Gun manufacturers refuse to sell to anti-gun Dick's Sporting Goods

Lots of men want to protect their families. It's kind of an old tradition. Add the fact that this is America, and we have a long tradition of defending our civil liberties, as well.

Why do our resident JPP anti-gun liberals, feel that only White men are ones buying guns and stockpiling?
 
Did you not read what I wrote you about? I do not expect, or deliver the same outside of my Jades discussions. How do you not get that the Jades discussions are supposed to be beyond the fray. They are made to be civil discussions, that the normal JPP discussions aren't. Why do you think if I expect civility in a nice discussion about recipes, and travel, means I expect it with politics. They are on opposite spectrums of discussion. If a person feels the need to start something over cakes, and mountain pictures, they're not being charged by a heated topic like politics, they're just a jackass, lacking in social skills. Only the nicest of the nice, can be civil with politics in the Trump era.

LOL Fuck You, you self entitled snowflake. LOL :D
 
Why do you thread ban people in the CE and warzone forums then?

Also, You create flame threads then bam the person you flaming. How does that mesh with your claim it is only for you Jade discussions?

It's because Jade is "special" and considers threads that he starts are above the fray and that it's OK to fuck up other posters threads, just because he's "special". :D
 
Private companies were allowed to possess the latest weaponry aboard their ships. The battles of Lexington and Concord occurred because the British were attempting to seize a militia armory. The founders would have probably been more aggressive than we are today when it comes to dealing with mental illness.

I notice he commented about "ship to ship" cannons; but failed to explain the difference between those and what he feels the civilians could have.
 
lol

As if your popgun will save you from a true tyrannical government, paranoiac.

But see it's not just his "popgun" that will have the ability to save us from a tyrannical government; but an estimated 80 million households who will have that ability.
 
Which are contradictory, at best. One of the earliest that mentioned the right to keep and bear arms was Dred Scott v. Sandford, which argued that blacks could not be citizens because then they would have the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went". Of course, that same racist attitude is what led to the increasing infringement on the 2nd, after the Civil War, when blacks became citizens. All you are doing is ignoring what the Founding Fathers actually said, so you can put your preferred interpretation on things.

1857 called, they wanted you to know that it's now 2018. :palm:
 
open_carry_text.jpg

then I challenge your dumb stupid ass to wear a shirt that says 'i'd rather be raped than rescued'. both sides, just do it. sack up and do it.
 
Amazed that some many conservatives don't understand the Second Amendment

Even given that it allows one to own a weapon, it doesn't mean that that "right" is absolute, no Constitutional right is absolute, they can, and are, regulated and in many cases even restricted. The same thing apply to guns, they can Constitutionally be regulated and in some cases restricted, even Scalia noted such in his majority report in the Heller case

Echoing the Second Amendment in gun debates doesn't aid your argument

only complete morons and cowards define 'shall not be infringed' as 'reasonable regulations'
 
Private companies were allowed to possess the latest weaponry aboard their ships. The battles of Lexington and Concord occurred because the British were attempting to seize a militia armory. The founders would have probably been more aggressive than we are today when it comes to dealing with mental illness.

the founders would have shot the first politician who ever suggested regulating arms
 
Back
Top