Free? That Is A Laugh.

[WinterBorn]

If you are having issues with a union, and they produce pictures of your children that they took as your children were waiting to board the school bus, I would consider that a very valid threat.

In domestic violence situations, the threat of violence is treated as an attack.

But was that what they actually did? Because they made this inflametory claim union guys did that, but then never filed a police report.

The police report was that Momma Scab walked into a union bar and they called her a bunch of names. Oh, wait. They can call you names in public.

The union thugs took pictures of her children at a school bus stop. There is no reason for it and no excusing the threat it constitutes.

Okay, except no police report was ever filed on that, so all we got is the word of Momma Scab that that happened. And when was it against the law to take pictures?

The fact that you defend their actions shows you to be despicable. You know as well as I do that those pictures were taken to intimidate her. It was a clear threat.

Oh, and while we are at it, when was it against the law to be a racist or a fundamentalist christian? But you have no problem applauding, not only the prosecution of them, but the execution of them. With the things you have advocated, your "when was it against the law" excuses are the height of hypocrisy.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

I find it laughable that JoeB insists that Nancy Lanza had such a huge arsenal and was a survivalist.

661 of the 1600 rounds were .22 long rifles. The other 900+ rounds were spread between 6 different calibers. There were less than 200 rounds for any firearm except the bolt action .22.

Here is the inventory list: Guns knives ammo and gear Adam Lanza s arsenal item by item - U.S. News

Uh, her own family said she was a prepper.

and yeah, 1600 rounds of ammo and 7 guns is a lot.

When there is not enough ammo for two trips to the range with any gun but the bolt action .22, she didn't have a lot of ammo. And since there are ammo shortages all over, having an extra box or two is a good idea.

As for 7 guns being a lot, it is not. Maybe for someone who is scared of guns and their own shadow. But not for most gun owners I know.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The fact that you defend their actions shows you to be despicable. You know as well as I do that those pictures were taken to intimidate her. It was a clear threat.

Oh, and while we are at it, when was it against the law to be a racist or a fundamentalist christian? But you have no problem applauding, not only the prosecution of them, but the execution of them. With the things you have advocated, your "when was it against the law" excuses are the height of hypocrisy.

Sorry, shooting a federal agent is a lot more serious than taking pictures of baby scabs.

 

[JoeB131]

[
When there is not enough ammo for two trips to the range with any gun but the bolt action .22, she didn't have a lot of ammo. And since there are ammo shortages all over, having an extra box or two is a good idea.

As for 7 guns being a lot, it is not. Maybe for someone who is scared of guns and their own shadow. But not for most gun owners I know.

Wow, are you really arguing that Nancy didn't have enough guns and ammo?

I think there are some parents of preschoolers who wish she had a lot less guns and ammo.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

The fact that you defend their actions shows you to be despicable. You know as well as I do that those pictures were taken to intimidate her. It was a clear threat.

Oh, and while we are at it, when was it against the law to be a racist or a fundamentalist christian? But you have no problem applauding, not only the prosecution of them, but the execution of them. With the things you have advocated, your "when was it against the law" excuses are the height of hypocrisy.

Sorry, shooting a federal agent is a lot more serious than taking pictures of baby scabs.

Sorry, but that is not what I asked.

And the people who were executed did not shoot any federal agents.

Since when has it become illegal to be racist or fundamentalist christian?

 

[WinterBorn]

[
When there is not enough ammo for two trips to the range with any gun but the bolt action .22, she didn't have a lot of ammo. And since there are ammo shortages all over, having an extra box or two is a good idea.

As for 7 guns being a lot, it is not. Maybe for someone who is scared of guns and their own shadow. But not for most gun owners I know.

Wow, are you really arguing that Nancy didn't have enough guns and ammo?

I think there are some parents of preschoolers who wish she had a lot less guns and ammo.

I'm sure they do. I'm also sure the 100,000+ people who stopped a crime last year were glad they had their guns.

 

[WinterBorn]

Look JoeyBoy, everyone can see that you want an unarmed population. We can see that the people you agree with and like should be able to do whatever they want, and those you dislike and disagree with should be executed by gov't agents. We get it.

How about we stick with the topic? M'kay?

 

[zeke]

Yeah, neither did any of those kids at the school. You are really rather pathetic. You advocate the use of violence against people you dislike and to get someone an extra dollar or two in their paycheck, but cry about violence in defense of someone's home. You try and pretend that hunters are sadistic, but you actively support one of the most cruel examples of animal abuse in the civilized world. You are as bad as the worst of the conservatives, in that you want those that are not like you to suffer and die.

But mostly you are pathetic for running from a thread in which you were thoroughly humiliated by proclaiming you were done. And yet, you bring up the same topics and examples in the next thread you see me in.

And the lies? lol I have not encountered a bigger liar on these forums. And that is saying something.

Guy, nobody used "violence" against those little baby Scabs. "Oh, no, they took pictures of my kids!"

Seriously?

I just left that thread because you were repeating the same shit week after week. It was getting tiresome.

The threat of violence IS violence.

Right, so you left the thread because I was repeating the same shit. Then you come here and repeat the same shit? lmao What astounding logic.

Lets talk about the threat of violence. I found what you wrote interesting.

If I walk around with a gun on my hip (open carry) is that the equivalent of a threat of violence? In your opinion.
If you say no, which is what I expect, please explain how carrying a deadly weapon around in the open is not a threat but taking a photo is a threat.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, neither did any of those kids at the school. You are really rather pathetic. You advocate the use of violence against people you dislike and to get someone an extra dollar or two in their paycheck, but cry about violence in defense of someone's home. You try and pretend that hunters are sadistic, but you actively support one of the most cruel examples of animal abuse in the civilized world. You are as bad as the worst of the conservatives, in that you want those that are not like you to suffer and die.

But mostly you are pathetic for running from a thread in which you were thoroughly humiliated by proclaiming you were done. And yet, you bring up the same topics and examples in the next thread you see me in.

And the lies? lol I have not encountered a bigger liar on these forums. And that is saying something.

Guy, nobody used "violence" against those little baby Scabs. "Oh, no, they took pictures of my kids!"

Seriously?

I just left that thread because you were repeating the same shit week after week. It was getting tiresome.

The threat of violence IS violence.

Right, so you left the thread because I was repeating the same shit. Then you come here and repeat the same shit? lmao What astounding logic.

Lets talk about the threat of violence. I found what you wrote interesting.

If I walk around with a gun on my hip (open carry) is that the equivalent of a threat of violence? In your opinion.
If you say no, which is what I expect, please explain how carrying a deadly weapon around in the open is not a threat but taking a photo is a threat.

The difference is the context. If I were to seek you out wearing a firearm, there could be some threat considered. If I had made threats to you previously, then started showing up outside your home wearing a firearm, there is certainly a threat involved.

Now, let me ask you a question (off topic though it may be). Why is open carry so scary, but concealed carry is not? Had you rather not know someone was armed?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, neither did any of those kids at the school. You are really rather pathetic. You advocate the use of violence against people you dislike and to get someone an extra dollar or two in their paycheck, but cry about violence in defense of someone's home. You try and pretend that hunters are sadistic, but you actively support one of the most cruel examples of animal abuse in the civilized world. You are as bad as the worst of the conservatives, in that you want those that are not like you to suffer and die.

But mostly you are pathetic for running from a thread in which you were thoroughly humiliated by proclaiming you were done. And yet, you bring up the same topics and examples in the next thread you see me in.

And the lies? lol I have not encountered a bigger liar on these forums. And that is saying something.

Guy, nobody used "violence" against those little baby Scabs. "Oh, no, they took pictures of my kids!"

Seriously?

I just left that thread because you were repeating the same shit week after week. It was getting tiresome.

The threat of violence IS violence.

Right, so you left the thread because I was repeating the same shit. Then you come here and repeat the same shit? lmao What astounding logic.

Lets talk about the threat of violence. I found what you wrote interesting.

If I walk around with a gun on my hip (open carry) is that the equivalent of a threat of violence? In your opinion.
If you say no, which is what I expect, please explain how carrying a deadly weapon around in the open is not a threat but taking a photo is a threat.

The difference is the context. If I were to seek you out wearing a firearm, there could be some threat considered. If I had made threats to you previously, then started showing up outside your home wearing a firearm, there is certainly a threat involved.

Now, let me ask you a question (off topic though it may be). Why is open carry so scary, but concealed carry is not? Had you rather not know someone was armed?

I was actually hoping you would answer my question.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'm sure they do. I'm also sure the 100,000+ people who stopped a crime last year were glad they had their guns.

Uh, yeah, if they actualy existed.

I'm sure 100,000 people were happy their guns made them not think about their tiny dicks.

and 32,000 people died for no good reason because people who shouldn't have guns can get them.

 

[JoeB131]

Look JoeyBoy, everyone can see that you want an unarmed population. We can see that the people you agree with and like should be able to do whatever they want, and those you dislike and disagree with should be executed by gov't agents. We get it.

How about we stick with the topic? M'kay?

I want to see an unarmed population because most of you can't be trusted with a gun.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Look JoeyBoy, everyone can see that you want an unarmed population. We can see that the people you agree with and like should be able to do whatever they want, and those you dislike and disagree with should be executed by gov't agents. We get it.

How about we stick with the topic? M'kay?

Why?

It's a ridiculous topic.

Jurisdictions with regulatory policies concerning utilities in no way 'undermine' freedom or liberty.

Argue with Joe about guns instead, it's infinitely more entertaining.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

I'm sure they do. I'm also sure the 100,000+ people who stopped a crime last year were glad they had their guns.

Uh, yeah, if they actualy existed.

I'm sure 100,000 people were happy their guns made them not think about their tiny dicks.

and 32,000 people died for no good reason because people who shouldn't have guns can get them.

Funny that you refuse to accept a number (lower than most studies) arrived at by a gov't agency, but continue to include suicides in with the gun deaths. I'm still waiting to hear how you know 20,000+ suicides were ONLY going to kill themselves if they had a gun.

 

[WinterBorn]

Look JoeyBoy, everyone can see that you want an unarmed population. We can see that the people you agree with and like should be able to do whatever they want, and those you dislike and disagree with should be executed by gov't agents. We get it.

How about we stick with the topic? M'kay?

I want to see an unarmed population because most of you can't be trusted with a gun.

On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of us CAN be trusted with a gun. You wish to take away guns because of a tiny minority of the gun owners.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'm sure they do. I'm also sure the 100,000+ people who stopped a crime last year were glad they had their guns.

Uh, yeah, if they actualy existed.

I'm sure 100,000 people were happy their guns made them not think about their tiny dicks.

and 32,000 people died for no good reason because people who shouldn't have guns can get them.

Funny that you refuse to accept a number (lower than most studies) arrived at by a gov't agency, but continue to include suicides in with the gun deaths. I'm still waiting to hear how you know 20,000+ suicides were ONLY going to kill themselves if they had a gun.

Well, you see, here's the thing. Suicide or murder- THEY ARE STILL DEAD!!!

The problem with DGU's is that they are entirely subjective. YOu don't really know if a crime was prevented, because you really don't know one was going to be committed.

The more telling number is how many times a gun was used in a shooting that was ruled "Self-Defense".

And that happens only about 200 times a year.

 

[JoeB131]

Look JoeyBoy, everyone can see that you want an unarmed population. We can see that the people you agree with and like should be able to do whatever they want, and those you dislike and disagree with should be executed by gov't agents. We get it.

How about we stick with the topic? M'kay?

I want to see an unarmed population because most of you can't be trusted with a gun.

On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of us CAN be trusted with a gun. You wish to take away guns because of a tiny minority of the gun owners.

A tiny minority you guys refuse to police, so everyone out of the pool.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

I'm sure they do. I'm also sure the 100,000+ people who stopped a crime last year were glad they had their guns.

Uh, yeah, if they actualy existed.

I'm sure 100,000 people were happy their guns made them not think about their tiny dicks.

and 32,000 people died for no good reason because people who shouldn't have guns can get them.

Funny that you refuse to accept a number (lower than most studies) arrived at by a gov't agency, but continue to include suicides in with the gun deaths. I'm still waiting to hear how you know 20,000+ suicides were ONLY going to kill themselves if they had a gun.

Well, you see, here's the thing. Suicide or murder- THEY ARE STILL DEAD!!!

The problem with DGU's is that they are entirely subjective. YOu don't really know if a crime was prevented, because you really don't know one was going to be committed.

The more telling number is how many times a gun was used in a shooting that was ruled "Self-Defense".

And that happens only about 200 times a year.

That is only a telling number to those who ignore the facts.

 

[JoeB131]

That is only a telling number to those who ignore the facts.

You haven't presented "facts". You presented a study that took a sample and then extrapolated.

Now, 32,000 deaths. That's a fact. 32,000 names. Of real people who died because the wrong person had a gun.

 

[skookerasbil]

without getting into another tiresome discussion with Whinerborn about his altered reality, all society can be considered a balance between individual freedoms vs. collective good.

So this city has a regulation that everyone has to be hooked into the electrical and water grids. Are these good laws? Maybe. Should we respect the right of eccentrics to live off the grid? Maybe. Maybe not.

Were her methods to create her own electric and water annoying to her neighbors? Maybe. was she burying her poop in the backyard?

Me, I kind of like living in a city where we have purified water, consistent electric delivery, and effective sewage.

Marxism is gay s0n!!!

Like Ive been saying......thousands of members on the message board. You get the award for being the most naïve of them all.