Man jailed for dead girl 'trolling' insults on FB,Youtube

[MrJonno]

Arguing/rowing with people definitely cheers me up at via the internet a few people are just too dangerous to risk it in person

No need to fear me.
I promise you'd be safe and returned home in one piece.

Only one person I've ever met one genuine psychpath on the internet who if they havent already murdered someone then its only a matter of time. I feel very sorry for anyone who lives anywhere near him

[Lozzer]

Arguing/rowing with people definitely cheers me up at via the internet a few people are just too dangerous to risk it in person

No need to fear me.
I promise you'd be safe and returned home in one piece.

Only one person I've ever met one genuine psychpath on the internet who if they havent already murdered someone then its only a matter of time. I feel very sorry for anyone who lives anywhere near him

Seth?

[devogue]

Arguing/rowing with people definitely cheers me up at via the internet a few people are just too dangerous to risk it in person

No need to fear me.
I promise you'd be safe and returned home in one piece.

Only one person I've ever met one genuine psychpath on the internet who if they havent already murdered someone then its only a matter of time. I feel very sorry for anyone who lives anywhere near him

Dawkins?

[Cunt]

I would much rather live where everyone may be armed, than where a specially chosen few may be armed.

[mistermack]

I would much rather live where everyone may be armed, than where a specially chosen few may be armed.

I would rather live where specially chosen and TRAINED people are armed, than where any moron can get a gun.

[Seth]

Actually, my "pop-guns" are the same guns that our military uses, and you grossly underestimate the power of an insurgency. Evidently it's escaped your notice that digging an insurgency out of a civilian population that supports it without obliterating everyone and destroying infrastructure is incredibly difficult.

Ok, so you have tanks and fast jets, and nuclear weapons.
I stand corrected.

Don't need 'em. Just need one bullet (or pound of C4) per tyrant and enough dedicated patriots willing to die to eliminate them.

Evidently it's escaped YOUR notice that there is a much easier route, if the civilian population supports your insurgency.
Most people would just vote the government out. It takes a special kind of demented thinking to prefer taking on tanks with rifles, to voting them out.

That works so long as those in power peacefully surrender their power once voted out of office. But what do you do when they either stuff the ballot boxes or refuse to relinquish power in the face of popular demand to do so.

What exactly do you think is going on in Libya now and happened in Egypt quite recently?

Are the Libyan "rebels" in power because they voted with a pen or a sword?

Do you really think that, should a tyrant come to illegitimate power in the United States and abrogate the Constitution, that our military would serve the tyrant and not the people? You're a fool if you do, because our military swears its allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, not to the Commander in Chief, no matter who he or she is.

Of course I don't. What planet are you on?
I don't know where you got any of that. You really have got a strange mind.
And you defeat your own argument. Why are privately owned weapons needed, when your military would not endorse such a tyrant.

Because there's always the chance that they will support the tyrant, and since an armed citizenry grossly outnumbers our standing military, we need never fear a military dictatorship because yes, we can indeed put down our own military at need. There are 300 million of us with 265 million guns. There are less than 2 million of them, and only some smaller number of them would obey unconstitutional orders, and they can be overwhelmed in short order by an armed citizenry.

If everybody in Afghanistan had an AK-47 and was willing to die to defeat our troops, we would have suffered the same fate as the Russians. It's only because we have widespread support among the civilian population that we can do what we're doing. Turn it the other way around and an armed citizenry is a potent obstacle to tyranny.

Anyway, I never mentioned any tyrant, it's all in your head.
I said that you are a slave of your ELECTED government, just as much as I am.

What leads you to the delusional belief that an elected government cannot be tyrannical? I suggest you ask the Jews of Warsaw, and the other 12 million dead at Hitler's hand about that before bloviating further.

Your pop-guns or delusions make no difference whatsoever.

Sure they do, they dissuade individual lawmakers from pretensions of tyranny. As the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy so eloquently and horribly demonstrated, our elected government is not immune from direct reprisal by disaffected and disenfranchised citizens...much less deranged nutcases.

Another example is Marvin Heeymeyer, who also eloquently and unmistakably informed his local city council that they were, in his opinion, running roughshod over his civil rights.

Now, if someone just would combine the two and take out Hugo Chavez and the Chinese Communist Central Committee...

The only possible way that a tyrant that could emerge in your country is via a coup by right-wing generals, who think like you do.

Or Marxists who think like you do. Therein lies the reason for an armed citizenry, to protect against ideological tyranny from either end of the spectrum.

Perhaps. But I'm the most dangerous slave on earth: an armed slave.

Yes, you are dangerous. That's exactly why you SHOULDN'T be allowed to own weapons.

Feel free to drop by and try to take them. Please have your funeral arrangements in place before you do.

As I've pointed out before, when it comes to weapons, the more intelligent the owner, the safer they are.
I'd rather face Einstein with a machine gun, than a chimp.

Then you should stop hanging out with Marxists, who are the equivalent of chimps with machine guns, and start hanging out with me, because I'm an Einstein (and a Rembrandt) with a machine-gun.

[mistermack]

What exactly do you think is going on in Libya now and happened in Egypt quite recently?

They didn't have the democratic option, did they?
You don't even know whats going on, do you?

The rest of your post is shite, but there's too much of it to reply to.
But do keep it coming, it cheers me up.

[Gallstones]

Perhaps. But I'm the most dangerous slave on earth: an armed slave.

Yes, you are dangerous. That's exactly why you SHOULDN'T be allowed to own weapons.

As I've pointed out before, when it comes to weapons, the more intelligent the owner, the safer they are.
I'd rather face Einstein with a machine gun, than a chimp.

Ooh, not even subtle.

You know, I just saw Raise of the Planet of the Apes. You might want to revise that.

[Gallstones]

I would much rather live where everyone may be armed, than where a specially chosen few may be armed.

I would rather live where specially chosen and TRAINED people are armed, than where any moron can get a gun.

What if the moron is TRAINED?

[mistermack]

I would much rather live where everyone may be armed, than where a specially chosen few may be armed.

I would rather live where specially chosen and TRAINED people are armed, than where any moron can get a gun.

What if the moron is TRAINED?

You would still have to be specially chosen.

[Cunt]

I would much rather live where everyone may be armed, than where a specially chosen few may be armed.

I would rather live where specially chosen and TRAINED people are armed, than where any moron can get a gun.

Who should do the choosing, mistermack?

Any moron CAN get a gun, and that is the point. I AM specially chosen and trained, by the way. You still probably would sneer at me carrying my firearm in camp, though.

You haven't really presented your idea, just taken every opportunity to slam the US for their rules. How would you set it up? Are you open to discussing it? Or are you more interested in heckling an existing system over presenting your own?

-----------------

Yes, you are dangerous. That's exactly why you SHOULDN'T be allowed to own weapons.

Feel free to drop by and try to take them. Please have your funeral arrangements in place before you do.

mistermack, I have not found Seth to be dangerous according to anything he said here, and that sounds like a personal attack. (if you disagree, report your post to a moderator and get another opinion)

I don't really like Seth, but I would discuss this with him while he stood armed 'with the safety off', and I would do it blindfolded. I don't find him dangerous at all.

You, on the other hand, I would prefer did not have any live ammunition.

-----------------

[mistermack]

mistermack, I have not found Seth to be dangerous according to anything he said here, and that sounds like a personal attack. (if you disagree, report your post to a moderator and get another opinion)

I don't really like Seth, but I would discuss this with him while he stood armed 'with the safety off', and I would do it blindfolded. I don't find him dangerous at all.

You think he's lying then? When he claims to be dangerous?

[Seth]

I would much rather live where everyone may be armed, than where a specially chosen few may be armed.

I would rather live where specially chosen and TRAINED people are armed, than where any moron can get a gun.

What if the moron is TRAINED?

You would still have to be specially chosen.

By whom? And what makes that person the proper arbiter of another individual's right to bear arms in self-defense?

[Seth]

mistermack, I have not found Seth to be dangerous according to anything he said here, and that sounds like a personal attack. (if you disagree, report your post to a moderator and get another opinion)

I don't really like Seth, but I would discuss this with him while he stood armed 'with the safety off', and I would do it blindfolded. I don't find him dangerous at all.

You think he's lying then? When he claims to be dangerous?

No, I'm not lying at all, I'm one of the most dangerous people you'll ever meet, and I'm one of the safest. It all depends on how you choose to meet me. Meet me with friendship, honesty and mutual trust, and you'll receive the same.

Meet me with a weapon and the intent to unlawfully harm me or anyone around me and you will not live long enough to regret that extremely poor decisions, because I will, given legal justification, render you incapable of continuing that aggressive and dangerous conduct before you know what hit you, and I'll do it without a second thought because that's what I've trained for for a very long time.

On the other hand, if I'm around and some criminal threatens your life, I'm one of the best people you could ever have in your vicinity, because I will act to save your life at risk to my own, even if I don't know you or do know you and don't like you. I'm the very guy who will stand and face an armed killer shooting up the shopping mall and draw his fire while you herd your kids to safety. I'm the guy who will intervene when someone tries to rape you or murder you. I'm the guy who puts the safety of others before my own safety, and has for more than 30 years.

I'm your best friend when your life's in danger.

But yes, I am a very, very dangerous man indeed, but only if you give me reason to be dangerous.

[Gallstones]

I would much rather live where everyone may be armed, than where a specially chosen few may be armed.

I would rather live where specially chosen and TRAINED people are armed, than where any moron can get a gun.

What if the moron is TRAINED?

You would still have to be specially chosen.

By whom? And what makes that person the proper arbiter of another individual's right to bear arms in self-defense?

Such person's would have to pass an I-am-not-a-moron test first.
But then who would administer and grade the test?
Sonofabitch this is complicated--it's potential morons all the way down.