Right wingers...regarding Orlando tragedy....you have a tough choice to make

[nat4900]

Right wingers.....especially on this forum......Your choice is both simple and a tough one to make.

NO

NO, NO.....I want for you morons to continue being assholes.......We need your examples to teach our kids what NOT to be......LOL

 

[bripat9643]

In A Truly Sick Moment, Trump Uses Orlando Attack To Suggest Obama Is A Secret Muslim

Donald Trump showed that he has no low as he tried to use the terrorist attack in Orlando to suggest that President Obama is a secret Muslim during an interview on Fox News.…

He suggested no such thing, douche bag.

 

[bripat9643]

In A Truly Sick Moment, Trump Uses Orlando Attack To Suggest Obama Is A Secret Muslim

Donald Trump showed that he has no low as he tried to use the terrorist attack in Orlando to suggest that President Obama is a secret Muslim during an interview on Fox News.…

Actually a bit of "good news".....Keep the idiot, Trump, talking, and he readily digs his own political grave.

ROFL! You're delusional if you believe Trump is hurting himself.

 

[bripat9643]

One might think that a terrible event like this would unite Americans, but one would be wrong.

It is clear that something is wrong within Islam, that some of its adherents think murdering innocents is their religious calling.

Why did the massacre occur?

1. Radical Islam
2. Extreme hatred of gays
3. A person with noted terrorist leanings, extreme anti-gay hatred, domestic abuse and anger issues being able to buy any gun he wants
3. Unlimited access to an assault type rifle and high capacity magazines
4. No screening of patrons entering the nightclub

How many people in America have access to the weapons used by this subhuman? A lot, right? You lefties are always bitching about guns, yet this incident was the largest mass shooting in history. As such, it is not guns that are the problem. If you were capable of thinking logically, you would agree that this incident was Islamic terrorism and that IS the problem.

Hundred people shot, Fifty dead

No big deal.....we don't have to worry until there are thousands being killed

Says the guy advocating disarming all law-biding American citizens.

You know, every time you post is a lie since you are obviously lying about being a "rightwinger".

Provide any post where I advocated disarming all law-abiding citizens

That is why you gun nuts can't be taken seriously. Any comment about background checks,restricting access to certain weapons or high capacity magazines goes right to......They want to take all our guns!

That's because that's exactly what you're up to.

 

[NLT]

Right wingers.....especially on this forum......Your choice is both simple and a tough one to make.

NO

NO, NO.....I want for you morons to continue being assholes.......We need your examples to teach our kids what NOT to be......LOL

 

[NLT]

In A Truly Sick Moment, Trump Uses Orlando Attack To Suggest Obama Is A Secret Muslim

Donald Trump showed that he has no low as he tried to use the terrorist attack in Orlando to suggest that President Obama is a secret Muslim during an interview on Fox News.…

 

[bripat9643]

Trump gets more heat for self-congratulatory Tweet
Tim Devaney - 06/13/16 12:21 PM EDT


The presumptive Republican nominee is facing growing criticism..............

Only from douche bags like you.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Muslim rep. decries Trump’s ‘villainous rampage against other Americans’
Lisa Hagen - 06/13/16 09:21 PM EDT
Rep. Keith Ellison on Monday night called Donald Trump “a narcissistic fascist.”

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump's Speech Needs Some Asterisks

Vox
Donald Trump: American-born Orlando shooter “born an Afghan”

 

[HappyJoy]

Imagine if he had only a revolver, can you imagine the number of people the shooter wouldn't have killed?

So, it's apparently fact. Do what you want with the info.

It is apparently a fact that you are blaming the weapon.

Do what you want with the info.

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense. To ignore the weapons effectiveness is asinine.

I'm not ignoring the weapons effectiveness.

Again! He was a known radical. The Government failed in their responsibility.

The weapon was manufactured for the effectiveness.

You choose to curtail my rights instead of addressing the individual.

The guy is a terrorist and he chose to use the tool that is most effective. Nobody is ignoring who the guy is, you're deflecting.

The guy was a "known" potential terrorists. DHS apparently cleared him for a concealed carry.

No deflection. He was armed and recently purchased said weapons. My reply stands. So. He recently purchased weapons.

What does it have to do with my firearms and should my rights be curtailed due to his actions?

You for the most part don't have the right to either get or easily get a fully automatic weapon. You don't have the rights to some types of ammunition, all this because of what 'he' or 'them' or 'him' or 'you' may do with them.

 

[skye]

Some left wingers in here are so totally naive.....it blows my mind.

"Terrorists will always find murder weapons – if not guns, then homemade bombs like the Boston Marathon brothers, kitchen knives or vehicles. Even in countries with strict gun control, there is always a black market."


STOP IT WITH THE BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!

 

[JBond]

I guess you don't want gay people to have the right to self defense. Behold liberal hypocrisy! You want gays to have the right to marry, you want them to be treated equally... except the 2nd Amendment.

Oops.

i'm all for gays joining well regulated militias. Obama totally made that happen by repealling don't ask, don't tell.

But packing guns when drunk in a bar... meh, not so much.

There's a reason why bar owners don't want you packing heat in their bars. It mostly has to do with that bar argument over the game or who's hitting on whose girlfriend (or boyfriend) turning deadly.

11 SWAT Team members had a hard time taking this guy down. You really think one drunk with a pistol was going to do it?

People who carry concealed don't drink as you well know but choose to lie about. Face it dude. You're a pathological liar so honestly whatever you say is crap 99% of the time.

You can cc in bars in Kansas. They changed the law in 2007. So far it's worked out fine.

I wonder how many right wingers are say, "Hey, it was only queers. What's the big deal?"

That is ridiculous even for you.

Every time some loser posts crap about what conservatives think, I become more sure in my beliefs. Many on the other side are absolutely nuts. They are so terrified of the boogeymen they have created in their pea sized brains they begin imposing characteristics on others that they themselves habor. To summerize... they are crazy.

 

[bripat9643]

It is apparently a fact that you are blaming the weapon.

Do what you want with the info.

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense. To ignore the weapons effectiveness is asinine.

I'm not ignoring the weapons effectiveness.

Again! He was a known radical. The Government failed in their responsibility.

The weapon was manufactured for the effectiveness.

You choose to curtail my rights instead of addressing the individual.

The guy is a terrorist and he chose to use the tool that is most effective. Nobody is ignoring who the guy is, you're deflecting.

The guy was a "known" potential terrorists. DHS apparently cleared him for a concealed carry.

No deflection. He was armed and recently purchased said weapons. My reply stands. So. He recently purchased weapons.

What does it have to do with my firearms and should my rights be curtailed due to his actions?

You for the most part don't have the right to either get or easily get a fully automatic weapon. You don't have the rights to some types of ammunition, all this because of what 'he' or 'them' or 'him' or 'you' may do with them.

What do "fully automatic weapons" have to do with this incident?

 

[westwall]

It is apparently a fact that you are blaming the weapon.

Do what you want with the info.

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense. To ignore the weapons effectiveness is asinine.

I'm not ignoring the weapons effectiveness.

Again! He was a known radical. The Government failed in their responsibility.

The weapon was manufactured for the effectiveness.

You choose to curtail my rights instead of addressing the individual.

The guy is a terrorist and he chose to use the tool that is most effective. Nobody is ignoring who the guy is, you're deflecting.

The guy was a "known" potential terrorists. DHS apparently cleared him for a concealed carry.

No deflection. He was armed and recently purchased said weapons. My reply stands. So. He recently purchased weapons.

What does it have to do with my firearms and should my rights be curtailed due to his actions?

You for the most part don't have the right to either get or easily get a fully automatic weapon. You don't have the rights to some types of ammunition, all this because of what 'he' or 'them' or 'him' or 'you' may do with them.

You have no ******* clue what you are talking about.

 

[Norman]

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense. To ignore the weapons effectiveness is asinine.

I'm not ignoring the weapons effectiveness.

Again! He was a known radical. The Government failed in their responsibility.

The weapon was manufactured for the effectiveness.

You choose to curtail my rights instead of addressing the individual.

The guy is a terrorist and he chose to use the tool that is most effective. Nobody is ignoring who the guy is, you're deflecting.

The guy was a "known" potential terrorists. DHS apparently cleared him for a concealed carry.

No deflection. He was armed and recently purchased said weapons. My reply stands. So. He recently purchased weapons.

What does it have to do with my firearms and should my rights be curtailed due to his actions?

You for the most part don't have the right to either get or easily get a fully automatic weapon. You don't have the rights to some types of ammunition, all this because of what 'he' or 'them' or 'him' or 'you' may do with them.

What do "fully automatic weapons" have to do with this incident?

Liberals want to ban them. They want to ban everything they don't like.

That's all.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense. To ignore the weapons effectiveness is asinine.

I'm not ignoring the weapons effectiveness.

Again! He was a known radical. The Government failed in their responsibility.

The weapon was manufactured for the effectiveness.

You choose to curtail my rights instead of addressing the individual.

The guy is a terrorist and he chose to use the tool that is most effective. Nobody is ignoring who the guy is, you're deflecting.

The guy was a "known" potential terrorists. DHS apparently cleared him for a concealed carry.

No deflection. He was armed and recently purchased said weapons. My reply stands. So. He recently purchased weapons.

What does it have to do with my firearms and should my rights be curtailed due to his actions?

You for the most part don't have the right to either get or easily get a fully automatic weapon. You don't have the rights to some types of ammunition, all this because of what 'he' or 'them' or 'him' or 'you' may do with them.

What do "fully automatic weapons" have to do with this incident?

Thankfully nothing. Which is exactly what is in your head because you didn't understand my post.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't think it's possible to only blame the weapon, that doesn't' make sense. To ignore the weapons effectiveness is asinine.

I'm not ignoring the weapons effectiveness.

Again! He was a known radical. The Government failed in their responsibility.

The weapon was manufactured for the effectiveness.

You choose to curtail my rights instead of addressing the individual.

The guy is a terrorist and he chose to use the tool that is most effective. Nobody is ignoring who the guy is, you're deflecting.

The guy was a "known" potential terrorists. DHS apparently cleared him for a concealed carry.

No deflection. He was armed and recently purchased said weapons. My reply stands. So. He recently purchased weapons.

What does it have to do with my firearms and should my rights be curtailed due to his actions?

You for the most part don't have the right to either get or easily get a fully automatic weapon. You don't have the rights to some types of ammunition, all this because of what 'he' or 'them' or 'him' or 'you' may do with them.

You have no ******* clue what you are talking about.

Ok, go get a fully automatic weapon without any additional requirements or infringements.

 

[westwall]

I'm not ignoring the weapons effectiveness.

Again! He was a known radical. The Government failed in their responsibility.

The weapon was manufactured for the effectiveness.

You choose to curtail my rights instead of addressing the individual.

The guy is a terrorist and he chose to use the tool that is most effective. Nobody is ignoring who the guy is, you're deflecting.

The guy was a "known" potential terrorists. DHS apparently cleared him for a concealed carry.

No deflection. He was armed and recently purchased said weapons. My reply stands. So. He recently purchased weapons.

What does it have to do with my firearms and should my rights be curtailed due to his actions?

You for the most part don't have the right to either get or easily get a fully automatic weapon. You don't have the rights to some types of ammunition, all this because of what 'he' or 'them' or 'him' or 'you' may do with them.

You have no ******* clue what you are talking about.

Ok, go get a fully automatic weapon without any additional requirements or infringements.

I own 23 of them. How many more do you think I need?

 

[HappyJoy]

The guy is a terrorist and he chose to use the tool that is most effective. Nobody is ignoring who the guy is, you're deflecting.

The guy was a "known" potential terrorists. DHS apparently cleared him for a concealed carry.

No deflection. He was armed and recently purchased said weapons. My reply stands. So. He recently purchased weapons.

What does it have to do with my firearms and should my rights be curtailed due to his actions?

You for the most part don't have the right to either get or easily get a fully automatic weapon. You don't have the rights to some types of ammunition, all this because of what 'he' or 'them' or 'him' or 'you' may do with them.

You have no ******* clue what you are talking about.

Ok, go get a fully automatic weapon without any additional requirements or infringements.

I own 23 of them. How many more do you think I need?

What were the requirements for the average citizen? Same as a hand gun?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not ignoring the weapons effectiveness.

Again! He was a known radical. The Government failed in their responsibility.

The weapon was manufactured for the effectiveness.

You choose to curtail my rights instead of addressing the individual.

The guy is a terrorist and he chose to use the tool that is most effective. Nobody is ignoring who the guy is, you're deflecting.

The guy was a "known" potential terrorists. DHS apparently cleared him for a concealed carry.

No deflection. He was armed and recently purchased said weapons. My reply stands. So. He recently purchased weapons.

What does it have to do with my firearms and should my rights be curtailed due to his actions?

You for the most part don't have the right to either get or easily get a fully automatic weapon. You don't have the rights to some types of ammunition, all this because of what 'he' or 'them' or 'him' or 'you' may do with them.

What do "fully automatic weapons" have to do with this incident?

Liberals want to ban them. They want to ban everything they don't like.

That's all.

It cracks me up that they talk about how dangerous so-called "assault weapons" are, but they don't see the slightest danger in importing thousands of bloodthirsty savages.