarriages of justice??

It doesnt matter who side he was on. You are one illiterate fuck. I said specifically he only spoke out in cases where there was a miscarriage of justice. You need to use google and found out his role. I already know.

Sure it does.

On one side is justice on the other side is injustice.

He was on the wrong side.

There was no miscarriage of justice in any of those cases. Two girls fabricated stories and the accused were found to be innocent. Justice prevailed.

Trayvon attacked a man and paid the ultimate price. A jury found Zimmerman innocent of any wrong doing. Justice prevailed.


So again I asked. Where are the miscarriages of justice in any of these cases?


His role? His role was sticking up for two lying women and siding with a teenage thug.

Mangum is in prison, Brawley is finally paying the man she falsely accused of rape $627 per month and Trayvon is pushing up daisies.

I know you are kind of slow but go back and read my question and dwell on it for a bit. Why would Sharpton speak out on this if he only does so if there is a miscarriage of justice? It doesnt matter if he is wrong or right in your tiny opinion. The point is that he doesn't speak out on things unless he perceives a miscarriage of justice. You really have problems with comprehension don't you?

 

[Asclepias]

I can't nor can you. That was the point.

Yeah but I can. I have history on my side. Thats why you have to have a permit to carry a gun. They dont want everyone shooting each other. Are you really that stupid?

No you can't.

I know you think you can but you can't.

I have to have a permit because that's what the law requires.

over 6 million Americans have concealed carry permits. Are they all out shooting each other?

Yes you really are that stupid.

You are like talking to the kid with the big head that has trouble keeping up. The reason there is a law requiring a permit is because they dont want everyone walking around with guns shooting each other stupid. If everything was fine we wouldnt have to watch old movies of the wild west, we would be living it. They dont want that because its too dangerous dumbass.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It doesnt matter who side he was on. You are one illiterate fuck. I said specifically he only spoke out in cases where there was a miscarriage of justice. You need to use google and found out his role. I already know.

Sure it does.

On one side is justice on the other side is injustice.

He was on the wrong side.

There was no miscarriage of justice in any of those cases. Two girls fabricated stories and the accused were found to be innocent. Justice prevailed.

Trayvon attacked a man and paid the ultimate price. A jury found Zimmerman innocent of any wrong doing. Justice prevailed.


So again I asked. Where are the miscarriages of justice in any of these cases?


His role? His role was sticking up for two lying women and siding with a teenage thug.

Mangum is in prison, Brawley is finally paying the man she falsely accused of rape $627 per month and Trayvon is pushing up daisies.

I know you are kind of slow but go back and read my question and dwell on it for a bit. Why would Sharpton speak out on this if he only does so if there is a miscarriage of justice? It doesnt matter if he is wrong or right in your tiny opinion. The point is that he doesn't speak out on things unless he perceives a miscarriage of justice. You really have problems with comprehension don't you?

Sharpton doesn't care about justice. He cares about skin color. A person who says anything different is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Yeah OK. If everyone had a gun the people in the story would have been shot instead of hit with a brick. A person intending to do you harm is not going to give you the opportunity to pull out your gun and shoot them first.

The "Old" West was sparsely populated and populated with a lot of crazies.

It was VERY violent.

There just weren't as many incidents..because there weren't that many people.

Bullshit!

There WERE a lot of people?

... Or the old west wasn't violent? Actually - it wasn't.


The Myth:

Well, even if cowboys didn't have cowboy hats, we sure as hell know they had six-shooters on their hip. Back then, every man, woman, and child came pre-equipped with an old-timey revolver, which was used for everything from personal defense and hunting to celebrating.

The Reality:

Regardless of the public's perception, gun control laws may have actually been stricter back in the 19th and early 20th century than they are now, especially in the West. In the beginning, there was definitely gun violence, as there was neither standardized law nor a good way to enforce it, but the Wild West didn't stay wild forever.

As towns formed and communities grew, the need for and tolerance of handguns started to fall. Starting in 1878, some 25 years into the westward expansion, action was finally taken.


In fact, the gunfight at the O.K. Corral was caused by one gang being unwilling to abide by the anti-firearm rule of Tombstone.

But it's not like the six-shooter of the time was very dangerous anyway. They didn't even use regular bullets like they currently do, instead opting for the so-called "cap-and-ball" system that was little more than a marble launched by black powder. It had an effective range of maybe 50 feet. The Adams, one of the first revolvers introduced at the time and a hallmark weapon of the era, would burn the living hell out of your hand while launching the bullet. So you had to be really sure you wanted to shoot that dude.


That's why, even among those who used guns, six-shooters weren't the favorite. They were little more than a weapon of last resort. Shotguns and rifles were the preferred weapons, having both the power and the range to put down a mountain lion or a card-cheating son of a bitch. But who would ever want to watch a Western where cowboys were meeting at high noon to shoot each other in the face with huge shotguns?


Read more: 5 Ridiculous Myths Everyone Believes About the Wild West | Cracked.com

 

[Sallow]

Yeah OK. If everyone had a gun the people in the story would have been shot instead of hit with a brick. A person intending to do you harm is not going to give you the opportunity to pull out your gun and shoot them first.

The "Old" West was sparsely populated and populated with a lot of crazies.

It was VERY violent.

There just weren't as many incidents..because there weren't that many people.

Bullshit!

It's not bullshit at all.

Fact is..that gunfight at the OK corral was one of the first attempts at gun control.