Father of Oregon shooter calls for stricter gun laws

There's no point in factually rebutting Old-THUMPER's pathetic attempt to deflect the thread off-topic, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Old-THUMPER has already notably conceded this argument and wants to introduce and discuss something else, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Fact: already addressed the Founders' intent, and, in fact, cited them in a previous thread, Old-THUMPER: the thread where you called them "scumbags", Old-THUMPER. Fact: already pointed out that the Second Amendment still stands as it was originally written and adopted, Old-THUMPER; so, the "intent" of the Founding Fathers is still quite relevant, and that's a fact (read the Heller decision). Meanwhile, and this is another fact, it is your tangential insults and remarks to draw this thread off-topic that are proof that you're the lying, distorting, supercilious jackass that can't handle the facts that are torpedoing your asinine and ossified POV, Old-THUMPER. Heller is the law of the land, Old-THUMPER, and that too is a fact, Old-THUMPER. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I conceded the argument?

No, I just refuse to "debate" your extraneous points. It is you who essentially put up the FFs as infallible, I just pointed out that would imply slavery is a good thing. Which you obviously DO believe so I understand why you don't want to go there.

I pointed out that the argument of "muskets vs muskets" is specious and outdated. Even LL admits that was not the primary issue.

I didn't start the homophobic or feces comments. I essentially never do.

I calmly predicted exactly how you would reply--and you did just as I said. Embarrassing you even more, not that you need my help to do that.

If you had even the intellectual capacity of an amoeba you would slink away, knowing that you have again been shown to be the whining, lying psychopath that you are--but since you do not, you will come back once again, steam pouring off your forehead, and string together another collection of pre-juvenile baseless lies and temper tantrums.

Rant away little man. It gets you nowhere, but you keep a lot of people amused by trying.

I conceded the argument?

No, I just refuse to "debate" your extraneous points. It is you who essentially put up the FFs as infallible, I just pointed out that would imply slavery is a good thing. Which you obviously DO believe so I understand why you don't want to go there.

I pointed out that the argument of "muskets vs muskets" is specious and outdated. Even LL admits that was not the primary issue.

I didn't start the homophobic or feces comments. I essentially never do.

I calmly predicted exactly how you would reply--and you did just as I said. Embarrassing you even more, not that you need my help to do that.

If you had even the intellectual capacity of an amoeba you would slink away, knowing that you have again been shown to be the whining, lying psychopath that you are--but since you do not, you will come back once again, steam pouring off your forehead, and string together another collection of pre-juvenile baseless lies and temper tantrums.

Rant away little man. It gets you nowhere, but you keep a lot of people amused by trying. Originally Posted by Old-T

You'd be the intellectually challenged, small-minded buffoon, because your lying ass cannot cite in the Constitution where "arms" are definitionally limited to and or equated to "muskets", Old-THUMPER.
I wasn't the one who brought up muskets, was I? Nope.

Furthermore, and despite your disingenuous and pathetic lies and distortions, it was your lib-retarded butt-buddies that interjected the first homo aspersions, Old-THUMPER.
Is that somehow supposed to excuse your verbal diarrhea? It doesn't.

Finally, Old-THUMPER, the 2008 Heller ruling based on the Founding Fathers' intent, a mere seven years old, isn't "outdated", and as Justice Robert Jackson once said:
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
Typical IB, cannot distinguish between an ego driven Justice and truth. I don't doubt that he said it, but he is wrong.

So, Old-THUMPER, crawl up into your dingy little corner with your bottle of MD 20/20 and choke on that. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Poor delusional IB. Originally Posted by Old-T

You'd be the intellectually challenged, small-minded buffoon, because your lying ass cannot cite in the Constitution where "arms" are definitionally limited to and or equated to "muskets", Old-THUMPER.

Furthermore, and despite your disingenuous and pathetic lies and distortions, it was your lib-retarded butt-buddies that interjected the first homo aspersions, Old-THUMPER.

Finally, Old-THUMPER, the 2008 Heller ruling based on the Founding Fathers' intent, a mere seven years old, isn't "outdated", and as Justice Robert Jackson once said:
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

So, Old-THUMPER, crawl up into your dingy little corner with your bottle of MD 20/20 and choke on that. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You would be the pathetic drunkard that's trying to make "muskets" the argument, even though your stupid ass cannot cite in the Constitution where "arms" are definitionally limited to and or equated to "muskets", Old-THUMPER.

And the 2008 Heller ruling, based on the Founding Fathers' intent, is still only seven years old; therefore, it isn't "outdated" like your ossified brain, Old-THUMPER.

And as the adage goes, Old-THUMPER,
"We [the Supreme Court justices] are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

So keep your addled mind busy huffing those empty wine bottles, Old-THUMPER. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So slavery should have been the final word on things? Originally Posted by WombRaider

What was the predominate weapon of choice when the document was written? Originally Posted by WombRaider

You'd be the jackass championing court decisions rendered by a justice who ruled against Homer Plessy, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.



The predominate weapon of choice was the Pennsylvania, AKA Kentucky rifle, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are a known racist. Why do you care who ruled against Plessy? You're disingenuous nature is showing...

So kentucky rifles all around. Originally Posted by WombRaider

It's important to point out your hypocrisy, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. You imagine Cruikshank is good, but the same juror who enabled Cruikshank ruled against Plessy, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Cruikshank could be a good decision and Plessy a bad one. Each decision is based on its own merits. Are you seriously positing that a person can only make good OR bad decisions? It's not hypocrisy, shit monkey. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You'd be wrong, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, the people sitting on the bench at that time weren't good jurist, and it showed in both cases. BTW, a Kentucky rifle is still more than you can handle, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, your expertise is with "short arms". Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You'd be wrong, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, the people sitting on the bench at that time weren't good jurist, and it showed in both cases. BTW, a Kentucky rifle is still more than you can handle, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, your expertise is with "short arms".
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Jurists

So a good jurist is one who agrees with you? Originally Posted by WombRaider