Shots Fired at LAX

[bigrebnc1775]

I haven't refused to answer any of your questions unless you tried to answer a question with a question ans didn't answer what I asked. So with your non answer you admit that you're lying.

I asked you several times who that Chris dude was and you refused to answer.

Are you that ******* dumb? Do you live under a rock? No T.V.? Where you posting on the board in February of this year? YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO ADMIT THAT YOU ARE THAT ******* STUPID NOT TO KNOW WHO CHRIS DORNER IS?
Tell me it's not possible.

 

[Billo_Really]

A few questions, and not trying to be a smart ass, as they are legitimate:

1.) Are you familiar with any examples of first-world Governments becoming oppressive/tyrannical in the past 100 years?

2.) If the United States Government ever takes a turn for the worse, would you feel more or less safe in situation where ONLY the gov't and criminals (who don't care about the laws) have guns vs one where law abiding citizens have guns too?

In answer to your first question, yes I am.

In answer to your second, I'm more worried about the George Zimmerman's of this world, than I am the US government turning into some rouge ruler. And personally, if it gets to that point, those 2nd amendment rights are not going to stop the government from F'ing people in the A, if it wanted to.

 

[Billo_Really]

Are you that ******* dumb? Do you live under a rock? No T.V.? Where you posting on the board in February of this year? YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO ADMIT THAT YOU ARE THAT ******* STUPID NOT TO KNOW WHO CHRIS DORNER IS?
Tell me it's not possible.

No, I don't know who he is and to date, you haven't told me who he is.

So no, you haven't answered any of my questions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you that ******* dumb? Do you live under a rock? No T.V.? Where you posting on the board in February of this year? YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO ADMIT THAT YOU ARE THAT ******* STUPID NOT TO KNOW WHO CHRIS DORNER IS?
Tell me it's not possible.

No, I don't know who he is and to date, you haven't told me who he is.

So no, you haven't answered any of my questions.

Chris Dorner manifesto
Chris Dorner manifesto | abc7.com

 

[KevinWestern]

In answer to your second, I'm more worried about the George Zimmerman's of this world, than I am the US government turning into some rouge ruler.

Well given leaders within the US Gov't were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (aka a country that never attacked the US) in a war designed solely for the purpose of making money and strategic gain, I think you should reconsider your position, lol. This like just happened by the way...

The folks who rule this world are ruthless - always have been, and always will be, and they'll kill you in an instant if you get between them and their money.

And personally, if it gets to that point, those 2nd amendment rights are not going to stop the government from F'ing people in the A, if it wanted to.

I think you're completely wrong here. The military are amongst the most active in the Ron Paul, etc, sort of camp and (I believe) would never fire on innocent civilians. Secondly, even if they wanted to, take a look at our success in the middle east. We couldn't even take control of Iraq, which is tiny in comparison and much poorer (less access to internet/communication lines, guns, etc).

The right to own GUNS is more important than you think; if it wasn't, then why would Hitler or Stalin bother to take them away? Why was that such an important objective for them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why dio you feel the need to lie about this?
Or are you ignorant of the fact that The Obama wants to ban 'assaut weapons'?

That's a little different than banning handguns and shotguns.

The 'assault weapon' ban, if enacted, would ban handguns, shotguns and rifles.
Thus, The Obama wants to ban handguns, shotguns and rifles.

So, I ask again:
Why do you feel the need to lie about this?

I personally don't see the need for citizens to be running around with a bunch AK's.

How does that equate to a sound argument for banning them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

...In answer to your second, I'm more worried about the George Zimmerman's of this world...

You're worried about people who legally carry legal weapons and legally use them in self defense?
Why?

 

[Billo_Really]

You're worried about people who legally carry legal weapons and legally use them in self defense?
Why?

No. I'm worried about armed, racist assholes, who stalk (and murder) innocent people they are prejudiced against.

 

[Billo_Really]

The 'assault weapon' ban, if enacted, would ban handguns, shotguns and rifles.
Thus, The Obama wants to ban handguns, shotguns and rifles.

So, I ask again:
Why do you feel the need to lie about this?

Produce the bill where you read this.

How does that equate to a sound argument for banning them?

The sound argument is, unless you're in the military, or intend to commit acts of terrorism, there's no reason to have an AK.

 

[Billo_Really]

Well given leaders within the US Gov't were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (aka a country that never attacked the US) in a war designed solely for the purpose of making money and strategic gain, I think you should reconsider your position, lol. This like just happened by the way...

The folks who rule this world are ruthless - always have been, and always will be, and they'll kill you in an instant if you get between them and their money.

I find it interesting you'd say that and then in the next statement, say something completely opposite.

I think you're completely wrong here. The military are amongst the most active in the Ron Paul, etc, sort of camp and (I believe) would never fire on innocent civilians. Secondly, even if they wanted to, take a look at our success in the middle east. We couldn't even take control of Iraq, which is tiny in comparison and much poorer (less access to internet/communication lines, guns, etc).

The right to own GUNS is more important than you think; if it wasn't, then why would Hitler or Stalin bother to take them away? Why was that such an important objective for them?

How can they "never fire" on me, yet "kill me in an instant"?

How does that work?

 

[Billo_Really]

Chris Dorner manifesto
Chris Dorner manifesto | abc7.com

I have no intention of going to your link and trying to figure out what your point is. You need to tell me in your own words who this guy is and why you bring him up, then I'll go check out your link.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're worried about people who legally carry legal weapons and legally use them in self defense?
Why?

No. I'm worried about armed, racist assholes, who stalk (and murder) innocent people they are prejudiced against.

Ah... so you -aren't- worried about people like Zimmerman, who legally carried a legal gun and legally used it in self-defense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 'assault weapon' ban, if enacted, would ban handguns, shotguns and rifles.
Thus, The Obama wants to ban handguns, shotguns and rifles.
So, I ask again:
Why do you feel the need to lie about this?

Produce the bill where you read this.

I am happy to help you with your ignorance.

Senator Feinstein's bill:
Assault Weapons Ban summary - Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

Obama's support for it:
Obama will back Feinstein?s bill to reinstate assault weapons ban - Salon.com
Obama Supports Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban - PolicyMic

As I said:
The Obama wants to ban handguns, shotguns and rifles.

How does that equate to a sound argument for banning them?

The sound argument is, unless you're in the military, or intend to commit acts of terrorism, there's no reason to have an AK.

So... your bigoted, ignorant opinion -doesn't- equate to a sound argument. Roger that.

 

[KevinWestern]

Well given leaders within the US Gov't were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (aka a country that never attacked the US) in a war designed solely for the purpose of making money and strategic gain, I think you should reconsider your position, lol. This like just happened by the way...

The folks who rule this world are ruthless - always have been, and always will be, and they'll kill you in an instant if you get between them and their money.

I find it interesting you'd say that and then in the next statement, say something completely opposite.

I think you're completely wrong here. The military are amongst the most active in the Ron Paul, etc, sort of camp and (I believe) would never fire on innocent civilians. Secondly, even if they wanted to, take a look at our success in the middle east. We couldn't even take control of Iraq, which is tiny in comparison and much poorer (less access to internet/communication lines, guns, etc).

The right to own GUNS is more important than you think; if it wasn't, then why would Hitler or Stalin bother to take them away? Why was that such an important objective for them?

How can they "never fire" on me, yet "kill me in an instant"?

How does that work?

Very simple: the world rulers wouldn't hesitate to kill you in an instant. You do not matter to them.

However (thankfully) the folks they would rely on to carry that out - the soldiers - I believe would back down. Make sense?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Was that the thread you admitted you were into men's butts?

You have a very dull wit, even for a Jr. High kid.

 

[Billo_Really]

Very simple: the world rulers wouldn't hesitate to kill you in an instant. You do not matter to them.

However (thankfully) the folks they would rely on to carry that out - the soldiers - I believe would back down. Make sense?

I don't think we'd be shot at. The rulers would much rather stick us in the "for-profit" prison system.

 

[Billo_Really]

Ah... so you -aren't- worried about people like Zimmerman, who legally carried a legal gun and legally used it in self-defense.

**** off with that bullshit, that's not what I said.

 

[Uncensored2008]

**** off with that bullshit, that's not what I said.

It IS what you said - you were simply too stupid to grasp that it isn't what you meant.

You believe your own lies, so didn't grasp what a fool you've made of yourself.

 

[mike55]

Have the calls for gun bans been big over this incident?

 

[KevinWestern]

Very simple: the world rulers wouldn't hesitate to kill you in an instant. You do not matter to them.

However (thankfully) the folks they would rely on to carry that out - the soldiers - I believe would back down. Make sense?

I don't think we'd be shot at. The rulers would much rather stick us in the "for-profit" prison system.

You forget that the "for-profit" system doesn't work so well when people start revolting because their piece of the pie is shrinking to an infinitely small size. Remember? You were the one who just a few days ago posted something about wealth stratification.

This is what I'm describing..