Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I posted earlier that one would not need to be any kind of expert, or trained in anything (other than the use of their firearm), to shoot a mass shooter.You were trained in the National guard? Woop-dee-do! I bet you've seen every Joan Wayne film too. Yeah, you're an expert alright! Dig!!!
Building a wall to keep them out is one way, yes. And in 77 other countries too.Is that how rapists are dealt with in the U.S.?
There's your main problem, you "don't know"How ?To be fair, the amendment might not have been asinine at the time it was written but it is high time to amend the damn thing because ..... yes it IS absolutely asinine!
"Coaching"? No. I need an explanation of why Americans think murdering a suspected rapists is OK.Building a wall to keep them out is one way, yes. And in 77 other countries too.Is that how rapists are dealt with in the U.S.?
You needed coaching to figure that out ?
I don't know, because there IS NOTHING TO KNOW about the the amendment being assinine, because it is NOT ASSININE.There's your main problem, you "don't know"
For that you'll have to supply some information. Like what the hell are you talking about ?"Coaching"? No. I need an explanation of why Americans think murdering a suspected rapists is OK.
You poor boy. You think training in the National Guard makes you privy to the problems of shootings and your silly & childish notion is that opening fire is some kind of righteous act of justice. Well, sonny, I'll match your "training" against my experience any day of the week and you're going to look pretty stupid when it's done.I posted earlier that one would not need to be any kind of expert, or trained in anything (other than the use of their firearm), to shoot a mass shooter.You were trained in the National guard? Woop-dee-do! I bet you've seen every Joan Wayne film too. Yeah, you're an expert alright! Dig!!!
More problems for you - reading comprehension.
Well, you jumped into my comment so maybe you should read before you stick your nose into it.For that you'll have to supply some information. Like what the hell are you talking about ?"Coaching"? No. I need an explanation of why Americans think murdering a suspected rapists is OK.
You are confused but I knew that from the beginning.I'm old enough to be your grandfather, Pussy Boy, so cut the crap and get to bed or I'll give you a spanking you'll never forget.Yes, you are running away. "harmonica" is right. What he wrote is true, logical, and correct. You are a coward in the face of the facts he gave you. Not only are you a coward but you are also dishonest but I guess they both go hand in hand. If you are keen on debating with adults then you should grow up and learn from the people who know more than you.
Oh wow, a lying child accuses me of running away. *yawn* What he wrote was not "true, logical and correct", it was trying to take individual instances that were weird and unique and implying they are common and expected. If you can't understand the difference, you're for more stupid than even I suspected. Now, go take your hurt feelings and sit in the corner because you are wasting the time of everyone who reads your posts.
View attachment 273904
LMAO! Another internet blowhard. "child" does not refer to your age, silly child. It refers to your weak reasoning skills and overly emotional posting style. Now, back to the corner with thee.
You are confused but I knew that from the beginning.I'm old enough to be your grandfather, Pussy Boy, so cut the crap and get to bed or I'll give you a spanking you'll never forget.Yes, you are running away. "harmonica" is right. What he wrote is true, logical, and correct. You are a coward in the face of the facts he gave you. Not only are you a coward but you are also dishonest but I guess they both go hand in hand. If you are keen on debating with adults then you should grow up and learn from the people who know more than you.
Oh wow, a lying child accuses me of running away. *yawn* What he wrote was not "true, logical and correct", it was trying to take individual instances that were weird and unique and implying they are common and expected. If you can't understand the difference, you're for more stupid than even I suspected. Now, go take your hurt feelings and sit in the corner because you are wasting the time of everyone who reads your posts.
View attachment 273904
LMAO! Another internet blowhard. "child" does not refer to your age, silly child. It refers to your weak reasoning skills and overly emotional posting style. Now, back to the corner with thee.
You are confused but I knew that from the beginning.I'm old enough to be your grandfather, Pussy Boy, so cut the crap and get to bed or I'll give you a spanking you'll never forget.Yes, you are running away. "harmonica" is right. What he wrote is true, logical, and correct. You are a coward in the face of the facts he gave you. Not only are you a coward but you are also dishonest but I guess they both go hand in hand. If you are keen on debating with adults then you should grow up and learn from the people who know more than you.
Oh wow, a lying child accuses me of running away. *yawn* What he wrote was not "true, logical and correct", it was trying to take individual instances that were weird and unique and implying they are common and expected. If you can't understand the difference, you're for more stupid than even I suspected. Now, go take your hurt feelings and sit in the corner because you are wasting the time of everyone who reads your posts.
View attachment 273904
LMAO! Another internet blowhard. "child" does not refer to your age, silly child. It refers to your weak reasoning skills and overly emotional posting style. Now, back to the corner with thee.
I'll just have to take you over my knee again.That's the same old kindergarten stuff like "these rights shall not be infringed upon" or "The law clearly states that no law can be changed" or "No amendment can be amended." That's just kid's talk.Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?
And you dodged the question
If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?
Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.
We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.
The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.
What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
View attachment 273908
Yes, because to children, words don't have real meanings. It's all just "what I want"...like talking to a 2 year old.
View attachment 273954
Now you are just being stupid.That's the same old kindergarten stuff like "these rights shall not be infringed upon" or "The law clearly states that no law can be changed" or "No amendment can be amended." That's just kid's talk.Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?
And you dodged the question
If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?
Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.
We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.
The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.
What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
View attachment 273908
There is no law in this instance as I have tried to explain to you
Hush! I told you to go to bed, now git!You are an idiot, and I realizes that fairly soon after reading your posts.
You're awfully tough in your imagination. Get back to the corner.
Perhaps it's just too much for you to comprehend. Is there a 7th grader around who can explain what he's saying so you can understand it?
Hush! I told you to go to bed, now git!You are an idiot, and I realizes that fairly soon after reading your posts.
You're awfully tough in your imagination. Get back to the corner.
Perhaps it's just too much for you to comprehend. Is there a 7th grader around who can explain what he's saying so you can understand it?
View attachment 274146
