He stood his ground?!! (Not?!!)

ZappasGuitar said:
HEAR HEAR!!

That is PRECISELY the problem.

Too many gun owners today are chickenshit little cowards who need their surrogate penis to feel brave and who rely on their "strap-on" to help settle their conflicts for them.
Click to expand...

because only those that get PAID to be bullies are allowed to be bullies ROFL you're such a tool
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I hear the same Bizzaro World stupidity repeated by STY all the time.

He claims that someone who is willing to settle a conflict with his fists a bully, but someone who uses a gun to do the same is being brave.
Click to expand...

no, you are intentionally misconstruing my statement. but then honest talk and debate has never been your intention
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea no shit! Just the mention of common sense precuationg to prevent gun violence gets their panties in a wad. Must be small dick syndrome.
Click to expand...

I'm amused at the premise of "common sense" associated to the efforts of the left to prevent gun violence.

Yet when asked how gun laws prevented the shooting in Connecticut, Colorado and other similar events, the silence is deafening because in every one of those cases, existing law did not prevent these criminals from obtaining weapons. As a matter of fact, it is obvious that stricter laws merely impact the law abiding and NOT the criminal element; after all, they are called criminals because they don't obey laws. But then, the obvious never had any impact on liberals with an agenda have they?

Yet, that still is not obvious enough for the gun ban agenda; they now want to naively claim that the citizens who are preyed upon by a criminal element who is revolved through the jail system by liberal well intentioned judges who misguidedly believe they criminals can be reformed, should not have the right to defend themselves. This of course is based on the equally dimwitted and naive belief that the police prevent crimes from happening when in truth, they show up AFTERWARDS.

So no dunces on the left, it is not about small dicks or big dicks; thats just painfully stupid. It's about good common sense and the right to protect your life and property.
 
I was in a movie theater about six months ago. It was one of these theaters where you buy your ticket at a kiosk and you select your seat at the same time. Why they do this I don't really know, but there's usually an usher that even offers to show you to your seat so I guess it's not really that inconvenient. Anyway I go find my seat and I sit down, I'm watching the previews and this big guy and his equally large wife come up to me, and the guy says simply "you're in my seat". I look up at him and I'm just about to say something snarky, but something tells me that maybe I ought to keep my mouth shut and give this guy the benefit of the doubt. So I say "sorry about that", and I get up and I moved to what was actually a better seat, but just to make sure I looked down at the seat number then I took a look at my ticket. Turns out I was in the right seat. I think the moral of the story here is, in our daily interaction with each other we are no longer kind enough and if it is against our nature to be kind to each other, we are evidently too stupid to understand the possible consequences of our actions. This shooter was a retired cop. Nobody knows what he went through on the street. Hell, we've got Vietnam veterans that still jump under the bed when a car backfires. I don't really think this guy would've gotten away with this even if he was an active duty cop, but the guy he shot wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed either.
 
Right said:
I assume you mean "thought".

So what? Juries make dumb decisions all the time. Most of the time though, they get it right.
Click to expand...

So in this situation, the law would give a dumb situation a hook to hang his hat on.
 
Dantès said:
In answer to your first question; a 71 year old retired cop who is carrying a gun and will shoot you if you don't stop it. But evidently you aren't the only one with questions. This man and his son were sitting next to the victim and had blood on their clothes as they left the theater and he was also shocked. "I can’t believe people would bring a pistol, a gun, to a movie," Cummings said. "I can’t believe they would argue and fight and shoot one another over popcorn. Over a cellphone."

More guns = More Gun Deaths
Click to expand...


Actually your equation isn't quite correct...it SHOULD read:

More COWARDS + More Guns = More Gun Deaths.
 
Right said:
If you read my posts, you would see that I've defended the shooter because he was old, relative to the guy who initiated the physical altercation. Care to restate your question huh
Click to expand...


Oh well that makes what the old fossil did just hunky dorry, huh?

You're defending the shooter because he had a gun and you just will NOT entertain even the most innocuous regulation of the "courage" you need to carry with you everywhere to help you feel brave.
 
cawacko said:
But dude, having popcorn thrown at you is equivalent to taking a beating? Yes, the 43 year old man who threw his popcorn at a 71 year old man is an idiot. But throwing popcorn is a life threatening maneuver?
Click to expand...

Apparently it is if you're a coward with anger management issues and are allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Oh well that makes what the old fossil did just hunky dorry, huh?

You're defending the shooter because he had a gun and you just will NOT entertain even the most innocuous regulation of the "courage" you need to carry with you everywhere to help you feel brave.
Click to expand...

No gun regulations have ever been "innocuous" (harmless; not likely to give offense, etc) IMO. I haven't read this thread but this post caught my eye as I was looking through the threads I've missed the last few days. Most of these type of stories are brought up to highlight the need for gun regulation which of course I am against and have argued against many times so I usually avoid them as I have had my say and it doesn't do any good to re-hash. But describing gun regulations as "innocuous" ... I just had to say, "no, they're not."
 
Truth Detector said:
God forbid that he take his texting out to the hall in consideration of ALL the other patrons in the theatre. Yet when asked to, felt compelled to engage in a theatre brawl.

BUT; he was texting his CHILD...it's about the children...unless of course they are unborn, then you can legally dispose of them. The irony of leftist ideologues on display once more.
Click to expand...


ROTFLMAO...another ridiculous lie from yet another ridiculous Rightie.

So, according to Defective Truth, the guy who was texting engaged in a "theater brawl".

They can't even discuss the smallest fact with anything approaching honesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top