NRA vs Chris Christie: Christie Defeated by Logic

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm sure that's what you learned in Home Skule... but it just ain't true.

Says you. And by the way, I actually went to and graduated from High School. So you can ditch that "home-skule" bullshit, numbnuts.

Funny, you seem to have abuot a fifth grader's understanding of the Revolutionary War.

I mean, if you think the King had real power at that point....

Dip shit in the declaration of independence who was it directed at?
The king of England or Parliment?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, know so. A beating is not forever. Murder is. The higher violence lower murder rates are worth it.

Wait , you said

And -- it is safer to live here because of the incredibly reduced numbers of murders in the UK and Canada

It doesn't sound one bit safer does it?

If you have 96% less chance of being murdered, then, yeah, it is a whole lot safer.

This post my part of thread. bigrebnc can't recover from it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says you. And by the way, I actually went to and graduated from High School. So you can ditch that "home-skule" bullshit, numbnuts.

Funny, you seem to have abuot a fifth grader's understanding of the Revolutionary War.

I mean, if you think the King had real power at that point....

Dip shit in the declaration of independence who was it directed at?
The king of England or Parliment?

First, the Petition, and second, the Declaration, were both directed to the King so that would protect them from the Parliament.

The Declaration of Independence was directed primarily at the King as failing in his duties to his subjects.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yup, know so. A beating is not forever. Murder is. The higher violence lower murder rates are worth it.

Wait , you said

And -- it is safer to live here because of the incredibly reduced numbers of murders in the UK and Canada

It doesn't sound one bit safer does it?

If you have 96% less chance of being murdered, then, yeah, it is a whole lot safer.

This post my part of thread. bigrebnc can't recover from it.

Being the safest would be free from being assaulted.
So your claiming victory even when you have been shown you're wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Funny, you seem to have abuot a fifth grader's understanding of the Revolutionary War.

I mean, if you think the King had real power at that point....

Dip shit in the declaration of independence who was it directed at?
The king of England or Parliment?

First, the Petition, and second, the Declaration, were both directed to the King so that would protect them from the Parliament.

The Declaration of Independence was directed primarily at the King as failing in his duties to his subjects.

I was not addressing nor do I care about what you have to say.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm sure that's what you learned in Home Skule... but it just ain't true.

Says you. And by the way, I actually went to and graduated from High School. So you can ditch that "home-skule" bullshit, numbnuts.

Funny, you seem to have abuot a fifth grader's understanding of the Revolutionary War.

I mean, if you think the King had real power at that point....

How else did the troops get here, dimwit?

Here's more history for you as quoted from a source:

"When George III assumed the throne in 1760, upon the death of his grandfather, he was full of resentments. Power had been draining away from the monarchy for seventy years, and he meant to reverse this. His widowed mother encouraged this, exhorting him to "be a King, George. Be a King!".

George III could have ensured himself a tranquil reign had he retained Pitt as his Prime Minister, and been content to reign as the royal figurehead you suggest he was. His mother was being consoled by the third Earl of Bute, John Stuart, and it was to Bute he turned for guidance on how to "be a King". Together they decided that Pitt must go and replaced him with Grenville, whom the King found tedious and called "Mr. Greenville". Pitt had toyed with the idea of direct taxation of the colonists in 1759, when he was annoyed at what he thought was slow payment of war taxes from the colonies, but dropped the idea when he was assured that such a move would set off a firestorm of protest.

The colonists thought they had already paid quite a lot in taxes during the war, besides raising and supporting many thousands of troops for his majesty's campaigns in North America. Grenville decided to impose taxes to help retire the remaining debt and to pay for the maintenance of troops in the colonies at levels never seen before. With the French gone from North America, in no small part due to the fighting men of the colonies, who could these troops be meant for if not the colonists themselves? The first protests at this scheme of taxation were from the King's own party, and as a policy it was most unwise, for it gave the nascent Patriot movement its cause.

Through subsequent ministers and different plans for taxation and other oppressive measures, the King held fast to his policy of bringing the colonists to heel. Upon passage of the Port Act the King jeered from the throne at the weakness of the opposition. "The die is now cast" he told North. "The colonies must either submit or triumph."

In his removals of Pitt, and of Grenville (due to affronts to his mother during the regency), and his selection of North, and his several refusals to allow North to resign, the King was much more actively involved in North American policy than you seem to imagine.

The essence of folly has always been to adopt policies directly contrary to your own self-interest, and then to cling to those policies with pathetic stubbornness."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep. And you nuts and the NRA armed the fellow that blew up the Boston Marathon. Aren't you proud of your accomplishments? And when there is another Sandy Hook, you can brag about that, also.

The NRA armed the bombers at the marathon?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dip shit in the declaration of independence who was it directed at?
The king of England or Parliment?

First, the Petition, and second, the Declaration, were both directed to the King so that would protect them from the Parliament.

The Declaration of Independence was directed primarily at the King as failing in his duties to his subjects.

I was not addressing nor do I care about what you have to say.

Read em and weep, sonny. The information is correct and pertains to your comments.

 

[tinydancer]

Nice avoiding the point.

I'd like to know why you want the Tsaranaev Brothers or Adam Lanza to have access to weapons?

Kind of seems like a bad idea to me.

He did not make a point, he made an insane comment. Are you supporting his insanity?

Um, please point out to me what is "insane" about his comment. The Tsaranaev brothers were able to get weapons. Adam Lanza was able to get weapons. Weapons are too easy to get in this country.

Again, it's an awesome racket the NRA and weapons manufacturers have. They make it easy for crooks to get guns, and dumb derpa-derps like you buy more guns because you are all scared and stuff.

It's like arming both sides in a war.

Adam had to kill his mother to get his weapons. He broke the law. You know. Not allowed to murder anyone.

 

[tinydancer]

We're the bad guys you see in their minds.

In the case of the Philly abortionist snipping off the heads of living babies, he's a champion for their pro choice causes.

Us bad, abortionist beheading live children good in a liberals mind. That's how sick it has gotten bigreb.

A year ago I'd have said "you have to be kidding me" . Not now. Not now. These libs really are that sick.

Aye carumba there is no turning back.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why doesn't JoeB131 talk about the failures of the FBI and other intelligence agencies, who already had these guys on their radar.

Do you you think you "gun laws" would stop bombings? Do you think international terrorists who SHOOT COPS will follow your "gun laws." What you think they are going to enter a licensed gun shop, just to be automatically denied the sale of a gun and have the gun shop owner call the authorities on them?

Also, did Hitler relax gun laws for Jews? In general did Hitler relax gun laws for anyone who opposed him? So it's ok to disarm those who you despise/hate?, so long as everyone else can have guns? lololololol

Does Joeb131 know how many non-active readers visit these forums for every active poster? All of them get to witness his stupidity, amazing!

Did the FBI have these guys on some kind of "Radar"? Or are you just making shit up again?

Gun laws will stop shootings. Also, if you ban the sale of black powder to civilians, (something else they don't really need) they couldn't have made these bombs.

Again, Hitler took ALL the rights away from the Jews. If they had guns, wouldn't have made much of a difference. The Nazis had tanks and planes and stuff. The notion you can oppose the government is absurd on its face.

Does 2nd Amendment realize that lots of people know he was crazy?

Yes Joe the FBI had the older brother in for questioning at the request of the Russians in 2011.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The NRA armed the bombers at the marathon?

In the minds of gun grabber we also bite the heads of children off and shut flames of fire from our ass.

We're the bad guys you see in their minds.

In the case of the Philly abortionist snipping off the heads of living babies, he's a champion for their pro choice causes.

Us bad, abortionist beheading live children good in a liberals mind. That's how sick it has gotten bigreb.

A year ago I'd have said "you have to be kidding me" . Not now. Not now. These libs really are that sick.

Aye carumba there is no turning back.

Sad isn't it.

 

[tinydancer]

Yep. And you nuts and the NRA armed the fellow that blew up the Boston Marathon. Aren't you proud of your accomplishments? And when there is another Sandy Hook, you can brag about that, also.

The NRA armed the bombers at the marathon?

Appears so to the nutbar libs.

 

[tinydancer]

Um, please point out to me what is "insane" about his comment. The Tsaranaev brothers were able to get weapons. Adam Lanza was able to get weapons. Weapons are too easy to get in this country.

Again, it's an awesome racket the NRA and weapons manufacturers have. They make it easy for crooks to get guns, and dumb derpa-derps like you buy more guns because you are all scared and stuff.

It's like arming both sides in a war.

Adam had to kill his mother to get his weapons. He broke the law. You know. Not allowed to murder anyone.

Liberals think it is ok to kill some babies

Obviously. Yikes.

 

[logical4u]

From an earlier post:

Most of this country does not live in "cities" where the police can be there in a few minutes (after the crime is committed).
In the cities, urban crime is being targeted in areas where the criminals know the victims do not have guns. If the criminals knew that more people were carrying weapons, they would be a lot less likely to commit crimes in the open.
"Most" of the country does not live in cities. There are "pests" (opossums, raccoons, etc) that bother most households at some point. Those that are on farms will use guns to "put down" an animal that is suffering (from injury or illness) in a "humane" gesture. In other areas of this country, there are some big predators, that make carrying a gun, a simple precaution in self preservation (even if it is just to shoot in front of the predator, cause a lot of people just don't want to pick that fight, even with a gun). Wild dogs, packs of dogs are also stopped by weapons. Rabid animals, also are stopped with guns, in many areas, if you waited for the police to show up, the animals could infect another dozen or so animals, before being stopped, and rabies would not be as controlled as it is.
Your views appear to be very narrow. Maybe you should get out, more.

Those of you that want guns "controlled", what say you? What will people do without guns in these areas? Are you for higher incidents of rabies and "pests"? Would you prefer to see animals suffer, instead of a quick "mercy killing"? Your "wants" will have unintended consequences. Are you okay with lions, bears and wolves (oh, my!) becoming more predatory towards people, because the people are "defenseless"? Are you going to required "bodyguards" to follow the same rules (if you are, it appears you DO want a tyranny)?

 

[JoeB131]

[

How else did the troops get here, dimwit?

Here's more history for you as quoted from a source:

"When George III assumed the throne in 1760, upon the death of his grandfather, he was full of resentments. Power had been draining away from the monarchy for seventy years, and he meant to reverse this. His widowed mother encouraged this, exhorting him to "be a King, George. Be a King!".

."

Yeah, they could say this all day, but Parliment wasn't having any of it.

Let's not forget, this was a guy who got locked into an insane asylum because the politicians decided they had enough of his silliness...

The MOnarchy had been a figurehead institution.

We were not rebelling against "evil Monarchy". We were rebelling against Rich Douchebags payng their fair share.

The mystery is, why non-rich people went along with it.

Or any of the shit they go along with now.

Oh, yeah, because of guys like this...

 

[JoeB131]

He did not make a point, he made an insane comment. Are you supporting his insanity?

Um, please point out to me what is "insane" about his comment. The Tsaranaev brothers were able to get weapons. Adam Lanza was able to get weapons. Weapons are too easy to get in this country.

Again, it's an awesome racket the NRA and weapons manufacturers have. They make it easy for crooks to get guns, and dumb derpa-derps like you buy more guns because you are all scared and stuff.

It's like arming both sides in a war.

Adam had to kill his mother to get his weapons. He broke the law. You know. Not allowed to murder anyone.

but why did his mother have that many guns to start with?

Because she was a paranoid loon "Prepper" who was stocking up for the Zombie Apocolypse or some such shit. So she had a crazy kid. Big surprise to NO ONE.

IF she didn't have guns she didn't need, there would have been no Sandy Hook Massacre.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[

How else did the troops get here, dimwit?

Here's more history for you as quoted from a source:

"When George III assumed the throne in 1760, upon the death of his grandfather, he was full of resentments. Power had been draining away from the monarchy for seventy years, and he meant to reverse this. His widowed mother encouraged this, exhorting him to "be a King, George. Be a King!".

."

Yeah, they could say this all day, but Parliment wasn't having any of it.

Let's not forget, this was a guy who got locked into an insane asylum because the politicians decided they had enough of his silliness...

The MOnarchy had been a figurehead institution.

We were not rebelling against "evil Monarchy". We were rebelling against Rich Douchebags payng their fair share.

The mystery is, why non-rich people went along with it.

Or any of the shit they go along with now.

Oh, yeah, because of guys like this...

You are an ignorant bastard.

 

[JoeB131]

And you are a whiny one... but that's okay.

If it weren't for the dumb-ass, inbred redneck voting against his own economic interests, the GOP wouldn't be what it is today.

It might actually be a sensible party.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Um, please point out to me what is "insane" about his comment. The Tsaranaev brothers were able to get weapons. Adam Lanza was able to get weapons. Weapons are too easy to get in this country.

Again, it's an awesome racket the NRA and weapons manufacturers have. They make it easy for crooks to get guns, and dumb derpa-derps like you buy more guns because you are all scared and stuff.

It's like arming both sides in a war.

Adam had to kill his mother to get his weapons. He broke the law. You know. Not allowed to murder anyone.

but why did his mother have that many guns to start with?

Because she was a paranoid loon "Prepper" who was stocking up for the Zombie Apocolypse or some such shit. So she had a crazy kid. Big surprise to NO ONE.

IF she didn't have guns she didn't need, there would have been no Sandy Hook Massacre.

Why do you think the way you do joe? You're a ******* idiot and should lose any right to free speech because you are not talking responsibly