Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So, speedy, you admit you haven't a fucking clue about the additional restrictions and limitations imposed by the lib-retard crowd and how those restrictions and limitations infringe upon the rights of gun owners. Further, does your dumb-ass imagine that those pastors in Houston are not spending time and money to defend themselves -- defend their right to free speech and religion -- against the lib-retard assault against their rights, speedy? Does your dumb-ass not fathom how that effort and expense doesn't curtail their right to free religion and speech, speedy?


That must be my thumb I alternate between my ass and my mouth as a pacifier.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

It is almost impossible to pass ANY law without adversely affecting SOMEONE'S rights in some way. But as usual, IB the myopic biased blowhard only see it from one side. The truth is government is intended to find an acceptable balance of rights. The Wackos and Thumpers of any persuasion really don't want balance, they only want THEIR rights protected. Which end of the spectrum prevented me from buying a bottle of wine until 1PM last Sunday? Which set of political believers tell my neighbors down the street that one of them can't be covered under th heir SO's health care because they are both women? Which end of the political/religeous spectrum turned my 94 year old aunt into a criminal because she used pot to dull cer chronic pain in the last months of her life? The only difference is which rights "your" guys want to protect me from.

The First and Second Amendments are "First" and "Second" for fundamental reasons, Old-THUMPER. That you decry someone for wanting to DEFEND those rights -- the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion and the right to bear arms as spelled out in the Bill of Rights -- speaks volumes about you and your peevish willingness to subvert the rights of others for your own selfish interests, Old-THUMPER.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You employed another emoticon just like all of your other emoticons that you insist are stupid and insignificant; thus, not deserving reply, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp. Every simpleton aspect you attribute to an emoticon is still identified with your handle, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So, speedy, you admit you haven't a fucking clue about the additional restrictions and limitations imposed by the lib-retard crowd and how those restrictions and limitations infringe upon the rights of gun owners. Further, does your dumb-ass imagine that those pastors in Houston are not spending time and money to defend themselves -- defend their right to free speech and religion -- against the lib-retard assault against their rights, speedy? Does your dumb-ass not fathom how that effort and expense doesn't curtail their right to free religion and speech, speedy?

I never said I don't have a clue about additional restrictions and limitations on gun owners. I simply said I don't own a gun or rifle. I simply love the way you jump from one conclusion to another without even thinking about it.

And the question was how have YOUR rights to free speech and religion? Since you don't live in Houston, what is going on there does not affect you in the least.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The First and Second Amendments are "First" and "Second" for fundamental reasons, Old-THUMPER. That you decry someone for wanting to DEFEND those rights -- the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion and the right to bear arms as spelled out in the Bill of Rights -- speaks volumes about you and your peevish willingness to subvert the rights of others for your own selfish interests, Old-THUMPER.

Someday you'll understand that how YOU or I interpret the First or Second Amendments does not matter.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The First and Second Amendments are "First" and "Second" for fundamental reasons, Old-THUMPER. That you decry someone for wanting to DEFEND those rights -- the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion and the right to bear arms as spelled out in the Bill of Rights -- speaks volumes about you and your peevish willingness to subvert the rights of others for your own selfish interests, Old-THUMPER.


You employed another emoticon just like all of your other emoticons that you insist are stupid and insignificant; thus, not deserving reply, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp. Every simpleton aspect you attribute to an emoticon is still identified with your handle, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I never said I don't have a clue about additional restrictions and limitations on gun owners. I simply said I don't own a gun or rifle. I simply love the way you jump from one conclusion to another without even thinking about it.

And the question was how have YOUR rights to free speech and religion? Since you don't live in Houston, what is going on there does not affect you in the least.

"Reading" about what the fuck is happening and enduring the consequences of what the fuck you jackasses do are two entirely different aspects, speedy. But you are obviously to lib-RETARDED to understand that most elemental of facts, speedy. "Houston" isn't the only venue being assaulted by jackasses like you, speedy, or has your dumb ass already forgotten the cited article detailing what Pelosi and Feinstein tried to do?

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Someday you'll understand that how YOU or I interpret the First or Second Amendments does not matter.

It's funny how *your interpretation* doesn't jive with the last two hundred years of interpretation; whereas, mine does, speedy.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You employed an emoticon just like all of your other emoticons that you insist are stupid and insignificant; thus, not deserving reply, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp. Every simpleton aspect you attribute to an emoticon is still identified with your handle, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Old-T

It is almost impossible to pass ANY law without adversely affecting SOMEONE'S rights in some way.

That's a physics principle isn't it?

Every action causes a reaction. Some good. Some not. Anybody play pool?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's a physics principle isn't it?

Every action causes a reaction. Some good. Some not. Anybody play pool?

Not only that but it depends on one's position on what one thinks is good or bad.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's a physics principle isn't it?

Every action causes a reaction. Some good. Some not. Anybody play pool?

Quite so. That was my point.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"Reading" about what the fuck is happening and enduring the consequences of what the fuck you jackasses do are two entirely different aspects, speedy. But you are obviously to lib-RETARDED to understand that most elemental of facts, speedy. "Houston" isn't the only venue being assaulted by jackasses like you, speedy, or has your dumb ass already forgotten the cited article detailing what Pelosi and Feinstein tried to do?

It's funny how *your interpretation* doesn't jive with the last two hundred years of interpretation; whereas, mine does, speedy.




You employed an emoticon just like all of your other emoticons that you insist are stupid and insignificant; thus, not deserving reply, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp. Every simpleton aspect you attribute to an emoticon is still identified with your handle, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The First and Second Amendments are "First" and "Second" for fundamental reasons, Old-THUMPER. That you decry someone for wanting to DEFEND those rights -- the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion and the right to bear arms as spelled out in the Bill of Rights -- speaks volumes about you and your peevish willingness to subvert the rights of others for your own selfish interests, Old-THUMPER.


You employed another emoticon just like all of your other emoticons that you insist are stupid and insignificant; thus, not deserving reply, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp. Every simpleton aspect you attribute to an emoticon is still identified with your handle, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp.

Good Ol' IBIdiot. The lying pathetic delusional asshole. Of course I did no such thing. I defended no one. I never mentioned specific amendments as being more or less important. I made a general statement of truth--that must be the problem: truth is completely alian to you so you are incapable of recognizing it. It is difficult to believe anyone can be as intentionally and actively stupid as you are, but you demonstrate it every time you hit "post".

Why did YOU single out only amendments 1 and 2? Is it because you are still pissed that slavery was abolished so you can't have your own plantation? I am not the one who singled out ant particular amendments to the exclusion of others--that was YOU. Good Ol' IBMassa Wannabe. But you will feel compelled now to reply, and in your reply you so post more lies. You will convince yourself (no one else) that yes I did decry freedom of speech. That I did break into your hovel to steal your stats of guns. And that the only thing between civilization and complete destruction is YOU. And that gives YOU the RIGHT to spew lies and homophobic slurs, because god is on YOUR side!

Spew away and display for all the world (again) that you are the closest thing on this board to a thurd wiith fingers and a keyboard.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Good Ol' IBIdiot. The lying pathetic delusional asshole. Of course I did no such thing. I defended no one. I never mentioned specific amendments as being more or less important. I made a general statement of truth--that must be the problem: truth is completely alian to you so you are incapable of recognizing it. It is difficult to believe anyone can be as intentionally and actively stupid as you are, but you demonstrate it every time you hit "post".

Why did YOU single out only amendments 1 and 2? Is it because you are still pissed that slavery was abolished so you can't have your own plantation? I am not the one who singled out ant particular amendments to the exclusion of others--that was YOU. Good Ol' IBMassa Wannabe. But you will feel compelled now to reply, and in your reply you so post more lies. You will convince yourself (no one else) that yes I did decry freedom of speech. That I did break into your hovel to steal your stats of guns. And that the only thing between civilization and complete destruction is YOU. And that gives YOU the RIGHT to spew lies and homophobic slurs, because god is on YOUR side!

Spew away and display for all the world (again) that you are the closest thing on this board to a third with fingers and a keyboard.

Well, Old-THUMPER, given your limited reading and comprehension skills, it comes as absolutely no surprise that you entirely missed the issues being discussed -- issues integral to the First and Second Amendments, Old-THUMPER, and not even tangentially related to the other issues you employ to deflect from the topics at hand, except in your jackass mind, Old-THUMPER. Even a person with as limited an intellect as you should be able to comprehend that, Old-THUMPER. BTW, when you backed speedy's POV, Old-THUMPER, you DID take a side on these issues: the side advocating more laws, the side proposing greater government intrusion, the side urging greater infringement on citizen's rights and the side that is against the status quo, Old-THUMPER, you dumb, ignorant jackass.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Every inane aspect of an emoticon you denigrate is identified with your handle, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Back to Col Peters.

I'm sorry. I can't take Him seriously. He spent over 18 years in the Army and managed to get to O-5.

There is a whole line of retired Generals and Admirals waiting in line to give expert commentary. Col Peters just comes across as shrill, and rather unrealistic in his assessments.

There is a long history of military officers not reaching their full potential because they made waves AND WERE RIGHT in what they said. Billy Mitchell predicted Pearl Harbor and the advent of air power to win wars. He left as a LColonel. Anthony Herbert tried to inform his senior officers about problems in South Vietnam as far as low moral, drug use, and poor tactics. He left as a LColonel. John Paul Vann was right about how to win the war in Vietnam and as the equivalent of the Vietnamese Major General was beating the North when he died. He left as a LColonel. It seems that achieving the rank of LColonel is a consolation prize and a mark that maybe you knew something that the Joint Chiefs should have. Allen West saved American lives by his actions in the Middle East. He left as a LColonel.

[Old-T]

Yep. As predicted. When call out on his lies, IB replies with more lies.

Good for you. At least you are a consistent liar. Well done. Bravo.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Yep. As predicted. When call out on his lies, IB replies with more lies.

Good for you. At least you are a consistent liar. Well done. Bravo.

Being called a 'liar' by you is like your truthless leaders, Odumbo and Hildabeast, blaming Benghazi on a video, Old-THUMPER.