Yakuda
Verified User
Like people with penises aren't women?
Federal Appeals Court Finds Bump Stocks Are the American Way
- Thread starter martin
- Start date
Like people with penises aren't women?
moon
Satire for Sanity
A demonstration would be lost on those as wrong, weak and lost as Earl .
Everybody else is already aware of his extreme short-comings.
Haw, haw................................haw.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
evince
Truthmatters
For republicans it is
Let’s remember how many republicans self culled from the military and police to avoid having to get vaxxed
evince
Truthmatters
awww, look who's head I get to live in rent free...........yours.
You think your KKK membership promised you could live in peoples head?
What a weird lie for them to tell you
And how stupid you are to believe that lie
evince
Truthmatters
And already fully demonstrated in public by him
SmarterthanYou
rebel
how stupid are you to believe that most people are racists and members of the KKK? pretty fucking stupid, as evidenced by your idiocy on this board. you have crazy down to an art form.
evince
Truthmatters
Most?
Dear fucking idiot
You racists are a tiny minority
You can’t win elections without a mountain of lies
Lots of voter suppression
And Russian help in elections
Including the dark money they sneak to Republican candidates
Fuck you very much
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yet you believe that half of the people on this board are racists.................so how stupid are you?
you're so fucking stupid that instead of evaluating factual info that rebuts everything you say, you double down on racism, russo bots, and whatever else that's nuts floating through your brain pan.
"Getting to the point instead of the grammar, shadow Earl, by your reasoning today's Court should be guided by an Eighteenth Century's understanding of the word, "arms", the amendment having no restriction on what "arms" the right attaches to. Yes?"
Would like an answer to the above if anyone has one. The comment the question referenced is Earl's who argues the Second Amendment can have no restriction on who has the right to bear arms because the Founders did not provide a restriction or any standard for determining a restriction. The Founders didn't provide a standard for determining what is meant by "arms" either. Does that mean 21st Century "arms" are protected by the Amendment without exception. How can it mean otherwise if you accept shadow Earl's reasoning that "arms" are an unrestricted term, the Founders neither having provided any nor some way of determining them?
Anyone care to acquire a little mustard gas, a few hand grenades, an ICBM?
Would like an answer to the above if anyone has one. The comment the question referenced is Earl's who argues the Second Amendment can have no restriction on who has the right to bear arms because the Founders did not provide a restriction or any standard for determining a restriction. The Founders didn't provide a standard for determining what is meant by "arms" either. Does that mean 21st Century "arms" are protected by the Amendment without exception. How can it mean otherwise if you accept shadow Earl's reasoning that "arms" are an unrestricted term, the Founders neither having provided any nor some way of determining them?
Anyone care to acquire a little mustard gas, a few hand grenades, an ICBM?