Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Bad Boy Dazza on February 12, 2013, 10:22:45 PM

Title: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on February 12, 2013, 10:22:45 PM
The only way to fight against them is on their own terms.  Corruption has no problem with killing innocents, and unfortunately, sometime to stand against this evil, innocents also need to be sacrificed.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on February 12, 2013, 10:36:27 PM
He goes on to explain why we cannot put our trust in the police to protect us.  A perfect logical defense of the right to bear arms.

You cannot be a good honest man and a police officer, that is a contradiction in terms, if they were good men, they would either speak out against corruption or leave the force.  You can't join a corrupt criminal organisation and claim to be a good guy because you don't participate in corrupt activities.  Your association with this group makes you an accessory to the crime.  A truly good person would literally go crazy in a corrupt organisation such as the modern day police forces.



Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Bad Boy Dazza on February 12, 2013, 11:25:00 PM
Further ruminations of the hypocrisy of disarming the citizenry...

corrupt police who regularly kill and wound innocent people.  How do you propose we stop Police doing this, we have Police to prevent citizens killing innocents, but who can we get to stop police doing the same thing?
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Roger Bacon on February 13, 2013, 02:25:09 AM
Good thread!  If you're anti second amendment, you're probably a hypocritical moron as pointed out above^.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: pluck on February 13, 2013, 04:00:58 AM
Hahaha typical dumvass troll.

How does he suggest the public protect themselves if the police can't be trusted & replied on to do so?
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: dr.chimps on February 13, 2013, 04:03:24 AM
An 'ends-justify-the-means' kinda philosophy, eh? This should open up the thread's floodgates.   ;D 
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Red Hook on February 13, 2013, 04:38:44 AM
I am not against gun ownership. But the NRA won't even compromise with a ban full or semi automatic weapons, that is were they lose most people in supporting them.

During the time of creation of the 2nd amendment they were still using musket guns. I am not sure that protecting the rights of people carrying uzis and AK47s was the intent.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: doison on February 13, 2013, 04:42:15 AM
I am not against gun ownership. But the NRA won't even compromise with a ban full or semi automatic weapons, that is were they lose most people in supporting them.

During the time of creation of the 2nd amendment they were still using musket guns. I am not sure that protecting the rights of people carrying uzis and AK47s was the intent.

Exactly!  "If I don't want them, no one else should be allowed to have them."
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: The Grim Lifter on February 13, 2013, 04:49:51 AM
E-Kul doesn't like the Police because they pull him up when he threatens women. If some fucking loser threatened a woman and you had to go around to his house to charge him how would you treat him? Like the piece of shit he is.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 05:10:17 AM
E-Kul doesn't like the Police because they pull him up when he threatens women. If some fucking loser threatened a woman and you had to go around to his house to charge him how would you treat him? Like the piece of shit he is.
I have never threatened a woman in my life, why would I do such a thing, especially considering I have no trouble physically dominating fully grown men such as yourself.  Have i ever stood up to a woman and restrained her while attacking me, sure.  Most men do at some point, , I even had to do this on occasion with my sisters growing up when they launched a fully fledged attack.  Have I ever beat up a woman - NEVER! As a matter of responsibility, I NEVER threaten anyone, most people are already intimidated by my size and as a pacifist I don't like to fight.  I often have to tell people, after they have met me and said something stupid like "Oh, your a big fella, I won't mess with you" that just because I am big, doesn't mean I am a MMA expert or wanting to fight anybody for that matter.  But, push me far enough or into a corner, I am like anybody and will do what is necessary.  I learnt long ago, just by being bigger than most, this is perceived as a threat in itself to a lot of people, so I try and downplay it, so as not to intimidate anyone.  Having said that, women are normally never intimidated just by my physical size and have shown more game than most of the men I have ever met,

Now, after dealing with another one of my butthurt getbigger stalkers, back to the thread.  Yes, I believe Powerful organisations like the Police are out of control and something needs to be done about them.  Do I think vigilante style armed militias are the answer, MAYBE.  The problem with this is, you are likely to be out gunned.  Essentially, their needs to be accountability, and that is more likely to come from a majority determined people who are prepared to peacefully rally against the corrupt powers that be.  The reason Dorner had to go on such an escapade, because he didn't have the backing and support of a large collective of like minded individuals willing to stand against power and corruption.  Had Dorner had some support of like minded people, he wouldn't have felt so isolated and potentially could have been encouraged to take a different action.

Dorner recognised the apathy of the average person and their ignorance of the truth, for him the situation felt hopeless and he took a stand the only way he knew how and was trained to do, with violence.  Did he accomplish anything?maybe, maybe not.  I am not suggesting this is an easy fix problem, but at the very least people need to start talking about it and coming together to stand against it, not sitting idly by and watching or ignoring as Corrupted power spins increasingly out of control.  I don't think citizens arming themselves heavily and waiting for the Government to strike is the answer, large groups of people need to get in the Governments face loudly and continually and as peacefully as possible, and stop being on the defensive.  I think there are parts of the world where this is starting to happen (like Egypt) and some small movements in Western Countries like the Occupy Movement, but it needs to become overwhelmingly popular for it too revolutionise the world.

JMO
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: doison on February 13, 2013, 05:22:30 AM
I have never threatened a woman in my life, why would I do such a thing, especially considering I have no trouble physically dominating fully grown men such as yourself.  Have i ever stood up to a woman and restrained her while attacking me, sure.  Most men do at some point, , I even had to do this on occasion with my sisters growing up when they launched a fully fledged attack.  Have I ever beat up a woman - NEVER! As a matter of responsibility, I NEVER threaten anyone, most people are already intimidated by my size and as a pacifist I don't like to fight.  I often have to tell people, after they have met me and said something stupid like "Oh, your a big fella, I won't mess with you" that just because I am big, doesn't mean I am a MMA expert or wanting to fight anybody for that matter.  But, push me far enough or into a corner, I am like anybody and will do what is necessary.

Now, after dealing with another one of my butthurt getbigger stalkers, back to the thread.  Yes, I believe Powerful organisations like the Police are out of control and something needs to be done about them.  Do I think vigilante style armed militias are the answer, MAYBE.  The problem with this is, you are likely to be out gunned.  Essentially, their needs to be accountability, and that is more likely to come from a majority determined people who are prepared to peacefully rally against the corrupt powers that be.  The reason Dorner had to go on such an escapade, because he didn't have the backing and support of a large collective of like minded individuals willing to stand against power and corruption.  Had Dorner had some support of like minded people, he wouldn't have felt so isolated and potentially could have been encouraged to take a different action.

Dorner recognised the apathy of the average person and their ignorance of the truth, for him the situation felt hopeless and he took a stand the only way he knew how and was trained to do, with violence.  Did he accomplish anything?maybe, maybe not.  I am not suggesting this is an easy fix problem, but at the very least people need to start talking about it and coming together to stand against it, not sitting idly by and watching or ignoring as Corrupted power spins increasingly out of control.  I don't think citizens arming themselves heavily and waiting for the Government to strike is the answer, large groups of people need to get in the Governments face loudly and continually and as peacefully as possible, and stop being on the defensive.  I think there are parts of the world where this is starting to happen (like Egypt) and some small movements in Western Countries like the Occupy Movement, but it needs to become overwhelmingly popular for it too revolutionise the world.

JMO


You sound really afraid.

It's not your fault.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 05:24:00 AM

You sound really afraid.

Seriously, Of What? That's what you got from that post, I am not saying I don't feel fear about things, I am secure enough in my masculinity to be honest about fear. And whatever fear I do feel, I face without a weapon. But seriously, you got from that post that I stated I try hard not to instil fear in others as me being somehow afraid.  That's weird! I assume it is more likely you are still butthurt by something I have said, and you are still looking for a chance to attack. Flame on bro, but you only embarrass yourself.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: littledumbells on February 13, 2013, 05:38:55 AM
I have never threatened a woman in my life, why would I do such a thing, especially considering I have no trouble physically dominating fully grown men such as yourself.  Have i ever stood up to a woman and restrained her while attacking me, sure.  Most men do at some point, , I even had to do this on occasion with my sisters growing up when they launched a fully fledged attack.  Have I ever beat up a woman - NEVER! As a matter of responsibility, I NEVER threaten anyone, most people are already intimidated by my size and as a pacifist I don't like to fight.  I often have to tell people, after they have met me and said something stupid like "Oh, your a big fella, I won't mess with you" that just because I am big, doesn't mean I am a MMA expert or wanting to fight anybody for that matter.  But, push me far enough or into a corner, I am like anybody and will do what is necessary.  I learnt long ago, just by being bigger than most, this is perceived as a threat in itself to a lot of people, so I try and downplay it, so as not to intimidate anyone.  Having said that, women are normally never intimidated just by my physical size and have shown more game than most of the men I have ever met,

Now, after dealing with another one of my butthurt getbigger stalkers, back to the thread.  Yes, I believe Powerful organisations like the Police are out of control and something needs to be done about them.  Do I think vigilante style armed militias are the answer, MAYBE.  The problem with this is, you are likely to be out gunned.  Essentially, their needs to be accountability, and that is more likely to come from a majority determined people who are prepared to peacefully rally against the corrupt powers that be.  The reason Dorner had to go on such an escapade, because he didn't have the backing and support of a large collective of like minded individuals willing to stand against power and corruption.  Had Dorner had some support of like minded people, he wouldn't have felt so isolated and potentially could have been encouraged to take a different action.

Dorner recognised the apathy of the average person and their ignorance of the truth, for him the situation felt hopeless and he took a stand the only way he knew how and was trained to do, with violence.  Did he accomplish anything?maybe, maybe not.  I am not suggesting this is an easy fix problem, but at the very least people need to start talking about it and coming together to stand against it, not sitting idly by and watching or ignoring as Corrupted power spins increasingly out of control.  I don't think citizens arming themselves heavily and waiting for the Government to strike is the answer, large groups of people need to get in the Governments face loudly and continually and as peacefully as possible, and stop being on the defensive.  I think there are parts of the world where this is starting to happen (like Egypt) and some small movements in Western Countries like the Occupy Movement, but it needs to become overwhelmingly popular for it too revolutionise the world.

JMO

   Your not as big or tough as you think you are scooter
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: RagingBull on February 13, 2013, 05:42:58 AM
During the time of creation of the 2nd amendment they were still using musket guns. I am not sure that protecting the rights of people carrying uzis and AK47s was the intent.

Muskets at the time were state of the art for that time period and the populace owned the same weapon as that used by the "military".  Our forefathers wanted to even the playing field so that the populace could effectively fight and overthrow the government in case it became tyrannical.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: HockeyFightFan on February 13, 2013, 05:44:05 AM
I have never threatened a woman in my life, why would I do such a thing, especially considering I have no trouble physically dominating fully grown men such as yourself.  Have i ever stood up to a woman and restrained her while attacking me, sure.  Most men do at some point, , I even had to do this on occasion with my sisters growing up when they launched a fully fledged attack.  Have I ever beat up a woman - NEVER! As a matter of responsibility, I NEVER threaten anyone, most people are already intimidated by my size and as a pacifist I don't like to fight.  I often have to tell people, after they have met me and said something stupid like "Oh, your a big fella, I won't mess with you" that just because I am big, doesn't mean I am a MMA expert or wanting to fight anybody for that matter.  But, push me far enough or into a corner, I am like anybody and will do what is necessary.  I learnt long ago, just by being bigger than most, this is perceived as a threat in itself to a lot of people, so I try and downplay it, so as not to intimidate anyone.  Having said that, women are normally never intimidated just by my physical size and have shown more game than most of the men I have ever met,

Now, after dealing with another one of my butthurt getbigger stalkers, back to the thread.  Yes, I believe Powerful organisations like the Police are out of control and something needs to be done about them.  Do I think vigilante style armed militias are the answer, MAYBE.  The problem with this is, you are likely to be out gunned.  Essentially, their needs to be accountability, and that is more likely to come from a majority determined people who are prepared to peacefully rally against the corrupt powers that be.  The reason Dorner had to go on such an escapade, because he didn't have the backing and support of a large collective of like minded individuals willing to stand against power and corruption.  Had Dorner had some support of like minded people, he wouldn't have felt so isolated and potentially could have been encouraged to take a different action.

Dorner recognised the apathy of the average person and their ignorance of the truth, for him the situation felt hopeless and he took a stand the only way he knew how and was trained to do, with violence.  Did he accomplish anything?maybe, maybe not.  I am not suggesting this is an easy fix problem, but at the very least people need to start talking about it and coming together to stand against it, not sitting idly by and watching or ignoring as Corrupted power spins increasingly out of control.  I don't think citizens arming themselves heavily and waiting for the Government to strike is the answer, large groups of people need to get in the Governments face loudly and continually and as peacefully as possible, and stop being on the defensive.  I think there are parts of the world where this is starting to happen (like Egypt) and some small movements in Western Countries like the Occupy Movement, but it needs to become overwhelmingly popular for it too revolutionise the world.

JMO

Definitely a wife beating coward.

He doth protest too much.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 05:47:30 AM
Definitely a wife beating coward.

He doth protest too much.
The majority of the post is related to the Thread subject, the first paragraph is just defending myself against unsubstantiated accusations of threatening women, a tactic used by many a coward hiding behind their keyboards  Any Internet Keyboard Warrior can accuse others of shameful behaviour, all it proves is their inability to use informed and reasoned arguments to defend themselves against those who do.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: HockeyFightFan on February 13, 2013, 05:52:21 AM
The majority of the post is related to the Thread subject, the first paragraph is just defending myself against unsubstantiated accusations of threatening women, a tactic used by many a coward hiding behind their keyboards  Any Internet Keyboard Warrior can accuse others of shameful behaviour, all it proves is their inability to use informed and reasoned arguments to defend themselves against those who do.

Yep.....100% certain you have a long history of abusing women and animals, goes back to a stunted childhood.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 05:56:19 AM
Yep.....100% certain you have a long history of abusing women and animals, goes back to a stunted childhood.
I abhor animal cruelty, I would never abuse a woman, stand up too one Yes. But never abuse.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: HockeyFightFan on February 13, 2013, 06:00:57 AM
I abhor animal cruelty, I would never abuse a woman, stand up too one Yes. But never abuse.

You are full of shit.

You are afraid of men and a failure at work, so you take your insecurities out on the women and children in your life.

You're a wife beater and you know it. I will bet you come from a long line of spineless cowardly bitch men.

Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 06:07:54 AM
You are full of shit.

You are afraid of men and a failure at work, so you take your insecurities out on the women and children in your life.

You're a wife beater and you know it. I will bet you come from a long line of spineless cowardly bitch men.


^^^ Projection at it's finest.  I am not afraid of men, especially not the ones who try and talk tough like you, in my experience they are the first to start licking your arsehole after you teach them a lesson.  Feel free to find the women I have beaten up, effeminate wanna be macho men like you don't count.  And as for my heritage, we are proud strong Englishmen who participated in the civilisation of the World (except for America, they were beyond civilisation and remain barbarians).
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: oldtimer1 on February 13, 2013, 06:08:37 AM
Obama wants assault weapons out of the hands of civilians. He also wants the civilians of Egypt and Syria to pick up their assault weapons to over throw the government.  
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Tom on February 13, 2013, 06:11:33 AM
here's a point i'm not sure anyone has made in regards to gun rights,gun ownership and increased background checks....

EVERY SINGLE PERSON  who owns a gun or wants a gun thinks they are "normal".. "or a responsible good person".but obvious THAT IS NOT THE CASE!...

it's like if you asked 1000 people on the street "are you a good driver?" 99.999 % of them will say " yes, i'm a very good driver, everyone else doesn't know how to drive!"... well obviously that can't be true... obviously some of the people who think they can drive good CAN"T!...

it's always "the other person" strange how humans are like that? must be some kind of psychological term for this thinking.. perhaps it's simple "self absorption"..

my point is that some people (what percentage i don't know) who have guns or want guns ARE NOT NORMAL and HAVE MAJOR ISSUES! whether they know it or not, i don't know.. but what are you going to do? what can you do about this?...
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 06:16:15 AM
here's a point i'm not sure anyone has made in regards to gun rights,gun ownership and increased background checks....

EVERY SINGLE PERSON  who owns a gun or wants a gun thinks they are "normal".. "or a responsible good person".but obvious THAT IS NOT THE CASE!...

it's like if you asked 1000 people on the street "are you a good driver?" 99.999 % of them will say " yes, i'm a very good driver, everyone else doesn't know how to drive!"... well obviously that can't be true... obviously some of the people who think they can drive good CAN"T!...

it's always "the other person" strange how humans are like that? must be some kind of psychological term for this thinking.. perhaps it's simple "self absorption"..

my point is that some people (what percentage i don't know) who have guns or want guns ARE NOT NORMAL and HAVE MAJOR ISSUES! whether they know it or not, i don't know.. but what are you going to do? what can you do about this?...
If you prevented all Getbiggers from owning guns, you could go a long way to solving the problem of removing GUNS from CRAZY  people hands. 
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: kh300 on February 13, 2013, 06:19:02 AM
I am not against gun ownership. But the NRA won't even compromise with a ban full or semi automatic weapons, that is were they lose most people in supporting them.

During the time of creation of the 2nd amendment they were still using musket guns. I am not sure that protecting the rights of people carrying uzis and AK47s was the intent.

Because almost every gun can be classified as semi automatic. The constitution was written for every generation and technological advancements to follow..I guess we should restrict the right to free speech since the internet is faster then the pigeons they were using.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 06:38:40 AM
Because almost every gun can be classified as semi automatic. The constitution was written for every generation and technological advancements to follow..I guess we should restrict the right to free speech since the internet is faster then the pigeons they were using.
So, the ability for free speech to be communicated quicker is responsible for greater efficiency and effectiveness in killing people, How exactly?
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: OneMoreRep on February 13, 2013, 06:56:29 AM
they are the first to start licking your arsehole after you teach them a lesson.

While I am not taking sides in this conversation, I must say that E-kul does have a valid point with this statement.

I've met many men in my past that after teaching them a valuable lesson regarding life, their finances or relationships in general, have started to aggressively lick my asshole.

I take it as a sign of gratitude, but sometimes it does border on the ultra "fetishy".

"1"
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 06:59:01 AM
While I am not taking sides in this conversation, I must say that E-kul does have a valid point with this statement.

I've met many men in my past that after teaching them a valuable lesson regarding life, their finances or relationships in general, have started to aggressively lick my asshole.

I take it as a sign of gratitude, but sometimes it does border on the ultra "fetishy".

"1"
Well, it was a metaphor, not to be taken literally.  But, humour is always good to break up the aggression.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: OneMoreRep on February 13, 2013, 07:06:16 AM
Well, it was a metaphor, not to be taken literally.  But, humour is always good to break up the aggression.

Oh I got it my dear friend..

Wholeheartedly agree that humor (I love how the lads across the pond always write humor as "humour") is very necessary to break up the monotony of this conversation.

"1"
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: HockeyFightFan on February 13, 2013, 07:22:27 AM
^^^ Projection at it's finest.  I am not afraid of men, especially not the ones who try and talk tough like you, in my experience they are the first to start licking your arsehole after you teach them a lesson.  Feel free to find the women I have beaten up, effeminate wanna be macho men like you don't count.  And as for my heritage, we are proud strong Englishmen who participated in the civilisation of the World (except for America, they were beyond civilisation and remain barbarians).

So you verbally and physically abuse your girlfriend, have a boyfriend on the side, and you give/receive rim jobs.

Okay, got it.

You can post up a pic any time to show us how tough you are. Don't post another WSM competitor pic and claim it's you again though. The beating you took last time you did that was brutal. It really drove home the point how weak and cowardly you really are.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: snx on February 13, 2013, 07:55:07 AM
I abhor animal cruelty, I would never abuse a woman, stand up too one Yes. But never abuse.

Rehabilitated? Well, now, let me see. You know, I don’t have any idea what that means. I know what you think it means, sonny. To me, it’s just a made-up word, a politician’s word, so that young fellas like yourself can wear a suit and a tie and have a job. What do you really wanna know? Am I sorry for what I did? There’s not a day goes by I don’t feel regret. In third grade, I cheated on my history exam. In fourth grade, I stole my uncle Max’s toupee and I glued it on my face when I played Moses in my Hebrew School play. In fifth grade, I knocked my sister Edie down the stairs and I blamed it on the dog. When my Mom sent me to the summer camp for fat kids and then they served lunch, I got nuts and I pigged out and they kicked me out. But the worst thing I ever done, I mixed a pot of fake puke at home and then I went to this movie theater, hid the puke in my jacket, climbed up to the balcony and then, then, I made a noise like this: hua-hua-hua-huaaaaaaa. And then I dumped it over the side, all over the people in the audience. And then, this was horrible, all the people started gettin’ sick and throwin’ up all over each other. I never felt so bad in my entire life. I look back on the way I was then, a young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I wanna talk to him. I wanna try to talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are, but I can’t. That kid’s long gone and this old man is all that’s left. I gotta live with that. Rehabilitated? It’s just a bullshit word. So, you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time, because to tell you the truth, I don’t give a shit.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Archer77 on February 13, 2013, 08:30:27 AM
So you verbally and physically abuse your girlfriend, have a boyfriend on the side, and you give/receive rim jobs.

Okay, got it.

You can post up a pic any time to show us how tough you are. Don't post another WSM competitor pic and claim it's you again though. The beating you took last time you did that was brutal. It really drove home the point how weak and cowardly you really are.

 I disagree.  His boyfriend isn't on the side.  He's usually behind him.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Roger Bacon on February 13, 2013, 11:23:49 AM
I am not against gun ownership. But the NRA won't even compromise with a ban full or semi automatic weapons, that is were they lose most people in supporting them.

During the time of creation of the 2nd amendment they were still using musket guns. I am not sure that protecting the rights of people carrying uzis and AK47s was the intent.

The intent was to give the people an even footing with those that would do us harm.  The number of people killed with assault weapons is extremely low, this should be a non issue.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Roger Bacon on February 13, 2013, 11:25:47 AM
Obama wants assault weapons out of the hands of civilians. He also wants the civilians of Egypt and Syria to pick up their assault weapons to over throw the government.  

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... .. There's a message there........  :o
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Shockwave on February 13, 2013, 11:34:05 AM
^^^ Projection at it's finest.
Lol, never fuckin fails. Hilarious.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: chaos on February 13, 2013, 12:08:10 PM
Obama wants assault weapons out of the hands of civilians. He also wants the civilians of Egypt and Syria to pick up their assault weapons to over throw the government.  
;)
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: The Grim Lifter on February 13, 2013, 03:15:01 PM
Actually you fat bastard you wrote you sent a message to a woman that was threatening and the Police rocked up not long after. No-one who can dominate men write that shit it's weak people who need attention.
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 04:52:57 PM
Actually you fat bastard you wrote you sent a message to a woman that was threatening and the Police rocked up not long after. No-one who can dominate men write that shit it's weak people who need attention.
Police don't rock up for an Intervention order you idiots.  it's a civil matter, and anyone can take them out on anybody else.  If you threaten anybody that is a criminal matter, and then the Police can charge you.  You idiots really have no idea what you are talking about. 
Title: Re: E-Kul explains his philosophy on why private gun ownership should be protected
Post by: Radical Plato on February 13, 2013, 05:09:10 PM
Actually you fat bastard you wrote you sent a message to a woman that was threatening and the Police rocked up not long after. No-one who can dominate men write that shit it's weak people who need attention.
:o