Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns

Quote from Brass:

So the movie goers also ignored the "no guns" sign? Got it.

(I still can't believe they let you operate heavy machinery.)
Huh? The DEAD and WOUNDED adhered to the "No Guns" sign. That's why they're dead and wounded. For lack of being able to shoot back.

The flaming liberal college student with orange hair ignored the sign.

Try to keep up Thunderpussy.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

... what would amatures do?

Significantly better than the cops do it turns out. But don't let that fact interfere with your fantasy, dumb ass.


Brass and RCG, this is your Que to roast your fellow self proclaimed genius intellectual Free "Thinker" over misspelling amateur.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

talking about stupid. have you considered what would happen in a dark theater with bullets flying. its kind of hard to hit a target in the dark.

and what do you think would happen to you if you pulled a gun to shoot the shooter and you happened to kill an innocent bystander. you would get arrested as well you should. if you killed someone you would deserve a long stretch in prison.
cant you guys think ahead any further than you can see? you would be a terrible chess player.

Right, I was talking about you being stupid.. and here you are continuing on that path. I can't imagine that a jury would EVER convict someone who is licensed to carry, pulling out his weapon in FUCKING OBVIOUS SELF-DEFENSE and killing an innocent bystander by accident (it wouldn't even cross my mind). Remember, there was a heavily armed retard indiscriminately attempting to MASS MURDER the whole crowd of innocent people.

We have a second amendment, we have a right to protect ourselves.. it is a good thing. Accept it.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Huh? The DEAD and WOUNDED adhered to the "No Guns" sign. That's why they're dead and wounded. For lack of being able to shoot back.

The flaming liberal college student with orange hair ignored the sign.

Try to keep up Thunderpussy.
Read what you wrote:
Quote from Lucrum:

You mean several more college students with orange hair shooting into the unarmed seated crowd?

Or more movie goers shooting back toward the flaming liberal ass hole who ignored the "no guns" sign on the door?
Fish meet barrel.
 
Quote from Brass:

Read what you wrote:

Fish meet barrel.

I did.

" flaming liberal ass hole who ignored the "no guns" sign on the door"


The flaming liberal ass hole was the shooter, who ignored the "No Guns" sign.

And you claim to be a college grad?
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

Right, I was talking about you being stupid.. and here you are continuing on that path. I can't imagine that a jury would EVER convict someone who is licensed to carry, pulling out his weapon in FUCKING OBVIOUS SELF-DEFENSE and killing an innocent bystander by accident (it wouldn't even cross my mind). Remember, there was a heavily armed retard indiscriminately attempting to MASS MURDER the whole crowd of innocent people.

We have a second amendment, we have a right to protect ourselves.. it is a good thing. Accept it.

Courage Under Fire, opening battle scene. That is the best I can do to explain what FT is trying to say.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Significantly better than the cops do it turns out. But don't let that fact interfere with your fantasy, dumb ass.


Brass and RCG, this is your Que to roast your fellow self proclaimed genius intellectual Free "Thinker" over misspelling amateur.

He left out an "e", that is called a typo. You...on the other hand.....
 
Quote from RCG Trader:

Courage Under Fire, opening battle scene. That is the best I can do to explain what FT is trying to say.

Dude, I don't give a damn what happened in some shit movie (that was the one with meg ryan right?). I'm not gonna get into 'what could have happened', cause that could go either way. For example what if his gun didn't jam?

Since you CAN'T stop stuff like this from happening, all you can do is be prepared.
 
Back
Top