quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Hey Bama... I found the surveillance tape of you robbing the 7/11

[image]http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k69/Daviskw2004/giphy%201_zps8vhsfeva.gif[/image]

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Will ok... then here is a bona fide NRA member making our streets safer.

[image]http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k69/Daviskw2004/giphy%202_zpsstdr5muw.gif[/image]

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Give it a little more time and a few more children brutally murdered and I and my like will have your guns… if you don’t submit to the coming new stringent gun laws. Laws brought on by your obstinate views on reasonable gun safety.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Give it a little more time and a few more children brutally murdered and I and my like will have your guns… if you don’t submit to the coming new stringent gun laws. Laws brought on by your obstinate views on reasonable gun safety.

Butch

Interesting that "you and your like" will have all the firearms. What then? Perhaps your other word choice, submit, is telling.

But anyway.

Do you have any idea what kind of drastic change eliminating part of the Bill of Rights would be? Because I don't think you understand what you're casually, almost flippantly, suggesting.

But let me know when you have 30 states who agree the Bill of Rights is modifiable and certain (perhaps all?) rights are revokable. Then let me know who will be kicking in the doors of some 120 million homes to collect these firearms because I'm pretty sure the ACLU will frown upon such a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment, nevermind the general "molon labe" attitude in much of the firearm community.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
One correction, it would take 38 states to ratify the change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

but thats not what you said, she said.....
what you said
was.

quote:

And it was prompted by Hillary's statement that she favored "madatory buybacks". Don't you pay attention.

thats YOUR SPIN
YOUR paranoia.. YOUR idiocy
You can ascribe whatever mind reading ability you want, its YOUR opinion...and therefore, irrelevant to the truth

And the idea that she doesn't favor them is your spin
Your paranoia
Your idiocy
your opinion
and therefore irrelevant to the truth.

you lied...about what she said...how can you be trusted with fact.

You don't think her saying she would "consider" something means she thinks it is reasonable? You are intitled to her opinion. To me, and most other people, that means it sounds like a good idea. Since I didn't claim to quote what she said I couldn't have lied about what she said, I just pointed out that she seems to favor it. You, once again, are quick to call things you don't like lies. One big difference between us is that I see people who disagree, and interpret things different than I do as wrong. You have to believe that they have terribley flawed charaters so you don't have to pay attention to what they say.
You said earlier that I put anyone who disagrees with me on hide, implying that you have access to my hide list. If you do someone in management it giving you access to information that you have no right to. If you don't you were talking through your hat.
I have 3 people on hide. 2 who insist on arguing over irrelevant things example for 1 demanding to argue over comparing the Cubans who landed at the Bay of Pigs to cop killers. For the 2nd one trying to prove that the militias didn't kick the butts of the British at Lexinton and Concord. The 3rd refuses to take a stand on anything but constantly talks down to people. I have no one else on hide, even though some go out of their way to be insulting, call everything they don't like a lie, or don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

but thats not what you said, she said.....
what you said
was.

quote:

And it was prompted by Hillary's statement that she favored "madatory buybacks". Don't you pay attention.

thats YOUR SPIN
YOUR paranoia.. YOUR idiocy
You can ascribe whatever mind reading ability you want, its YOUR opinion...and therefore, irrelevant to the truth

And the idea that she doesn't favor them is your spin
Your paranoia
Your idiocy
your opinion
and therefore irrelevant to the truth.

you lied...about what she said...how can you be trusted with fact.

You don't think her saying she would "consider" something means she thinks it is reasonable? You are intitled to her opinion. To me, and most other people, that means it sounds like a good idea. Since I didn't claim to quote what she said I couldn't have lied about what she said, I just pointed out that she seems to favor it. You, once again, are quick to call things you don't like lies. One big difference between us is that I see people who disagree, and interpret things different than I do as wrong. You have to believe that they have terribley flawed charaters so you don't have to pay attention to what they say.
You said earlier that I put anyone who disagrees with me on hide, implying that you have access to my hide list. If you do someone in management it giving you access to information that you have no right to. If you don't you were talking through your hat.
I have 3 people on hide. 2 who insist on arguing over irrelevant things example for 1 demanding to argue over comparing the Cubans who landed at the Bay of Pigs to cop killers. For the 2nd one trying to prove that the militias didn't kick the butts of the British at Lexinton and Concord. The 3rd refuses to take a stand on anything but constantly talks down to people. I have no one else on hide, even though some go out of their way to be insulting, call everything they don't like a lie, or don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.

You lied. Simple fact.
Your hide list ....you are proud to announce who is on your hide list,
Your paranoia staight away jumps to me having your hide list from management..idiot.


You lied about what she said.
You lied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You really want us to believe that she would "consider" it if she didn't think it was basically a good idea?

I think she'd "consider" making a rainbow flag the U.S. Navy Jack if she thought it would do her any good.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
So with illegal guns being used to murder thousands of people every year in the United States, including children, you have a "difference of opinion" on increasing penalties for illegal possession, increased funding to pursue and prosecute traffickers in illegal weapons, and fixing and fully funding NICS.

Yeah, that's hilarious Butch. I'll have a good laugh over that one.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
So with illegal guns being used to murder thousands of people every year in the United States, including children, you have a "difference of opinion" on increasing penalties for illegal possession, increased funding to pursue and prosecute traffickers in illegal weapons, and fixing and fully funding NICS.

Yeah, that's hilarious Butch. I'll have a good laugh over that one.

K.

One need not look too far to find weapons traffickers, they could be as close as one's own "representatives".

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You really want us to believe that she would "consider" it if she didn't think it was basically a good idea?

I think she'd "consider" making a rainbow flag the U.S. Navy Jack if she thought it would do her any good.

K.

If she thought it would gain votes she would join ISIS.
As I said earlier she was floating this to see how much flack she took over it counting on using the word "consider" as cover. And we can see from at least one person on here bought it hook line and sinker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You really want us to believe that she would "consider" it if she didn't think it was basically a good idea?

I think she'd "consider" making a rainbow flag the U.S. Navy Jack if she thought it would do her any good.

K.

If she thought it would gain votes she would join ISIS.
As I said earlier she was floating this to see how much flack she took over it counting on using the word "consider" as cover. And we can see from at least one person on here bought it hook line and sinker.

quote:

I think doing so would be almost as vile as Clintons manditory buyback plan,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You really want us to believe that she would "consider" it if she didn't think it was basically a good idea?

I think she'd "consider" making a rainbow flag the U.S. Navy Jack if she thought it would do her any good.

K.

If she thought it would gain votes she would join ISIS.
As I said earlier she was floating this to see how much flack she took over it counting on using the word "consider" as cover. And we can see from at least one person on here bought it hook line and sinker.

Another fucking lie, you idjit, I had an issue with you lying and misrepresenting the facts. I havent bought anything, I just know that you lie.
For example....http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4849229

quote:

I think doing so would be almost as vile as Clintons manditory buyback plan,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Give it a little more time and a few more children brutally murdered and I and my like will have your guns… if you don’t submit to the coming new stringent gun laws. Laws brought on by your obstinate views on reasonable gun safety.

Butch

Interesting that "you and your like" will have all the firearms. What then? Perhaps your other word choice, submit, is telling.

But anyway.

Do you have any idea what kind of drastic change eliminating part of the Bill of Rights would be? Because I don't think you understand what you're casually, almost flippantly, suggesting.

But let me know when you have 38 states who agree the Bill of Rights is modifiable and certain (perhaps all?) rights are revokable. Then let me know who will be kicking in the doors of some 120 million homes to collect these firearms because I'm pretty sure the ACLU will frown upon such a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment, nevermind the general "molon labe" attitude in much of the firearm community.

EDIT: As BamaD pointed out, 38 states would be needed. I was, and remain, utterly dumbfounded at the suggestion to begin unravelling the Bill of Rights.