Apparently Tony Clifton calls out idiots, morons, and pc pussies
An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America
- Thread starter Wez
- Start date
Multi Sport
DA
You should know by now that anything that disrupts their progressive, liberal agenda will be avoided like the plague. There is no common ground when it comes to political views, at least on this forum.
Wez will threaten you in hopes that you will forget what question you asked him.
E will avoid your question. Either that or he does a copy and paste but still avoids the question.
Rat.. well he normally answers in ASL so who knows what he's babbling about.
Xav goes all counselor and will answer in a roundabout way that only he and his fellow loons think is sufficient.
TD doesn't stick around long enough to answer the question.
Nonos answers are so long that the question gets lost.
The rest are not worth mentoning..
But this is still better then watching some reality TV show.
Bruddah IZ
DA
#kennisawGA
The 2nd Amendment Isn't About Hunting: It's About Self-Defense
by AWR Hawkins10 Jan 201342
10 Jan, 2013 10 Jan, 2013
When Gov. Cuomo argued against guns with magazines that hold 10 rounds on Jan. 9, he tried to justify it by saying, “No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 rounds to kill a deer.”
Problem one: He’s wrong in the same way Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) was wrong when he said no one hunts with an AR-15. Tons of people hunt with these kinds of rifles.
Problem two: It isn’t about hunting — never has been, never will be.
The 2nd Amendment wasn’t given to us to protect our right to duck or deer hunt but to defend our lives and our property and to repel tyranny, period.
When the left twists the 2nd Amendment to make it about hunting, they do so to effectively cut all non-hunters out of the equation, which lessens the size of the opposition by lopping off those who own guns for other purposes (self-defense). And this also gives them grounds to limit guns and gun-types based on hunting applications.
However, this is a specious tactic at best, because the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.
As the Supreme Court said in both their District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago decisions, “individual self defense is “the central component‘ of the Second Amendment Right.” (italics in original)
This is not an argument against hunting. It’s just a reminder that that’s not the reason the Founding Fathers wanted us to be armed.
What do you think is my "line of reasoning"?
Bruddah IZ
DA
I 2nd the motion for you to be NRRA Prez.
Lambchop
GOLD
Yep, you be sure to aim your gun at the tip of the missile or you just might miss.
You tell me Einstein...
Hüsker Dü
DA
No, he was just an asshole for no apparent reason.
Please continue.
Hüsker Dü
DA
It's a race to the bottom.
Marketing and engine efficiency.
Multi Sport
DA
Not you. You are the small caps nono. I'm talking about the caps Nono..
So he was a Democrat...
Thanks Magoo...
Coo coo
You've already won that race duck.
Sheriff Joe
DA
#safespace
Sheriff Joe
DA
Bettmann / Getty
Don't Forget: The Infamous ‘Dred Scott’ Decision Was Largely About Preventing Blacks From Owning Guns
Black lives matter.
by MICHAEL J. KNOWLESMarch 6, 2018
On this 161st anniversary of the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to deny American citizenship to any black person, whether slave or free, the mainstream media have uniformly overlooked a key feature of that grave miscarriage of justice: the decision was rendered in large part to prevent blacks from owning guns. Politico correctly observes that Dred Scott is “widely regarded as one of the Supreme Court’s worst decisions” and “an egregious example of seeking to impose a judicial solution to a political problem,” but it fails to articulate the civil rights central to that political problem.
The Dred Scott decision invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, subsequently permitting slavery in every federal territory. Chief Justice Roger Taney went further to declare blacks “an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Taney recognized the ultimate contradiction at the heart of American slavery: if the human dignity described in the Declaration of Independence rests upon natural rights, then those rights are natural to black people as well as white, or they are not. If blacks possess natural rights, then slavery is an unnatural and intolerable evil; if they lack natural rights, blacks simply never can become American citizens, be they born slave or free.
Taney’s decision may rank among the worst in Supreme Court history, but it threw into stark relief the social problem that within eight years would send 600,000 American men to their graves to resolve. Citizenship, Taney knew, “would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right … to keep and carry arms wherever they went … endangering the peace and safety of the State.” The Civil War resolved that dispute. Democrats, displeased by the war’s conclusion, spent the next century attempting to deprive freed men of their dearly won, constitutionally protected civil rights in part by enacting and expanding the nation’s first gun control laws. These regulations aimed specifically to disarm liberated blacks, who knew too well the urgency of the Second Amendment.
Would-be tyrants crop up in every age to deny the natural rights of man. Fortunately Americans still possess the means to put them down.