If we get rid of guns....

[Seamajor]

Thank you Stubby. Finally catching on.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Of course man

the way you inject nonsensical information so smoothly into any thread to make sure the topic is not disrupted in any way?

it reeks of skillful artistry that only someone interested in adult and healthy conversations could provide

keep up the good work

 

[Seamajor]

The fucker tripled the national debt, and failed big time in Granada.

 

[Seamajor]

Of course man

the way you inject nonsensical information so smoothly into any thread to make sure the topic is not disrupted in any way?

it reeks of skillful artistry that only someone interested in adult and healthy conversations could provide

keep up the good work

Thank you Stubby

 

[Biggie Smiles]

You are most welcome, Mongoloid

 

[Seamajor]

?? I don’t work for the Circus.

 

[sweet tea]

^^ You're Stubby?

 

[Biggie Smiles]

^^ You're Stubby?

According to the renowned brilliance of seamajor a guy who is 5' 9" (which just so happens to be about 6 inches taller than he is) is a midget in his perception of reality

nevermind you the stark contradictions there... it's best to just nod and smile when he drools like this

 

[sweet tea]

Right then, carrying on.

Noone is getting rid of guns.
Beside the fact that it's a constitutional right to bare arms, beside the fact that 90% of proper gun owners are well aware of their use, being it for protection or harvesting foods, despite what msm covers up... guns aren't going anywhere. And I'd bet my last dolla that all sitting dems are gun owners themselves.
Shoot themselves in the foot, they will.
The Supreme Court gonna have to show their true colours, should it get pushed that far. And if they over turn the second amendment for any reason, they should all be fired, because they are there for exactly that.. to up hold OUR Amendments.

 

[Seamajor]

I love the little fella’s assumptions. Staying on topic. Ban assault weapons

 

[Seamajor]

Ban assault weapons. Keep your shot guns or deer rifles

 

[Seamajor]

Right then, carrying on.

Noone is getting rid of guns.
Beside the fact that it's a constitutional right to bare arms, beside the fact that 90% of proper gun owners are well aware of their use, being it for protection or harvesting foods, despite what msm covers up... guns aren't going anywhere. And I'd bet my last dolla that all sitting dems are gun owners themselves.
Shoot themselves in the foot, they will.
The Supreme Court gonna have to show their true colours, should it get pushed that far. And if they over turn the second amendment for any reason, they should all be fired, because they are there for exactly that.. to up hold OUR Amendments.

The bill of rights is an outdated document

 

[Biggie Smiles]

you see?

The wealth of knowledge coming outta this guy?

"ban assault weapons"

that's all

Now don't you all feel a sudden urge to surrender your firearms after reading someone so elegant and abundant in fact based reasoning?

I Mean, why couldn't we have these healthy and adult discussions of this variety sooner?

 

[sweet tea]

Right then, carrying on.

Noone is getting rid of guns.
Beside the fact that it's a constitutional right to bare arms, beside the fact that 90% of proper gun owners are well aware of their use, being it for protection or harvesting foods, despite what msm covers up... guns aren't going anywhere. And I'd bet my last dolla that all sitting dems are gun owners themselves.
Shoot themselves in the foot, they will.
The Supreme Court gonna have to show their true colours, should it get pushed that far. And if they over turn the second amendment for any reason, they should all be fired, because they are there for exactly that.. to up hold OUR Amendments.

The bill of rights is an outdated document

Not yet.

 

[sweet tea]

Several states already carry constitutional carrying laws. States govern themselves.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Right then, carrying on.

Noone is getting rid of guns.
Beside the fact that it's a constitutional right to bare arms, beside the fact that 90% of proper gun owners are well aware of their use, being it for protection or harvesting foods, despite what msm covers up... guns aren't going anywhere. And I'd bet my last dolla that all sitting dems are gun owners themselves.
Shoot themselves in the foot, they will.
The Supreme Court gonna have to show their true colours, should it get pushed that far. And if they over turn the second amendment for any reason, they should all be fired, because they are there for exactly that.. to up hold OUR Amendments.

The bill of rights is an outdated document

Not yet.

Surely you jest. Here?

 

[Seamajor]

Maybe they make you

you see?

The wealth of knowledge coming outta this guy?

"ban assault weapons"

that's all

Now don't you all feel a sudden urge to surrender your firearms after reading someone so elegant and abundant in fact based reasoning?

I Mean, why couldn't we have these healthy and adult discussions of this variety sooner?

I guess an assault weapon can make a shorter person feel taller

 

[sweet tea]

Right then, carrying on.

Noone is getting rid of guns.
Beside the fact that it's a constitutional right to bare arms, beside the fact that 90% of proper gun owners are well aware of their use, being it for protection or harvesting foods, despite what msm covers up... guns aren't going anywhere. And I'd bet my last dolla that all sitting dems are gun owners themselves.
Shoot themselves in the foot, they will.
The Supreme Court gonna have to show their true colours, should it get pushed that far. And if they over turn the second amendment for any reason, they should all be fired, because they are there for exactly that.. to up hold OUR Amendments.

The bill of rights is an outdated document

Not yet.

Surely you jest. Here?

Jest about what? Could you please be more specific?

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Several states already carry constitutional carrying laws. States govern themselves.

Oh my god? Before long you'll be delving into real Qanon type conspiracies like what the word "federation" and "federal" actually mean

would you stop with this disinformation campaign already? Before you make someone's head hurtz?

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Right then, carrying on.

Noone is getting rid of guns.
Beside the fact that it's a constitutional right to bare arms, beside the fact that 90% of proper gun owners are well aware of their use, being it for protection or harvesting foods, despite what msm covers up... guns aren't going anywhere. And I'd bet my last dolla that all sitting dems are gun owners themselves.
Shoot themselves in the foot, they will.
The Supreme Court gonna have to show their true colours, should it get pushed that far. And if they over turn the second amendment for any reason, they should all be fired, because they are there for exactly that.. to up hold OUR Amendments.

The bill of rights is an outdated document

Not yet.

Surely you jest. Here?

Jest about what? Could you please be more specific?

About the bill of rights being completely outdated.

Like a yellow pages phone book

seamong said so. Yanno?

 

[sweet tea]

Several states already carry constitutional carrying laws. States govern themselves.

Oh my god? Before long you'll be delving into real Qanon type conspiracies like what the word "federation" and "federal" actually mean

would you stop with this disinformation campaign already? Before you make someone's head hurtz?

Have a look. Again, states govern themselves. Why have a governor, state houses, laws pertaining to specific states per voters choices... if it wasn't so?

 

[sweet tea]

The United States... that's what has fallen. Not the Bill of Rights or Constitution.
We are far from united.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Several states already carry constitutional carrying laws. States govern themselves.

Oh my god? Before long you'll be delving into real Qanon type conspiracies like what the word "federation" and "federal" actually mean

would you stop with this disinformation campaign already? Before you make someone's head hurtz?

Have a look. Again, states govern themselves. Why have a governor, state houses, laws pertaining to specific states per voters choices... if it wasn't so?

I'm going to cover my ears and hum if you continue on like this.

 

[sweet tea]

Several states already carry constitutional carrying laws. States govern themselves.

Oh my god? Before long you'll be delving into real Qanon type conspiracies like what the word "federation" and "federal" actually mean

would you stop with this disinformation campaign already? Before you make someone's head hurtz?

Have a look. Again, states govern themselves. Why have a governor, state houses, laws pertaining to specific states per voters choices... if it wasn't so?

I'm going to cover my ears and hum if you continue on like this.

Is it paining ya? This truth?

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Several states already carry constitutional carrying laws. States govern themselves.

Oh my god? Before long you'll be delving into real Qanon type conspiracies like what the word "federation" and "federal" actually mean

would you stop with this disinformation campaign already? Before you make someone's head hurtz?

Have a look. Again, states govern themselves. Why have a governor, state houses, laws pertaining to specific states per voters choices... if it wasn't so?

I'm going to cover my ears and hum if you continue on like this.

Is is paining ya? This truth?

Let's just say, it pains me to see mongos like seamajor in pain when you spread disinformation like this

I mean, next you'll be saying something really weird like the Electoral College is a fair institution designed to ensure the fairest outcome for states in electing federal government since this is a federation of states, not people.

If you go down that path know that I shall encourage seamajor and the other mongs to place you on ignore.

For their own protection

 

[1Holliday1]

Thankfully bla bla bla....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chenoweth and her colleague Maria Stephan painstakingly collected data on 323 violent and nonviolent political campaigns since 1900. To qualify for the analysis, the movement had to be substantial in size, involving at least 1000 people active in the movement. They counted a campaign as successful if the goal had been achieved within one year of the peak of the event (as when Corazon Aquino and the People Power Revolution peacefully ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos from the Philippines in 1986).


When Chenoweth started out, she was fairly certain that the violent political campaigns would be more likely to accomplish their goals. But she was wrong.

Nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time.

 

[Lokmar]

Thankfully bla bla bla....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chenoweth and her colleague Maria Stephan painstakingly collected data on 323 violent and nonviolent political campaigns since 1900. To qualify for the analysis, the movement had to be substantial in size, involving at least 1000 people active in the movement. They counted a campaign as successful if the goal had been achieved within one year of the peak of the event (as when Corazon Aquino and the People Power Revolution peacefully ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos from the Philippines in 1986).


When Chenoweth started out, she was fairly certain that the violent political campaigns would be more likely to accomplish their goals. But she was wrong.

Nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time.

We arent stuffing faggits back in the closet non violently.

 

[1Holliday1]

Thankfully bla bla bla....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chenoweth and her colleague Maria Stephan painstakingly collected data on 323 violent and nonviolent political campaigns since 1900. To qualify for the analysis, the movement had to be substantial in size, involving at least 1000 people active in the movement. They counted a campaign as successful if the goal had been achieved within one year of the peak of the event (as when Corazon Aquino and the People Power Revolution peacefully ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos from the Philippines in 1986).


When Chenoweth started out, she was fairly certain that the violent political campaigns would be more likely to accomplish their goals. But she was wrong.

Nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time.

We arent stuffing faggits back in the closet non violently.

Prepare to lose.

 

[Lokmar]

Thankfully bla bla bla....

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chenoweth and her colleague Maria Stephan painstakingly collected data on 323 violent and nonviolent political campaigns since 1900. To qualify for the analysis, the movement had to be substantial in size, involving at least 1000 people active in the movement. They counted a campaign as successful if the goal had been achieved within one year of the peak of the event (as when Corazon Aquino and the People Power Revolution peacefully ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos from the Philippines in 1986).


When Chenoweth started out, she was fairly certain that the violent political campaigns would be more likely to accomplish their goals. But she was wrong.

Nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time.

We arent stuffing faggits back in the closet non violently.

Prepare to lose.

No, In the end, all you people lose. Read a Bible.

 

[sweet tea]

To be fair, alot of us, people, will lose. And it won't be for the lack of trying. It will be of a number of factors from family, to finances, jobs, a paycheck.
Brainwashing by saturation, is what I call it.