Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

I see that JDIdiot and his beloved Patriarch, LLIdiot, are up early in order to get a jump start on spreading their extreme venom for all things Obama.

What time is y'all's wake up call at the Idiotville Nursing Home? Does the home provide you with a daily worst practices script?

Early to bed, early to rise!

I see that JDIdiot and his beloved Patriarch, LLIdiot, are up early in order to get a jump start on spreading their extreme venom for all things Obama.

What time is y'all's wake up call at the Idiotville Nursing Home? Does the home provide you with a daily worst practices script?

Early to bed, early to rise! Originally Posted by bigtex

Yet another inconsequential and meaningless post by the empty-headed BigTits.

Yet another inconsequential and meaningless post by the empty-headed BigTits. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The above referenced "inconsequential and meaningless post" was brought to us by the same Idiot who delivered the "inconsequential and meaningless post," referenced below. LLIdiot strives for "inconsequential and meaningless" consistency.

With the aid of his daily Idiotville Nursing Home "talking points," of course.

That's not the only "can" he has kicked down the road in order to "augment" what he perceives to be his "legacy" as he feebly attempts to rewrite his history. There is a "little matter" of added $9 trillion in added debt with the additional burden of government subsidized mandatory health care... just to name another.

I suspect that his actual "legacy" will be to demonstrate to the U.S. voters that electing a President is not a popularity contest based on cultural correctness and "firsts" for the country.

Recently I've been wondering how the Liberal-AntiWar crowd exterminate their homes ... or rid their yards of fire ants .... electronic zappers? Watching them get rid of wasps would be a hoot! "Certainly don't want to kill them" ... right? Originally Posted by LexusLover

The above referenced "inconsequential and meaningless post" was brought to us by the same Idiot who delivered the "inconsequential and meaningless post," found below.

Using his daily Idiotville Nursing Home "talking points," of course. Originally Posted by bigtex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJQAVYTBNsQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJQAVYTBNsQ Originally Posted by Cherie

Cherie, a problem with BigTits (a reference to "BigTex" not you!), is that in the past months, particularly in the ramp up to the Fall elections, BigTits has not had many Op-Ed articles in favor of Obaminable to cut and paste ... soooooo..

he is devoid of substance in his posts, because the echo between his ears keeps repeating itself in posts with useless and nonsubstance noise. It's best to ignore him like the child throwing a tantrum in the grocery store checkout line, because "mommy" won't buy him a candy.

I have dirty sox with more brains than you have chicken dick. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Quit letting other people use your computer......or.......

.. B12 will help your memory.

We know who have the balls NOW in the War on Terrorists, and who doesn't:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Can you tell us who the gentleman is on the far right of the picture you posted.If you don't know maybe you can ask one of your contacts in LE.

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that it is up to your interpretation to limit or restrict firearms ownership ?
Or for that matter, the said 85% that you claim ?

The 2nd Amendment says nothing to throttle,limit or restrict ownership and use of any arms, period !
It says nothing to empower federal,state or local governments to restrict arms either.
It does say, "the rights of the people to bear arms shall NOT be infringed upon.

It does not say the right will be regulated by "SpeedRacer" or any other well intentioned person,group or entity.
If you can prove otherwise, please do show us here. Originally Posted by rioseco

I'll repeat myself once again -- it does not matter one bit how either you or I interpret the 2nd Amendment. The states have been given the power for the most part to enact gun control legislation as they see fit. Some states have few gun control laws. Others are more strict in gun control legislation. At times gun control laws have been challenged and the court system, sometimes all the way up to SCOTUS, have been asked to rule. Sometimes rulings have been in favor of gun rights advocates and sometimes rulings have been in favor of gun control advocates.

You can argue all you want about what YOU think the 2nd Amendment states and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you.

Forcing nuns to pay for contraceptives and aborti-facient drugs in direct violation of their religious beliefs diminishes everyone's freedom of religion.

Seizing the phone records of the Associated Press and monitoring James Rosen's phone calls/emails while calling him a "co-conspirator" in a leak investigation diminishes everyone's freedom of speech.

And those are just 2 examples. There are many others. Originally Posted by lustylad

I'll ask you the same questions. If true, how do those events affect YOU as you go through your life? I can go back to the Nixon/Hoover days and find so many violations of our basic freedoms that it would make your head spin. (BTW I voted for Nixon -- twice)

Such crap happens during every administration, Republican or Democrat. Rarely affects 99.9% of the people in the U.S. For most of us, life goes on without interrupt.

Cherie, a problem with BigTits (a reference to "BigTex" not you!). Originally Posted by LexusLover

LLIdiot, quit sucking up to Cherie. It's not very becoming!

She probably will not offer you a "nursing home" discount. Especially knowing that she will have to deal with your drool and soiled diapers.

I have to say that your Houston argument is pretty poor and I haven't seen anyone advocate that either so why try to justify it? I think the difference that you don't want to admit is that in the little village in Somalia we can go in and start getting intelligence by having some prisoners. Obama has ordered the killing of lots of leaders but the thing about an organization is that someone moves up to take their place. There also seems to be no shortage of new volunteers on the lower tiers. Intelligence that comes from prisoners is invaluable and under Obama orders we have thrown away a lot of opportunities. If you decide that there is not good intelligence then destroy the village...completely. A drone strike is just a start. You need to allow no survivors and not outside contact. Allow the terrorists to drive into the village and find everyone dead. Let them wonder about how much we know about their operations. Remove a couple of bodies and let them wonder if their comrades (that are missing) are spilling their guts. Use some imagination damn it. How does a football team fare if they use the same three plays over and over again? They lose eventually. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Of course I am not advocating decimation Houston. Unlike some here I also don't think it changes if you replace "Houston" with a foreign city name.

I'll repeat myself once again -- it does not matter one bit how either you or I interpret the 2nd Amendment. The states have been given the power for the most part to enact gun control legislation as they see fit. Some states have few gun control laws. Others are more strict in gun control legislation. At times gun control laws have been challenged and the court system, sometimes all the way up to SCOTUS, have been asked to rule. Sometimes rulings have been in favor of gun rights advocates and sometimes rulings have been in favor of gun control advocates.

You can argue all you want about what YOU think the 2nd Amendment states and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No need to get angry over it.
Read it outloud if it helps you any. I said nothing about what I think it states.
I said what it does state and what it does not state my friend. It is what it is and it is up to no one to "interpret" what it means. Anyone who can read and comprehend basic english without injecting spin will have no problem with the fact of it. The Second Amendment stands on it's own and needs no one to, not even a bunch of stuffed gowns on a bench to tell free men in America what it really means.

No need to get angry over it.
Read it outloud if it helps you any. I said nothing about what I think it states.
I said what it does state and what it does not state my friend. It is what it is and it is up to no one to "interpret" what it means. Anyone who can read and comprehend basic english without injecting spin will have no problem with the fact of it. The Second Amendment stands on it's own and needs no one to, not even a bunch of stuffed gowns on a bench to tell free men in America what it really means. Originally Posted by rioseco

Do me a favor and google "Second amendment interpretation". You are one of the very few who seems to REALLY know what the Second Amendment means.

Here are a few articles on the subject:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/07/168834...nterpretations

http://ezinearticles.com/?Interpreta...Law&id=6311996

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

I do think states have acted, for the most part, responsibly when enacting gun control laws. In some cases, not so responsibly. I personally do not want a 5-year old being allowed to enter my home with a fully loaded M-16. Gun control legislation IMHO should prohibit that. Gun control legislation should also, IMHO, not keep an individual from protecting himself or his home.

Speedy is afraid of a 5 year old entering his home with an M-16.......

hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha hahahahahahahah.

Just how many 5 year olds have entered homes of unsuspecting citizens with M-16s anyway, which are not available to the general public because they are selective fire? Perhaps you meant AR-15?

Is it more or less than the number of people killed by snake bites last year? How about terrorists?

What is your interpretation of the First amendment... or the fifth?

No need to get angry over it.
Read it outloud if it helps you any. I said nothing about what I think it states.
I said what it does state and what it does not state my friend. It is what it is and it is up to no one to "interpret" what it means. Anyone who can read and comprehend basic english without injecting spin will have no problem with the fact of it. The Second Amendment stands on it's own and needs no one to, not even a bunch of stuffed gowns on a bench to tell free men in America what it really means. Originally Posted by rioseco

Classic rio quotes: "it is what it is."

"Anyone who can read and comprehend basic English."

The last sentence is the most telling of all. Obviously, the boy forgot to read the fucking constitution!

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!