How come 2aguy has no thread on, "IF PELOSI only had a gun...."?

[marvin martian]

Seriously, he usually starts threads on stuff like that!

And I don't think he'd be wrong on this one!

Until we see a security video of this guy breaking in, the assumption is that he and Paul arrived together.

 

[progressive hunter]

My, you do think about gay sex, a lot.

not really,, just when it comes up like this,, no pun intended

 

[evenflow1969]

Until we see a security video of this guy breaking in, the assumption is that he and Paul arrived together.

Lol, the assumptions of retards hilarious. What a retard.

 

[Pete7469]

Just need to wait for the actual facts to figure this out, Pete.
Too early to make an educated guess as to just what went on.

I agree.

I just enjoy how the moonbats are reacting to the theories and ridicule. No matter what the truth is, the whole thing is horrific.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seriously, he usually starts threads on stuff like that!

And I don't think he'd be wrong on this one!

Might be a Russian bot thing.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And I don't think he'd be wrong on this one!

But lie about it.

Like the lie that Democrats oppose citizens possessing guns for self-defense.

 

[progressive hunter]

But lie about it.

Like the lie that Democrats oppose citizens possessing guns for self-defense.

your premise is a lie,, the dems dont want guns for personal defense,,

 

[hadit]

Seriously, he usually starts threads on stuff like that!

And I don't think he'd be wrong on this one!

Here's the funny thing about all this. Had there been an armed security guard in the Pelosi home who shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would not hesitate in their rush to defend him. If, OTOH, Paul was an ordinary citizen with no fame or fortune who armed himself and shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would rush to the ramparts to denounce the fact that he had a gun in his home in the first place and that he should have relied on:

1. Running away, leaving everyone else in the house at the mercy of the assailant.
2. Calling the police and telling the assailant he's not allowed to hurt anyone until they got there.
3. Ninja martial arts moves that disarm the assailant without hurting him.
4. A large sign in his front yard declaring his home to be a gun free zone where no weapons are allowed.

I jest, but you get the point. In the anti-gun nut's mind, the rich, famous and powerful are justified to surround themselves with armed men ready and willing to shoot and kill, but it's not for an ordinary citizen to arm himself. Tell me, what's the difference? Either way, an assailant ends up perforated.

 

[Moonglow]

not really,, just when it comes up like this,, no pun intended

I never think of gay sex, odd, no?

 

[shockedcanadian]

That is not what Jesus said.

I've never even touched a gun in my life and I embrace Jesus and his message. I believe that "turning the other cheek" is reserved for those who are civilized and can be guilted into changing their ways. Some madman in my home armed with a weapon doesn't fall into that category.

 

[Moonglow]

Here's the funny thing about all this. Had there been an armed security guard in the Pelosi home who shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would not hesitate in their rush to defend him. If, OTOH, Paul was an ordinary citizen with no fame or fortune who armed himself and shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would rush to the ramparts to denounce the fact that he had a gun in his home in the first place and that he should have relied on:

1. Running away, leaving everyone else in the house at the mercy of the assailant.
2. Calling the police and telling the assailant he's not allowed to hurt anyone until they got there.
3. Ninja martial arts moves that disarm the assailant without hurting him.
4. A large sign in his front yard declaring his home to be a gun free zone where no weapons are allowed.

I jest, but you get the point. In the anti-gun nut's mind, the rich, famous and powerful are justified to surround themselves with armed men ready and willing to shoot and kill, but it's not for an ordinary citizen to arm himself. Tell me, what's the difference? Either way, an assailant ends up perforated.

I have firearms and have all my life since I was eight, why can't you get firearms?

 

[Moonglow]

I've never even touched a gun in my life and I embrace Jesus and his message. I believe that "turning the other cheek" is reserved for those who are civilized and can be guilted into changing their ways. Some madman in my home armed with a weapon doesn't fall into that category.

I noticed Jesus didn't follow yer advice.

 

[shockedcanadian]

When it comes to real life problems we should never look to a meathead for the solution.

 

[hadit]

I have firearms and have all my life since I was eight, why can't you get firearms?

I choose not to have them for my own reasons. I just don't believe my personal reasons should be imposed on someone else who chooses differently.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I noticed Jesus didn't follow yer advice.

Jesus was a man without sin I unfortunately are but a simple, mortal man.

 

[Pete7469]

Here's the funny thing about all this. Had there been an armed security guard in the Pelosi home who shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would not hesitate in their rush to defend him. If, OTOH, Paul was an ordinary citizen with no fame or fortune who armed himself and shot the assailant, the usual anti-gun suspects would rush to the ramparts to denounce the fact that he had a gun in his home in the first place and that he should have relied on:

1. Running away, leaving everyone else in the house at the mercy of the assailant.
2. Calling the police and telling the assailant he's not allowed to hurt anyone until they got there.
3. Ninja martial arts moves that disarm the assailant without hurting him.
4. A large sign in his front yard declaring his home to be a gun free zone where no weapons are allowed.

I jest, but you get the point. In the anti-gun nut's mind, the rich, famous and powerful are justified to surround themselves with armed men ready and willing to shoot and kill, but it's not for an ordinary citizen to arm himself. Tell me, what's the difference? Either way, an assailant ends up perforated.

What I find so very strange about this incident is that there apparently WERE NO ARMED MEN " ready and willing to shoot and kill" at the home of the speaker of the US House.

Of if they were there... they apparently either didn't do their jobs, or they were being told by their boss to stand down.

That's why this whole thing is so open for speculation and ridicule.

 

[progressive hunter]

I never think of gay sex, odd, no?

youre thinking about it right now because you are talking about it,,,

you are just a pathetic troll and dont even know it,,

sad really,,

 

[1srelluc]

Oddly enough in the first thread of many on the subject I was getting ready to post "he should have armed himself".....Then I thought....Fuck-em, they made the rain so it's on them if they get wet.