Armed Citizen Stops Shooter at Indiana Mall: GOOD GUY WITH A GUN

[LV426]

why do you ask that stupid shit all the time and IGNORE the direct answers given to you? Is it so you can continue to wallow in shit and ignorance and make claims you know are lies?

He didn't give me an answer...he gave me a contradiction.

He said Biden got more votes but then he says that the votes Biden got were fraudulent.

 

[LV426]

he said SOME were, idiot.

Which would mean that the election wasn't legitimate.

So any amount of fraud delegitimizes the election.

So is his argument that Biden's victory wasn't by 7 million votes?

 

[LV426]

he said SOME were, idiot.

this is what gets pointed out to you and you go off the wall like a wet fucking hornet on adderol. this is what your college education has forced upon you, the idiocy that there can only be black and white.........

college failed you worse than anyone i've ever seen

OK, so saying Biden is the legitimate President, but then saying some of his votes weren't legitimate, MEANS YOU DON'T THINK HE'S ACTUALLY A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT.

 

[LV426]

You have comprehension issues. Give it up, you're a loser and a wimp.

No, you just put your tiny, tiny foot into your big, fat mouth and then get mad at me for calling that out.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If they were so clear and specific, you wouldn't need to spend all this time trying to jam their square words into a round hole.

colorful description, but wrong.

Who gave you the authority here? No one. You gave it to yourself.

But like I said, your approach is flawed because it's unguided by your own admission.

So no one was there to help guide you through what you're reading which WASN'T very specific at all.

In fact, the Constitution is more ambiguous than it isn't, and that's by design.

this is leftist bullshit for making the argument that it takes judges to decide what it means, all in the hopes of getting their own way. AGAIN, the framers were very clear and specific, especially about the 2nd Amendment, and their exact words have been posted here dozens of times.

I don't know what "specifics" you're talking about, but there are very few in the Constitution...it is an ambiguous and vague document BY DESIGN.

no, it's very clear and specific.

How do you know what you're interpreting is the correct interpretation if you've never had any instruction on it?

because, unlike you it seems, I can read.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You don't need a college degree to read English, but you do need one to help you understand what it is you're reading.

the fuck you do ROFL

As a junior in HIGH SCHOOL my english comprehension was tested out as a junior in COLLEGE

 

[LV426]

You have comprehension issues. Give it up, you're a loser and a wimp.

Here's what came out of that big, fat, fuckin' mouth of yours:

I believe he may have received more votes. Was there fraud? I believe there was some fraud, especially in the large democrat controlled cities because I find it hard to believe 161 million people voted.

So you say he MAY have received more votes, but then say that his votes were fraud because they came from cities.

So that's you saying you don't believe he won legitimately. That is how language works.

So now I get to call you a fucking pussy loser because you supported Trump and you alleged fraud without doing anything about it other than running that big, fat, fuckin' mouth of yours on JPP.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

NO! They were not clear. Which is why we've been having debates about the Constitution for 240 years.

negative. the ONLY reason there have been debates is because politicians, judges, and lawyers disliked their restrictions and sought to 'restructure'. something they have NO POWER to do.

 

[RB 60]

Doing my part to keep the tradition alive…

Mine too, at least the hulls. My father and I reloaded everything we shot except .22s. I continue to carry on the tradition

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Which would mean that the election wasn't legitimate.

So any amount of fraud delegitimizes the election.

So is his argument that Biden's victory wasn't by 7 million votes?

ROFL hey moron, if person A wins an election with 8 votes and person B lost with 2 votes, but person A might have gotten a SINGLE vote illegitimately, that does not make the ENTIRE election illegitimate

where the fuck did you actually graduate college from?

 

[LV426]

colorful description, but wrong.

But that's what you're doing here.

You're telling me that your interpretation of what the FF said is the only true interpretation, and I question that because no one gave you that authority.

You just gave it to yourself without doing anything to earn it...almost like you think you're entitled to it.

No, not almost...YOU DO THINK you are entitled to it.

So what did you do to earn that authority? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

[RB 60]

Here's what came out of that big, fat, fuckin' mouth of yours:



So you say he MAY have received more votes, but then say that his votes were fraud because they came from cities.

So that's you saying you don't believe he won legitimately. That is how language works.

So now I get to call you a fucking pussy loser because you supported Trump and you alleged fraud without doing anything about it other than running that big, fat, fuckin' mouth of yours on JPP.

I know what I said, you illiterate fucktard. I can't comprehend it for you

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Which would mean that the election wasn't legitimate.

So any amount of fraud delegitimizes the election.

So is his argument that Biden's victory wasn't by 7 million votes?

you don't do extremism effectively, but it is awesome for it's entertainment factor

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But that's what you're doing here.

You're telling me that your interpretation of what the FF said is the only true interpretation, and I question that because no one gave you that authority.

You just gave it to yourself without doing anything to earn it...almost like you think you're entitled to it.

it's NOT interpretation to read 'shall not be infringed' as NOT BE INFRINGED. It's also clear as day when EVERY piece of documentation states that the federal government has no power over the arms of the people.

 

[LV426]

this is leftist bullshit for making the argument that it takes judges to decide what it means, all in the hopes of getting their own way. AGAIN, the framers were very clear and specific, especially about the 2nd Amendment, and their exact words have been posted here dozens of times.

If the Constitution was so specific and simple, it wouldn't have been amended 27 times.

 

[RB 60]

No, you just put your tiny, tiny foot into your big, fat mouth and then get mad at me for calling that out.

You called out nothing. It's not my problem you are uneducated.

 

[LV426]

no, it's very clear and specific.

If that's the case, then why was it amended 27 times?

because, unlike you it seems, I can read.

Reading and comprehending what you are reading are two mutually exclusive things.

 

[leaningright]

Mine too, at least the hulls. My father and I reloaded everything we shot except .22s. I continue to carry on the tradition

I started reloading when I got in college and bought some reloading equipment at an estate sale. I don’t reload any shotshells except 410 now because it’s as cheap to but my 12 and 20 gauge stuff.

I reload all of the rifle ammo that I shoot with the three main calibers being 30/30 Win, 303 British and 308.

 

[LV426]

the fuck you do ROFL

You have never been educated enough to do critical thinking, so of course you would believe that any barely literate dumbass can devise the meaning behind what some of the FF said 240 years ago.

 

[LV426]

As a junior in HIGH SCHOOL my english comprehension was tested out as a junior in COLLEGE

What test?