WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Harbal]

'you' REALLY DO have a VERY STRONG TENDENCY to TWIST and DISTORT the words of "others" AROUND in such a completely UTTERLY STUPID and FOOLISH WAY

I've also noticed that. It's almost like something a stupid fool would do, isn't it?

[Age]

Not yet.

What do you mean by, 'Not yet'?

Are they going to be introducing them sometime?

Or, do you WISH they would?

Or, something else?

Age, are you still a virgin or not yet?

The question was loaded.

Is this QUESTION what 'you' would call 'loaded', "skepdick"?

If no, then WHY would 'you' WANT TO KNOW 'such a thing'? Are 'you' thinking of DOING some 'thing', with 'me', here?

But, if your QUESTION here was 'loaded', then WHY?

Also, and by the way, how COULD one BECOME 'a virgin'?

Either one IS STILL 'a virgin', or 'they' ARE NOT.

Are 'you' AWARE "skepdick" that one is born 'a virgin', and ONLY AFTER becomes NOT one. 'your' USE of the 'not yet' implies 'you' are MEANING one CAN BECOME 'a virgin' sometime LATER ON.

So, what are 'you' REALLY MEANING here "skepdick"?

My answer blew up the framing.

HOW do 'you' KNOW 'the question' WAS LOADED IF 'you' NEVER SORT CLARIFICATION, FIRST?

Do 'you' EVER SEE some of my QUESTIONS as being so-called 'loaded'?

Do you understand how that works? Doesn't look like it..

I UNDERSTAND that IF 'you' just ANSWERED the QUESTION WITH a 'Yes' OR a 'No' ANSWER, AND CLARIFIED ANY 'thing' ELSE, if 'you' thought or BELIEVED NEEDED TO BE, then 'we' ALL COULD HAVE MOVE ALONG from 'this' ALREADY, BY NOW.

BUT, 'you' DO as 'you' SEE FIT here "skepdick".

[Skepdick]

I've also noticed that. It's almost like something a stupid fool would do, isn't it?

I noticed that too about you, actually. It's almost like you use your words to mean something else than what the dictionary says.

You should talk to Flash Danger Dork about that - apparently society will tell you that you aren't allowed to do that.

[Harbal]

Age, are you still a virgin or not yet?

Also, and by the way, how COULD one BECOME 'a virgin'?

[Skepdick]

Also, and by the way, how COULD one BECOME 'a virgin'?

In the exact same way one could still be doing something they never started doing.

[Age]

So, in other words, you are going to ACTUAL USE or DO the VERY 'thing' that you CLAIM you WANT to DESTROY here, correct?

Of course! I am going to use it against itself.

Would this be some 'thing' like, USING guns against guns?

By your exact logic on firearms - we should ban philosophy.

Have I SAID ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'we should ban firearms'?

If yes, then WHERE and WHAT, EXACTLY?

But if no, then WHY say 'this' above here?

So I that it can't be used to destroy philosophy.

I am NOT SURE what 'you' are SAYING nor MEANING here.

ALSO, HOW IS USING or DOING philosophy, supposedly, going to DESTROY 'philosophy', itself, EXACTLY?

[Harbal]

I've also noticed that. It's almost like something a stupid fool would do, isn't it?

I noticed that too about you, actually. It's almost like you use your words to mean something else than what the dictionary says.

You should talk to Flash Danger Dork about that - apparently society will tell you that you aren't allowed to do that.

What a devastating comeback.

[Skepdick]

What a devastating comeback.

I didn't realise devastation was part of the requirements of this sport.

I could've always pointed out you are just old, senile and irrelevant.

[attofishpi]

Age, are you still a virgin or not yet?

Also, and by the way, how COULD one BECOME 'a virgin'?

Skepdick likes to hold big guns ever since he lost his arse virginity.

[Harbal]

What a devastating comeback.

I didn't realise devastation was part of the requirements of this sport.

I could've always pointed out you are just old, senile and irrelevant.

[attofishpi]

What a devastating comeback.

I didn't realise devastation was part of the requirements of this sport.

I could've always pointed out you are just old, senile and irrelevant.

He doesn't like it when the children make it to a ripe old age.

[Age]

YOU FAILED. You know it is impossible restrict guns from people that have a hidden idea to mass murder children.

I'm sure many on the forum would agree with me that it is selfish kunts like you that are ultimately responsible for every childs death at these killings.

Sadly the police in the USA simply do not have the power to take those guns off nutcases because of the law as it stands.
The USA should insist on the original ammendment and gurantee a barrel loading musket for every man who wants to be part of a well regulated militia.

If the 2nd amendment applies to muskets only then the 1st amendment applies to ideas distributed using the Gutenberg press only.

Sadly, again the NRA are fat too ignorant and stupid to understand the meaning of "well regulated"...
Ho Hum.

And the rest of the idiots (like you) are too stupid to understand "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

LOL 'it' was ONLY 'an amendment', itself, WHICH, in and of itself, COULD just be AMENDED, AGAIN.

And, BECAUSE some 'thing' WAS written down, by some human being/s, then 'it' SHOULD be FOLLOWED and ADHERED TO, FOREVER MORE, is HOW STUPID some people had REALLY BECOME, BACK in the 'OLDEN DAYS', when 'this' WAS being written.

This 'one' here is 'TRYING TO' 'argue' some 'thing' like, IF the 2nd amendment SAID, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', until the year 2023', then 'that one' would ALSO FOLLOW and ABIDE BY 'amendments', of ALL 'things'.

IF ANY human being wrote some 'thing' down, and then wrote after 'it', 'shall not be infringed', then that human being would have BEEN just AS STUPID as ANY one human being who would FOLLOW 'it' or USE 'it' for 'TRYING TO' 'argue', 'justify', and/or 'rationalize' some 'thing'.

[Skepdick]

Sadly the police in the USA simply do not have the power to take those guns off nutcases because of the law as it stands.
The USA should insist on the original ammendment and gurantee a barrel loading musket for every man who wants to be part of a well regulated militia.

If the 2nd amendment applies to muskets only then the 1st amendment applies to ideas distributed using the Gutenberg press only.

Sadly, again the NRA are fat too ignorant and stupid to understand the meaning of "well regulated"...
Ho Hum.

And the rest of the idiots (like you) are too stupid to understand "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

LOL 'it' was ONLY 'an amendment', itself, WHICH, in and of itself, COULD just be AMENDED, AGAIN.

And, BECAUSE some 'thing' WAS written down, by some human being/s, then 'it' SHOULD be FOLLOWED and ADHERED TO, FOREVER MORE, is HOW STUPID some people had REALLY BECOME, BACK in the 'OLDEN DAYS', when 'this' WAS being written.

This 'one' here is 'TRYING TO' 'argue' some 'thing' like, IF the 2nd amendment SAID, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', until the year 2023', then 'that one' would ALSO FOLLOW and ABIDE BY 'amendments', of ALL 'things'.

IF ANY human being wrote some 'thing' down, and then wrote after 'it', 'shall not be infringed', then that human being would have BEEN just AS STUPID as ANY one human being who would FOLLOW 'it' or USE 'it' for 'TRYING TO' 'argue', 'justify', and/or 'rationalize' some 'thing'.

So when are we cancelling murder laws?

[Age]

And the rest of the idiots (like you) are too stupid to understand "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We are all born with arms, and real men know that is all they need in a decent society. (clearly not the idiot one you reside in)

NOW, would be a GREAT time to BRING UP the Fact of what IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN, in that 2nd CHANGE, or AMENDMENT. That is;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

MEANING one HAS a 'right' to KEEP and BEAR Arms, and this 'right' shall NOT be infringed.

Which JUST MEANS EVERY one has a 'right' to KEEP and BEAR, literally, 'their arms', and this 'right' shall NOT be infringed.

In other words NO one has 'the right' to TAKE 'the arms' AWAY from "ANOTHER" one, or "their" 'Arms' ARE "theirs" and NO one has 'a right' to CUT OFF or TAKE 'those arms' AWAY, FROM "another".

HOW and WHY ANY of of 'you' DECIDED to ADD the words 'guns' OR 'weapons' INTO 'this amendment', then ONLY 'those ones' would REALLY KNOW.

[Age]

So, If ABSOLUTELY NO one on the WHOLE planet called earth, for example, had a gun 'you', "skepdick" would STILL prefer to OWN a gun, right?

What a stupid question.

WHY?

I am ONLY going ON and OFF of what 'you' SAID and WROTE above here "skepdick"

There was a time on Earth when absolutely nobody had a gun.

REALLY?

Did 'you' LEARN and UNDERSTAND this IRREFUTABLE Fact AFTER I POINTED 'this' OUT here, or BEFORE?

And then somebody invented one.

Which I have EVEN ASKED 'you' TO CLARIFY WHY were guns INVENTED?

And, 'we' ARE STILL WAITING 'your' ANSWER here.

Necessity is the mother of invention, so I can only conclude that guns have always been necessary.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'Necessity is the mother of invention' is ANOTHER ONE of those STUPID and Incorrect REMARKS 'you', human beings, MAKE, from time to time, as some would say.

'Laziness' IS the ACTUAL 'mother of inventions', is FAR MORE Accurate AND True.

Also, guns have ONLY been around, or in Existence, for ONLY some time, BUT, to you, 'this' EQUATES to 'guns have ALWAYS been NECESSARY'.

Now, for the ABSOLUTELY RELATIVELY MINUSCULE 'period of time' that guns have been around, or in Existence, 'they' have NOT been ACTUALLY NECESSARY AT ALL. Guns have just made SOME 'things' easier, for SOME, ONLY. But, if the ACTUAL Truth BE KNOWN, guns HAVE BEEN and ARE MAKING a LOT of 'things' a LOT HARDER, for a LOT of people.

As EVIDENCED and PROVED True here.

Also, IF what 'you' CONCLUDE above here was the ONLY 'thing' that 'you' could have CONCLUDED, then just HOW NARROWED, LIMITED, or CLOSED 'your' views HAD REALLY BECOME is VERY DISHEARTENING, for lack of a BETTER word.