dvus wrote:

On 3/1/2018 6:47 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

On 2/28/2018 8:53 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

Yes, that's why intelligent people want armed protection for
them in the future. I don't expect you to understand the
premise.


They had "armed protection" and it was completely worthless.

Complain to the guy who told them not to go in, whomever that was.


DO you have evidence that the school safety officer was ordered to
not go in to the school? I think not, he was too busy worrying
about his retirement and didn't give a hoot about the children
citizens he was tasked with protecting.

Do you have evidence he wasn't ordered to not go in? I don't know
either way yet, so I'm willing to wait until the evidence is in.


If "you don't know either way yet", then why did you write "Complain to
the guy who told them not to go in"?

The question is rhetorical, no need to answer.



He should have never been a sworn officer, he was better suited to
being a meter maid.

Statement not based on facts.


Of course it is based upon facts. He failed to do his job, then,
instead of facing an investigation and discipline, he resigned
immediately after the incident.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 11:28:46 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

On 3/1/2018 6:47 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

On 2/28/2018 8:53 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

Yes, that's why intelligent people want armed protection for
them in the future. I don't expect you to understand the
premise.


They had "armed protection" and it was completely worthless.

Complain to the guy who told them not to go in, whomever that was.


DO you have evidence that the school safety officer was ordered to
not go in to the school? I think not, he was too busy worrying
about his retirement and didn't give a hoot about the children
citizens he was tasked with protecting.

Do you have evidence he wasn't ordered to not go in? I don't know
either way yet, so I'm willing to wait until the evidence is in.


If "you don't know either way yet", then why did you write "Complain to
the guy who told them not to go in"?

The question is rhetorical, no need to answer.


ROFL. The resident liberal who insists that whackos like Cruz
should have guns, blames the gun, turns around and convicts cops
without even an INVESTIGATION. Quite remarkable, but not
surprising.








He should have never been a sworn officer, he was better suited to
being a meter maid.

Statement not based on facts.


Of course it is based upon facts. He failed to do his job, then,
instead of facing an investigation and discipline, he resigned
immediately after the incident.


I see. The buffoon who's in all in for rights for whackos and criminals,
who stands up for them, now passes judgment on a cop without even any
investigation. If this was a guy with a rap sheet 20 pages long,
why you libs would be here proclaiming that he has rights, that you
can't prejudge him, that's he's presumed innocent. But a cop, well
that's different. Isn't it time for you to go to an Antifa riot
meeting about now?

On 3/2/2018 11:28 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

On 3/1/2018 6:47 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

On 2/28/2018 8:53 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

Yes, that's why intelligent people want armed protection for
them in the future. I don't expect you to understand the
premise.


They had "armed protection" and it was completely worthless.

Complain to the guy who told them not to go in, whomever that was.


DO you have evidence that the school safety officer was ordered to
not go in to the school? I think not, he was too busy worrying
about his retirement and didn't give a hoot about the children
citizens he was tasked with protecting.

Do you have evidence he wasn't ordered to not go in? I don't know
either way yet, so I'm willing to wait until the evidence is in.


If "you don't know either way yet", then why did you write "Complain to
the guy who told them not to go in"?

Because all the reports I've seen or heard indicate that the deputies
were told to "stage" outside and wait for SWAT. My comment was based on
those reports but I'm willing to alter them if evidence appears that
contradicts what I wrote. I wish the Liberals/Socialists would take the
same path and change their minds about anything when evidence shows them
to be wrong but that never happens.

The question is rhetorical, no need to answer.

Of course not, Liberals never want to hear anything that casts doubt on
their beliefs. If someone dares to contradict them they run for their
"safe spaces" and brand the opposing person a "hater".

He should have never been a sworn officer, he was better suited to
being a meter maid.

Statement not based on facts.


Of course it is based upon facts. He failed to do his job, then,
instead of facing an investigation and discipline, he resigned
immediately after the incident.

There will still be an investigation and hopefully the facts will
emerge. If the officer was derelict he may lose his pension.

--
dvus

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 6:52:32 AM UTC-5, dvus wrote:
On 3/2/2018 11:28 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

On 3/1/2018 6:47 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

On 2/28/2018 8:53 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

Yes, that's why intelligent people want armed protection for
them in the future. I don't expect you to understand the
premise.


They had "armed protection" and it was completely worthless.

Complain to the guy who told them not to go in, whomever that was.


DO you have evidence that the school safety officer was ordered to
not go in to the school? I think not, he was too busy worrying
about his retirement and didn't give a hoot about the children
citizens he was tasked with protecting.

Do you have evidence he wasn't ordered to not go in? I don't know
either way yet, so I'm willing to wait until the evidence is in.


If "you don't know either way yet", then why did you write "Complain to
the guy who told them not to go in"?

Because all the reports I've seen or heard indicate that the deputies
were told to "stage" outside and wait for SWAT. My comment was based on
those reports but I'm willing to alter them if evidence appears that
contradicts what I wrote. I wish the Liberals/Socialists would take the
same path and change their minds about anything when evidence shows them
to be wrong but that never happens.

The question is rhetorical, no need to answer.

Of course not, Liberals never want to hear anything that casts doubt on
their beliefs. If someone dares to contradict them they run for their
"safe spaces" and brand the opposing person a "hater".

He should have never been a sworn officer, he was better suited to
being a meter maid.

Statement not based on facts.


Of course it is based upon facts. He failed to do his job, then,
instead of facing an investigation and discipline, he resigned
immediately after the incident.

There will still be an investigation and hopefully the facts will
emerge. If the officer was derelict he may lose his pension.

--
dvus

Agree with your overall assessment, ie we really need to wait for all
the facts. It's especially disturbing to see the president weighing
in and making accusations before there is an investigation. But on
what basis do you think the deputy who was stationed there could
have his pension in jeopardy? AFAIK, usually that can only happen if he
was convicted of a crime, not simply for failing to follow procedure
or meet their performance standards.

dvus wrote:

Do you have evidence he wasn't ordered to not go in? I don't know
either way yet, so I'm willing to wait until the evidence is in.


If "you don't know either way yet", then why did you write
"Complain to the guy who told them not to go in"?

Because all the reports I've seen or heard indicate that the deputies
were told to "stage" outside and wait for SWAT. My comment was based
on those reports but I'm willing to alter them if evidence appears
that contradicts what I wrote. I wish the Liberals/Socialists would
take the same path and change their minds about anything when
evidence shows them to be wrong but that never happens.


Can you provide a link to reports which indicate Peterson was ordered
to not enter the school? I have not seen any such reports.




Of course it is based upon facts. He failed to do his job, then,
instead of facing an investigation and discipline, he resigned
immediately after the incident.

There will still be an investigation and hopefully the facts will
emerge. If the officer was derelict he may lose his pension.

Civil service benefits do not work that way.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 8:54:33 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

Do you have evidence he wasn't ordered to not go in? I don't know
either way yet, so I'm willing to wait until the evidence is in.


If "you don't know either way yet", then why did you write
"Complain to the guy who told them not to go in"?

Because all the reports I've seen or heard indicate that the deputies
were told to "stage" outside and wait for SWAT. My comment was based
on those reports but I'm willing to alter them if evidence appears
that contradicts what I wrote. I wish the Liberals/Socialists would
take the same path and change their minds about anything when
evidence shows them to be wrong but that never happens.


Can you provide a link to reports which indicate Peterson was ordered
to not enter the school? I have not seen any such reports.


Google broken?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...203015289.html

"Deputies were told to set up €˜perimeter around Parkland shooting."


While that was after more deputies had arrived, the order was apparently
given by the *police captain* on the scene. It certainly undermines
your attempt to convict and put the blame on the lone deputy there
when it started. Even with four or five cops there, the captain
gave that order, so it
certainly doesn't support your case vilifying the initial deputy as
a coward. How do you know what he had been trained to do, told to do,
without an investigation? There were reports that Cruz was firing
out windows, trying to hit fleeing students. Do you know exactly
where that deputy was, the conditions around him at the time?
Funny how you libs will give every benefit
of doubt to a criminal, but quickly condemn a cop, without an
investigation even being done. Isn't it time for you to go to
your Black Lies Matter meeting?

trader_4 wrote:

Firstly Trader, man-up, take ownership of your words and demonstrate
some integrity.



Can you provide a link to reports which indicate Peterson was
ordered to not enter the school? I have not seen any such reports.


Google broken?


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...203015289.html


Thanks for posting the link, you are a good little search monkey.



"Deputies were told to set up €˜perimeter around Parkland shooting."


'About the order to set up a perimeter:'

"Time stamps were not visible on the log of calls to BSO dispatch
obtained by the Herald. But a fuller version shared earlier with Fox
News shows the shooting €” which lasted roughly six minutes €” would have
been over by the time of Jordans (the captain issuing) order." (from
the article)


'About Peterson'

"(Broward Sheriff Scott) Israel has already publicly lambasted one
deputy, Scot Peterson, who did not enter a Stoneman Douglas building
where Nikolas Cruz mowed down students and staff." (from the article)

The thread so far has been about Sheriff deputy Peterson.

Peterson was the officer who was posted to the site and was there
during the entire six minutes of the shooting and didn't enter the
school, he didn't have orders to not enter the building (see above)
and, according to his boss, Peterson's training was:

"Broward Sheriff Scott Israel has said BSO training and nationwide
active-shooter procedure call for armed law enforcement officers to
confront shooters immediately rather than secure a scene." (from the
article)

Peterson was in the position and had six minutes to interdict the
shooter and was trained to do so and did not. The orders issued by
Jordan provide him with no cover for failing to confront and attempt to
stop the shooter.







--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 9:58:04 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

Firstly Trader, man-up, take ownership of your words and demonstrate
some integrity.

Firstly, SwallowBeak, you're the one who won't man-up. I've asked
you repeatedly here to supply all those posts of mine that you
told us you had reviewed before making your absurd claim. If you're
not lying and you really reviewed them, then you'd have them.
The silence tells the truth, for all to see.







Can you provide a link to reports which indicate Peterson was
ordered to not enter the school? I have not seen any such reports.


Google broken?


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...203015289.html


Thanks for posting the link, you are a good little search monkey.


So typical. Provide what you requested and then SwallowBeak
doesn't like that.


The fact remains that no investigation has been completed.
Unless you were there, you don't know what all the facts are.
Peterson's actions were consistent with the order given to the
rest of the deputies who arrived minutes later. Yet here you
are, Mr. Lib quickly condemning the cop, while you openly
support criminals and all their rights. Isn't it time for
your Black Lies Matter rally or Antifa riot planning meeting?

trader_4 wrote:

The fact remains that no investigation has been completed.
Unless you were there, you don't know what all the facts are.
Peterson's actions were consistent with the order given to the
rest of the deputies who arrived minutes later. Yet here you
are, Mr. Lib quickly condemning the cop, while you openly
support criminals and all their rights. Isn't it time for
your Black Lies Matter rally or Antifa riot planning meeting?

ROFL!

Nice attempt to spin the facts as presented in the article you posted.

You have no integrity whatsoever.


--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On 3/3/2018 8:54 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

Do you have evidence he wasn't ordered to not go in? I don't know
either way yet, so I'm willing to wait until the evidence is in.


If "you don't know either way yet", then why did you write
"Complain to the guy who told them not to go in"?

Because all the reports I've seen or heard indicate that the deputies
were told to "stage" outside and wait for SWAT. My comment was based
on those reports but I'm willing to alter them if evidence appears
that contradicts what I wrote. I wish the Liberals/Socialists would
take the same path and change their minds about anything when
evidence shows them to be wrong but that never happens.


Can you provide a link to reports which indicate Peterson was ordered
to not enter the school? I have not seen any such reports.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/28...urces-say.html

http://video.foxnews.com/v/574305605...#sp=show-clips

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.3851396

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-stage.html

https://www.opslens.com/2018/03/01/b...urders-ensued/

Is that sufficient? I didn't read them all but you can get the gist.

Of course it is based upon facts. He failed to do his job, then,
instead of facing an investigation and discipline, he resigned
immediately after the incident.

There will still be an investigation and hopefully the facts will
emerge. If the officer was derelict he may lose his pension.

Civil service benefits do not work that way.

If true that's a shame. There should be consequences for dereliction of
duty. If he was told to "stand down" then that's a different situation.

--
dvus

On 3/4/2018 at 5:33:55 AM, dvus wrote:



Can you provide a link to reports which indicate Peterson was
ordered to not enter the school? I have not seen any such reports.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/28...urces-say.html

http://video.foxnews.com/v/574305605...#sp=show-clips


Dvus, I genuinely appreciate you posting the links. However,
yesterday, my little search monkey, Trader_4 posted the link below.
After reading the article I responded with an analysis of the article,
which I am reposting below.

You can see from the article and what I have written, the Sheriff's
deputy who was posted to the school, was present before and during the
shooting and did not receive orders to establish a perimeter until
after the shooting was over.


"'About the order to set up a perimeter:'

"Time stamps were not visible on the log of calls to BSO dispatch
obtained by the Herald. But a fuller version shared earlier with Fox
News shows the shooting €” which lasted roughly six minutes €” would have
been over by the time of Jordans (the captain issuing) order." (from
the article)


'About Peterson'

"(Broward Sheriff Scott) Israel has already publicly lambasted one
deputy, Scot Peterson, who did not enter a Stoneman Douglas building
where Nikolas Cruz mowed down students and staff." (from the article)


Peterson was the officer who was posted to the site and was there
during the entire six minutes of the shooting and didn't enter the
school, he didn't have orders to not enter the building (see above)
and, according to his boss, Peterson's training was:

"Broward Sheriff Scott Israel has said BSO training and nationwide
active-shooter procedure call for armed law enforcement officers to
confront shooters immediately rather than secure a scene." (from the
article)

Peterson was in the position and had six minutes to interdict the
shooter and was trained to do so and did not. The orders issued by
Jordan provide him with no cover for failing to confront and attempt to
stop the shooter."


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...203015289.html



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/4/2018 at 5:33:55 AM, dvus wrote:



Can you provide a link to reports which indicate Peterson was
ordered to not enter the school? I have not seen any such reports.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/28...urces-say.html

http://video.foxnews.com/v/574305605...#sp=show-clips


Dvus, I genuinely appreciate you posting the links. However,
yesterday, my little search monkey, Trader_4 posted the link below.
After reading the article I responded with an analysis of the article,
which I am reposting below.

You can see from the article and what I have written, the Sheriff's
deputy who was posted to the school, was present before and during the
shooting and did not receive orders to establish a perimeter until
after the shooting was over.


"'About the order to set up a perimeter:'

"Time stamps were not visible on the log of calls to BSO dispatch
obtained by the Herald. But a fuller version shared earlier with Fox
News shows the shooting €” which lasted roughly six minutes €” would have
been over by the time of Jordans (the captain issuing) order." (from
the article)


'About Peterson'

"(Broward Sheriff Scott) Israel has already publicly lambasted one
deputy, Scot Peterson, who did not enter a Stoneman Douglas building
where Nikolas Cruz mowed down students and staff." (from the article)


Peterson was the officer who was posted to the site and was there
during the entire six minutes of the shooting and didn't enter the
school, he didn't have orders to not enter the building (see above)
and, according to his boss, Peterson's training was:

"Broward Sheriff Scott Israel has said BSO training and nationwide
active-shooter procedure call for armed law enforcement officers to
confront shooters immediately rather than secure a scene." (from the
article)

Peterson was in the position and had six minutes to interdict the
shooter and was trained to do so and did not. The orders issued by
Jordan provide him with no cover for failing to confront and attempt to
stop the shooter."


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...203015289.html



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

Heh, SwallowBeak, isn't it time for your Black Lies Matter protest
or your Antifa riot planning meeting? Funny how you libs are so
quick to stand up for criminals, yet so very quick to condemn cops.
When it comes to cops, you have the guy guilty without any
investigation into the full facts involved. The guy's life is
destroyed, he's getting death threats, buy heh, let's pile on.

For the record, the cite I provided for you says that a police
CAPTAIN, who arrived on the scene when there were now a total
of four or five cops there, ordered all of them to form a
perimeter, ie his orders were consistent with what the original
deputy was doing. So, how do we know who was ordered to do what,
what the real, if any, dept policy was, what training or instruction
they had been given in the years prior to the incident, etc.

But heh, don't let determining any of the facts get in the way of
your condemnation of cops.

On 3/4/2018 at 7:06:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:


Awwww, you still feel humiliated and emasculated, how quaint.

Why don't you go stroke your polymer manhood, insert and remove the
magazine a few times? That might help restore some of your pride and
dignity. A challenging goal considering your innate lack of integrity


--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 10:25:17 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/4/2018 at 7:06:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:


Awwww, you still feel humiliated and emasculated, how quaint.

Why don't you go stroke your polymer manhood, insert and remove the
magazine a few times? That might help restore some of your pride and
dignity. A challenging goal considering your innate lack of integrity



Heh, SwallowBeak, I guess that means you still can't produce all those
past posts of mine that you claimed that you "reviewed" when you
made your lying accusation. Where are they? The silence speaks
volumes. Liar!

ROFL

On 3/4/2018 at 9:46:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:


Awwww Trader_4, you still feel humiliated and emasculated, how quaint.

Why don't you go stroke your polymer manhood, insert and remove the
magazine a few times? That might help restore some of your pride and
dignity. A challenging goal considering your innate lack of integrity



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 12:49:56 PM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/4/2018 at 9:46:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:


Awwww Trader_4, you still feel humiliated and emasculated, how quaint.

Why don't you go stroke your polymer manhood, insert and remove the
magazine a few times? That might help restore some of your pride and
dignity. A challenging goal considering your innate lack of integrity


\


Heh, SwallowBeak, I guess that means you still can't produce all those
past posts of mine that you claimed that you "reviewed" when you
made your lying accusation. Where are they? The silence speaks
volumes. Liar!

ROFL

On 3/4/2018 at 10:05:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:


You have no integrity. You cannot take ownership of your own words,
actions or mistakes.

Sad and pathetic.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 1:13:16 PM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/4/2018 at 10:05:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:


You have no integrity. You cannot take ownership of your own words,
actions or mistakes.

Sad and pathetic.


ROFL.



Heh, SwallowBeak, I guess that means you still can't produce all those
past posts of mine that you claimed that you "reviewed" when you
made your lying accusation. Where are they? The silence speaks
volumes. Liar!

ROFL

It's really simple, just post for us all of those posts of mine
that you claimed you have.

Liar!

On 3/4/2018 9:08 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/4/2018 at 5:33:55 AM, dvus wrote:



Can you provide a link to reports which indicate Peterson was
ordered to not enter the school? I have not seen any such reports.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/28...urces-say.html

http://video.foxnews.com/v/574305605...#sp=show-clips


Dvus, I genuinely appreciate you posting the links. However,
yesterday, my little search monkey, Trader_4 posted the link below.
After reading the article I responded with an analysis of the article,
which I am reposting below.

You can see from the article and what I have written, the Sheriff's
deputy who was posted to the school, was present before and during the
shooting and did not receive orders to establish a perimeter until
after the shooting was over.


"'About the order to set up a perimeter:'

"Time stamps were not visible on the log of calls to BSO dispatch
obtained by the Herald. But a fuller version shared earlier with Fox
News shows the shooting €” which lasted roughly six minutes €” would have
been over by the time of Jordans (the captain issuing) order." (from
the article)


'About Peterson'

"(Broward Sheriff Scott) Israel has already publicly lambasted one
deputy, Scot Peterson, who did not enter a Stoneman Douglas building
where Nikolas Cruz mowed down students and staff." (from the article)


Peterson was the officer who was posted to the site and was there
during the entire six minutes of the shooting and didn't enter the
school, he didn't have orders to not enter the building (see above)
and, according to his boss, Peterson's training was:

"Broward Sheriff Scott Israel has said BSO training and nationwide
active-shooter procedure call for armed law enforcement officers to
confront shooters immediately rather than secure a scene." (from the
article)

Peterson was in the position and had six minutes to interdict the
shooter and was trained to do so and did not. The orders issued by
Jordan provide him with no cover for failing to confront and attempt to
stop the shooter."


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...203015289.html

I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything Scott Israel says.
He appears to be an ambitious politician and they have a habit of saying
self-serving things that later turn out to be untrue. Let's wait until
all the facts are in and the investigation is closed.

--
dvus

On 3/5/2018 at 3:36:43 AM, dvus wrote:



I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything Scott Israel
says. He appears to be an ambitious politician and they have a habit
of saying self-serving things that later turn out to be untrue. Let's
wait until all the facts are in and the investigation is closed.


You can approach this however you wish. Personally, I have seen enough
information to form a personal opinion about deputy Peterson.

As it stands, it appears to me that deputy Peterson was derelict in his
duty and acted in a cowardly fashion.

If new information comes to light, I could change my opinion.

Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in our
society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On 03/05/2018 04:36 AM, dvus wrote:
I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything Scott Israel says.
He appears to be an ambitious politician and they have a habit of saying
self-serving things that later turn out to be untrue. Let's wait until
all the facts are in and the investigation is closed.

Judging by Las Vegas, that will be a long, long wait.

On 3/5/2018 8:21 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/5/2018 at 3:36:43 AM, dvus wrote:



I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything Scott Israel
says. He appears to be an ambitious politician and they have a habit
of saying self-serving things that later turn out to be untrue. Let's
wait until all the facts are in and the investigation is closed.


You can approach this however you wish. Personally, I have seen enough
information to form a personal opinion about deputy Peterson.

As it stands, it appears to me that deputy Peterson was derelict in his
duty and acted in a cowardly fashion.

If new information comes to light, I could change my opinion.

Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in our
society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.

Well, luckily the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you and forbade
infringement on the right to bear. If you can amend the Constitution to
agree with your stance then I'll have to change my stance as well. Good
luck!

--
dvus

On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 06:34:39 -0500, dvus wrote:

On 3/5/2018 8:21 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/5/2018 at 3:36:43 AM, dvus wrote:



I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything Scott Israel
says. He appears to be an ambitious politician and they have a habit
of saying self-serving things that later turn out to be untrue. Let's
wait until all the facts are in and the investigation is closed.


You can approach this however you wish. Personally, I have seen enough
information to form a personal opinion about deputy Peterson.

As it stands, it appears to me that deputy Peterson was derelict in his
duty and acted in a cowardly fashion.

If new information comes to light, I could change my opinion.

Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in our
society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.

Well, luckily the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you

Were there semi automatic weapons around in their day?

and forbade
infringement on the right to bear. If you can amend the Constitution to
agree with your stance then I'll have to change my stance as well. Good
luck!

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 3/6/2018 at 3:34:39 AM, dvus wrote:


On 3/5/2018 8:21 AM, Dove Tail wrote:


Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in
our society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.


Well, luckily the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you and forbade
infringement on the right to bear. If you can amend the Constitution
to agree with your stance then I'll have to change my stance as well.
Good luck!

Numerous laws have been passed then upheld by SCOTUS which ban
different types of weapons.

As I have written previously, my proposal about SA weapons might not
happen today or tomorrow, but, as the mass shootings continue and as
the body count increases, it would be foolish to expect things to
remain status quo.

It is also important to remember the second amendment is not inviolate.
With support from the requisite number of states, etc., the
constitution can be amended. The last amendment was ratified in 1992
and was submitted for ratification in 1789, 202 years. Fortunately,
most other amendments take far less time to ratify.

I am not sure how horrific the camel-back-breaking incident will have
to be to finally motivate the nation to change the current absurdity.
For now, all public gatherings, schools, workplaces, shopping centers,
trains, buses, hospitals, airports, theaters, day care centers,
concerts. etc., are in extreme danger.







--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:31:54 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/6/2018 at 3:34:39 AM, dvus wrote:


On 3/5/2018 8:21 AM, Dove Tail wrote:


Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in
our society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.


Well, luckily the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you and forbade
infringement on the right to bear. If you can amend the Constitution
to agree with your stance then I'll have to change my stance as well.
Good luck!

Numerous laws have been passed then upheld by SCOTUS which ban
different types of weapons.

As I have written previously, my proposal about SA weapons might not
happen today or tomorrow, but, as the mass shootings continue and as
the body count increases, it would be foolish to expect things to
remain status quo.

It is also important to remember the second amendment is not inviolate.
With support from the requisite number of states, etc., the
constitution can be amended. The last amendment was ratified in 1992
and was submitted for ratification in 1789, 202 years. Fortunately,
most other amendments take far less time to ratify.

I am not sure how horrific the camel-back-breaking incident will have
to be to finally motivate the nation to change the current absurdity.
For now, all public gatherings, schools, workplaces, shopping centers,
trains, buses, hospitals, airports, theaters, day care centers,
concerts. etc., are in extreme danger.


And they will continue to be in danger even if you confiscated
all the semi-autos. The perps will simply show up with
shotguns and revolvers. Of course then you
libs will say your first gun grab didn't work, so now we need to grab those too. And don't forget the part where you told
us that the govt wouldn't even have to pay anything when they
take those guns, because as soon as they are illegal, they
are essentially worthless.

You claim the SC has supported banning certain types of guns
before, eg full auto. But they have never been presented
with a ban that tried to make illegal a hundred million guns
that are the very essence of what is used by Americans for
their second amendment rights. Semi-auto pistols are the
weapon of choice for home defense, CCW, business owners,
security guards, etc.

BTW, where are all those posts of mine that you claimed you
reviewed and had about my position on Trump, but you
still can't produce? Lib liar!

On 3/6/2018 6:41 AM, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 06:34:39 -0500, dvus wrote:

On 3/5/2018 8:21 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/5/2018 at 3:36:43 AM, dvus wrote:



I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything Scott Israel
says. He appears to be an ambitious politician and they have a habit
of saying self-serving things that later turn out to be untrue. Let's
wait until all the facts are in and the investigation is closed.


You can approach this however you wish. Personally, I have seen enough
information to form a personal opinion about deputy Peterson.

As it stands, it appears to me that deputy Peterson was derelict in his
duty and acted in a cowardly fashion.

If new information comes to light, I could change my opinion.

Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in our
society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.

Well, luckily the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you

Were there semi automatic weapons around in their day?

Not that I know of. So?

and forbade
infringement on the right to bear. If you can amend the Constitution to
agree with your stance then I'll have to change my stance as well. Good
luck!

--
dvus

On 3/6/2018 9:31 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/6/2018 at 3:34:39 AM, dvus wrote:


On 3/5/2018 8:21 AM, Dove Tail wrote:


Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in
our society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.


Well, luckily the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you and forbade
infringement on the right to bear. If you can amend the Constitution
to agree with your stance then I'll have to change my stance as well.
Good luck!

Numerous laws have been passed then upheld by SCOTUS which ban
different types of weapons.

As I have written previously, my proposal about SA weapons might not
happen today or tomorrow, but, as the mass shootings continue and as
the body count increases, it would be foolish to expect things to
remain status quo.

It is also important to remember the second amendment is not inviolate.
With support from the requisite number of states, etc., the
constitution can be amended. The last amendment was ratified in 1992
and was submitted for ratification in 1789, 202 years. Fortunately,
most other amendments take far less time to ratify.

I am not sure how horrific the camel-back-breaking incident will have
to be to finally motivate the nation to change the current absurdity.
For now, all public gatherings, schools, workplaces, shopping centers,
trains, buses, hospitals, airports, theaters, day care centers,
concerts. etc., are in extreme danger.

Yes, from mentally deranged people who have no business owning guns. If
the current laws are followed those incidents won't happen but if the
softness on crime continues anything is possible.

--
dvus

On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 06:00:40 -0500, dvus wrote:

On 3/6/2018 6:41 AM, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 06:34:39 -0500, dvus wrote:

On 3/5/2018 8:21 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/5/2018 at 3:36:43 AM, dvus wrote:



I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything Scott Israel
says. He appears to be an ambitious politician and they have a habit
of saying self-serving things that later turn out to be untrue. Let's
wait until all the facts are in and the investigation is closed.


You can approach this however you wish. Personally, I have seen enough
information to form a personal opinion about deputy Peterson.

As it stands, it appears to me that deputy Peterson was derelict in his
duty and acted in a cowardly fashion.

If new information comes to light, I could change my opinion.

Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in our
society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.

Well, luckily the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you

Were there semi automatic weapons around in their day?

Not that I know of. So?

Duh! You just said, "the Founding Fathers didn't agree with" Dove Tail.
Well they didn't disagree either did they. Whether they looked into the
future we'll never know but they didn't account for semi automatic
weapons or automatic weapons for that matter did they? So why are
automatic weapons banned? I mean that gives precedent for banning
certain types of weapons does it not?

Laws are made to be changed and broken are they not?


and forbade
infringement on the right to bear. If you can amend the Constitution to
agree with your stance then I'll have to change my stance as well. Good
luck!

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, ******* hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky

On 03/07/2018 06:30 AM, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
Duh! You just said, "the Founding Fathers didn't agree with" Dove Tail.
Well they didn't disagree either did they. Whether they looked into the
future we'll never know but they didn't account for semi automatic
weapons or automatic weapons for that matter did they? So why are
automatic weapons banned? I mean that gives precedent for banning
certain types of weapons does it not?



What the founding fathers didn't see coming was the democrats and their soft-on-crime stance.

Violent criminals belong behind bars, not running loose on the streets.


See, the problem is NEVER the gun, it is ALWAYS the person holding the gun.Â* And if you can't trust that the person won't shoot you, that person belongs behind bars.

Society needs to be tough on crime, not tough on guns.Â* The current catch-and-release program has to stop.

On 3/7/2018 at 3:04:48 AM, dvus wrote:


On 3/6/2018 9:31 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/6/2018 at 3:34:39 AM, dvus wrote:



I am not sure how horrific the camel-back-breaking incident will
have to be to finally motivate the nation to change the current
absurdity. For now, all public gatherings, schools, workplaces,
shopping centers, trains, buses, hospitals, airports, theaters, day
care centers, concerts. etc., are in extreme danger.



Yes, from mentally deranged people who have no business owning guns.
If the current laws are followed those incidents won't happen but if
the softness on crime continues anything is possible.


It is a great idea to keep all firearms out of the hands of mentally
unstable people.

Unfortunately, many of the mass shootings in our nation are committed
by people who have exhibited no signs of mental illness.

The Las Vegas massacre of 1 October 2017 is an excellent example.
There were no actionable warning signs and, that perpetrator, Stephen
Paddock. killed 59 (including himself) and injured 851 people.

There is simply no overwhelming need for semi-automatic weapons in
civilian society. They are fun and make people feel like they are
soldiers, I get it, but, for hunting, marksmanship and self-protection,
non-semi-automatic weapons are more reliable, more accurate and less
prone to causing undesired collateral damage.



--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 6:30:13 AM UTC-5, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 06:00:40 -0500, dvus wrote:

On 3/6/2018 6:41 AM, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 06:34:39 -0500, dvus wrote:

On 3/5/2018 8:21 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/5/2018 at 3:36:43 AM, dvus wrote:



I've gotten to the point where I don't trust anything Scott Israel
says. He appears to be an ambitious politician and they have a habit
of saying self-serving things that later turn out to be untrue. Let's
wait until all the facts are in and the investigation is closed.


You can approach this however you wish. Personally, I have seen enough
information to form a personal opinion about deputy Peterson.

As it stands, it appears to me that deputy Peterson was derelict in his
duty and acted in a cowardly fashion.

If new information comes to light, I could change my opinion.

Regardless of Peterson's behavior, I am convinced that civilians in our
society have no legitimate need for semi-automatic weapons.

Well, luckily the Founding Fathers didn't agree with you

Were there semi automatic weapons around in their day?

Not that I know of. So?

Duh! You just said, "the Founding Fathers didn't agree with" Dove Tail.
Well they didn't disagree either did they. Whether they looked into the
future we'll never know but they didn't account for semi automatic
weapons or automatic weapons for that matter did they?


Given that the second amendment says that a militia is
necessary to ensure the security of the nation, it sure
looks like that would include at least semi-autos.
How can one argue that semi-auto pistols which are
ubiquitous, used for home defense, store owners defending
themselves, security guards, etc aren't covered?
And beyond that, it sure would seem to include semi
auto rifles. Which is why when the libs tried to ban them
last time, they instead created a do nothing law, where
a gun with one type of stock was outlawed, but if you just
put a different stock on it, then it was legal.





So why are
automatic weapons banned? I mean that gives precedent for banning
certain types of weapons does it not?

Laws are made to be changed and broken are they not?


Yes, but in this case, the law that would have to be changed
is likely the US Constitution, which is a very difficult
procedure, one that is obviously extremely unlikely to succeed.

I'd suggest instead we simply adopt reasonable gun permitting
processes across the USA, similar to what we have here in NJ.
To buy a gun, you need a permit issued by the local police
after they have conducted a background check. That includes
an actual investigation, where they call up where you work,
talk to two references, have access to your mental health
records if needed, look at your contact with police, the
police calls to your address, etc. That's the logical place
for all the "red flags" to come together and be used to deny
a permit. Cruz would not have gotten a permit in NJ.
Regardless of whether any types of guns are banned, as long
as people can buy guns, we definitely need that process.
You'd think FL would wise up, but so far, their reaction
hasn't included fixing the biggest, most obvious problem
with how Cruz got his guns.

On 3/7/2018 8:45 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/7/2018 at 3:04:48 AM, dvus wrote:


On 3/6/2018 9:31 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/6/2018 at 3:34:39 AM, dvus wrote:



I am not sure how horrific the camel-back-breaking incident will
have to be to finally motivate the nation to change the current
absurdity. For now, all public gatherings, schools, workplaces,
shopping centers, trains, buses, hospitals, airports, theaters, day
care centers, concerts. etc., are in extreme danger.



Yes, from mentally deranged people who have no business owning guns.
If the current laws are followed those incidents won't happen but if
the softness on crime continues anything is possible.


It is a great idea to keep all firearms out of the hands of mentally
unstable people.

Unfortunately, many of the mass shootings in our nation are committed
by people who have exhibited no signs of mental illness.

I'd say that shooting a bunch of innocent people is a good sign of
mental instability, wouldn't you?

The Las Vegas massacre of 1 October 2017 is an excellent example.
There were no actionable warning signs and, that perpetrator, Stephen
Paddock. killed 59 (including himself) and injured 851 people.

There is simply no overwhelming need for semi-automatic weapons in
civilian society. They are fun and make people feel like they are
soldiers, I get it, but, for hunting, marksmanship and self-protection,
non-semi-automatic weapons are more reliable, more accurate and less
prone to causing undesired collateral damage.

Yeah, a bunch of criminals will wait while you reload your musket. The
Constitution doesn't say that citizens have the right to bear arms only
if Liberals think there's an "overwhelming need" for them. For them,
that need only exists if they can afford armed security for themselves.

--
dvus

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 8:36:22 AM UTC-5, dvus wrote:
On 3/7/2018 8:45 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/7/2018 at 3:04:48 AM, dvus wrote:


On 3/6/2018 9:31 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/6/2018 at 3:34:39 AM, dvus wrote:



I am not sure how horrific the camel-back-breaking incident will
have to be to finally motivate the nation to change the current
absurdity. For now, all public gatherings, schools, workplaces,
shopping centers, trains, buses, hospitals, airports, theaters, day
care centers, concerts. etc., are in extreme danger.



Yes, from mentally deranged people who have no business owning guns.
If the current laws are followed those incidents won't happen but if
the softness on crime continues anything is possible.


It is a great idea to keep all firearms out of the hands of mentally
unstable people.

Unfortunately, many of the mass shootings in our nation are committed
by people who have exhibited no signs of mental illness.

I'd say that shooting a bunch of innocent people is a good sign of
mental instability, wouldn't you?


The obvious problem there is that by then it's too late.
If FL had reasonable gun laws and permit process like we
do here in NJ, Cruz would not have been able to walk in to
a gun store and buy guns. Here, the local police issue
permits following a BACKGROUND check. That includes
talking to people where you work, two references, and looking
at your history with the police, calls to police from
where you live, etc. That is where all the red flags
logically come together. Yet, sadly, in what FL is proposing
to do, I don't see any plans to institute the needed fix.

And yes, I know he might still be able to get a gun anyhow,
but it would make it harder and in the process of trying to
get one illegally, he might wind up arrested or otherwise
blocked. It's all about increasing the odds of stopping
a Cruz, while still allowing normal people to be able to
buy guns.

On 3/8/2018 at 5:36:08 AM, dvus wrote:


There is simply no overwhelming need for semi-automatic weapons in
civilian society. They are fun and make people feel like they are
soldiers, I get it, but, for hunting, marksmanship and
self-protection, non-semi-automatic weapons are more reliable, more
accurate and less prone to causing undesired collateral damage.

Yeah, a bunch of criminals will wait while you reload your musket.
The Constitution doesn't say that citizens have the right to bear
arms only if Liberals think there's an "overwhelming need" for them.
For them, that need only exists if they can afford armed security for
themselves.

Apparently you have limited to no first hand knowledge of modern
weapons or understanding of the second amendment and the SCOTUS
interpretations of the amendment.

Modern revolvers accommodate 4 - 10 rounds. Pump and lever action
shotguns accommodate 5 - 9 rounds. Bolt action rifles with internal
magazines can accommodate up to 10 rounds, etc. None of the above
types of weapons can be realistically converted to semi or full auto
fire. They also cannot be converted to utilize replaceable magazines.

If you cannot defend yourself with the above weapons, then you have no
place touching any kind of firearm.

As for the second amendment:

A. Previous rulings have upheld the outlawing of certain types and
classes of weapons.

B. As with the Bible, the constitution is not sacrosanct. It can be
and has been changed.

When the nation comes to it's senses, after however many more mass
shootings, the nation as a whole will do what is required to put an end
to the carnage. If that means amending the constitution, then so be it.

It won't happen today or tomorrow, it might fall to the next
generation, but, mark my words, change will happen and the mass carnage
will come to an end.







--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:52:43 +0000 (UTC), "Dove Tail"
wrote:

On 3/8/2018 at 5:36:08 AM, dvus wrote:


There is simply no overwhelming need for semi-automatic weapons in
civilian society. They are fun and make people feel like they are
soldiers, I get it, but, for hunting, marksmanship and
self-protection, non-semi-automatic weapons are more reliable, more
accurate and less prone to causing undesired collateral damage.

Yeah, a bunch of criminals will wait while you reload your musket.
The Constitution doesn't say that citizens have the right to bear
arms only if Liberals think there's an "overwhelming need" for them.
For them, that need only exists if they can afford armed security for
themselves.

Apparently you have limited to no first hand knowledge of modern
weapons or understanding of the second amendment and the SCOTUS
interpretations of the amendment.

Apparently you're a little light in your Constitutional knowledge,
too.

Modern revolvers accommodate 4 - 10 rounds. Pump and lever action
shotguns accommodate 5 - 9 rounds. Bolt action rifles with internal
magazines can accommodate up to 10 rounds, etc. None of the above
types of weapons can be realistically converted to semi or full auto
fire. They also cannot be converted to utilize replaceable magazines.

Irrelevant. These weapons are used by the general population and are
therefore protected under the Second.

If you cannot defend yourself with the above weapons, then you have no
place touching any kind of firearm.

Irrelevant.

As for the second amendment:

A. Previous rulings have upheld the outlawing of certain types and
classes of weapons.

For weapons that are NOT used by the general population, yes.

B. As with the Bible, the constitution is not sacrosanct. It can be
and has been changed.

The instructions are included. If they're too difficult for you,
don't ask a court for a simpler path. That's not in there.

When the nation comes to it's senses, after however many more mass
shootings, the nation as a whole will do what is required to put an end
to the carnage. If that means amending the constitution, then so be it.

The nation *has* come to its senses. They're LIBERALIZING gun laws
fairly regularly.

It won't happen today or tomorrow, it might fall to the next
generation, but, mark my words, change will happen and the mass carnage
will come to an end.

You're full of **** but that's pretty obvious.

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:52:46 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/8/2018 at 5:36:08 AM, dvus wrote:


There is simply no overwhelming need for semi-automatic weapons in
civilian society. They are fun and make people feel like they are
soldiers, I get it, but, for hunting, marksmanship and
self-protection, non-semi-automatic weapons are more reliable, more
accurate and less prone to causing undesired collateral damage.

Yeah, a bunch of criminals will wait while you reload your musket.
The Constitution doesn't say that citizens have the right to bear
arms only if Liberals think there's an "overwhelming need" for them.
For them, that need only exists if they can afford armed security for
themselves.

Apparently you have limited to no first hand knowledge of modern
weapons or understanding of the second amendment and the SCOTUS
interpretations of the amendment.

Modern revolvers accommodate 4 - 10 rounds. Pump and lever action
shotguns accommodate 5 - 9 rounds. Bolt action rifles with internal
magazines can accommodate up to 10 rounds, etc. None of the above
types of weapons can be realistically converted to semi or full auto
fire.


In the 1800s there were revolvers with removable cylinders that could be quickly changed, just like a magazine in a semi-auto. If you ban semi-autos how long before new, modern ones are on the market? It's a simple thing. And then you'll be trying to ban those too. And then when the bad guys are using shotguns you'll ban those.







They also cannot be converted to utilize replaceable magazines.

If you cannot defend yourself with the above weapons, then you have no
place touching any kind of firearm.

As for the second amendment:


The second amendment doesn't say your gun is only for self defense.

Btw, SwallowBeak, where are all those posts of mine that you claimed you had reviewed when you made your BS lies? The silence is deafening.

On 3/9/2018 at 7:55:37 PM, wrote:


When the nation comes to it's senses, after however many more mass
shootings, the nation as a whole will do what is required to put an
end to the carnage. If that means amending the constitution, then
so be it.

The nation has come to its senses. They're LIBERALIZING gun laws
fairly regularly.

It won't happen today or tomorrow, it might fall to the next
generation, but, mark my words, change will happen and the mass
carnage will come to an end.

You're full of **** but that's pretty obvious.


Change is coming, whether you like it or not. Thanks for sharing your
opinions!

LOL!





--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"

On 3/10/2018 6:07 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Change is coming, whether you like it or not. Thanks for sharing your
opinions!

LOL!

Did you sleep through History class?Â* What is the number one tool used to secure freedom from tyranny?

On 3/10/2018 7:54 AM, Joe wrote:
On 3/10/2018 6:07 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Change is coming, whether you like it or not.Â* Thanks for sharing your
opinions!

LOL!

Did you sleep through History class?Â* What is the number one tool used
to secure freedom from tyranny?

It sure as hell wasn't billy clubs or whatever else liberals think is
sufficient for citizens to protect themselves with. I'll take the same
weaponry the liberal elites allow their armed security teams to have.

--
dvus

On 3/10/2018 at 5:59:59 AM, dvus wrote:


On 3/10/2018 7:54 AM, Joe wrote:
On 3/10/2018 6:07 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
Change is coming, whether you like it or not.Â* Thanks for sharing
your opinions!

LOL!

Did you sleep through History class?Â* What is the number one tool
used to secure freedom from tyranny?

It sure as hell wasn't billy clubs or whatever else liberals think is
sufficient for citizens to protect themselves with. I'll take the
same weaponry the liberal elites allow their armed security teams to
have.


Your hyperbole and histrionics aside, when the nation changes the laws,
using constitutional due process, that is when we will find out just
who the law abiding gun owners really are.







--
"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."

"Truth Sounds Like Hate To Those Who Hate The Truth"