Reply With Quote
ing duh
the less freak came to kill, why else bring an illegally obtained combat weapon?
and have mommy drive him 100s of miles?
where is video of him being attacked?
if he were black ... you racist RWNJs would kill him yourself.
======================
1000s of blacks slaughtered, many unarmed, non-threatening, by the murderous cops, and you RWNJs support murdering blacks.
and the jogger in Atlanta? Freddy Gray? Philando Castile? Sandra Bland?
you RWNJs get some balls and admit here that you hate blacks, want them back in Africa, or even dead.
Man up, stop hiding behind politically correct euphemistic BigLies like CRT
The judge is a stain on the entire judicial system that let's him spew his crackpot for decades.
ing duh
Bouthole now ging up the thread, thread officially dead.
Ok show me where someone suggested everyone be armed without attempting to move the goalposts by saying RG didn't literally mean everyone.
It's a protected right. Driving isn't. There's really no need to keep going sideways into other lanes on this. (see what I did there?)Agreed, though the 2A is also not outside the scope of government regulation. It is a much higher standard due to it being a right that cannot be arbitrarily denied.
Why is it a goalpost move? We know minors and felons can't legally purchase a gun right now, "everyone" per-se is an impossibility when it comes to guns, and should color his comment.
I can certainly agree with you if you want to say it's a poor choice of words, but it's pretty clear what he was aiming at with that statement. IMO, the goalpost move is trying to dodge the discussion by turning it into a lexical argument.
But protected rights are not unlimited, that's why, for example, gun-free zones are perfectly legal. That said, I'm gonna be a straight shooter and agree the bar to regulation is much higher on Cons utional rights, and rightly so.
Because it's a strawman to say what was said when that's not being suggested by anyone. If you change "everyone" to "some people", that's a completely different statement. You're defending the 1st, not the edited version.
Herein lies the common roadblock to discussion on this forum. I wasn't even referring to people ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm. I am referring to the fact that no one suggested everyone eligible to have a firearm would have a firearm. How many "poor choice of words" passes does he get? It was a strawman. If you change the wording to what you seem to be supporting, it doesn't even deserve stating. Some people with firearms... because there are some people with firearms now.I can certainly agree with you if you want to say it's a poor choice of words, but it's pretty clear what he was aiming at with that statement. IMO, the goalpost move is trying to dodge the discussion by turning it into a lexical argument.
Now you're on a tangent about something I never even touched on.But protected rights are not unlimited, that's why, for example, gun-free zones are perfectly legal. That said, I'm gonna be a straight shooter and agree the bar to regulation is much higher on Cons utional rights, and rightly so.
btw I realize you're trolling
DMC takes people literally to the point of absurdity and then calls any other reasonable interpretation a goalpost move
UTROLLME is a novel attempt at saving face.
You all know he is not going to be convicted right?
Blubbering doughy white man in Wisconsin?
Of course he won't be convicted.
The only thing he missed was testifying in gas station wraparound sunglasses.
the less freak came to kill, why else bring an illegally obtained combat weapon?
and have mommy drive him 100s of miles?
where is video of him being attacked?
if he were black ... you racist RWNJs would kill him yourself.
======================
1000s of blacks slaughtered, many unarmed, non-threatening, by the murderous cops, and you RWNJs support murdering blacks.
and the jogger in Atlanta? Freddy Gray? Philando Castile? Sandra Bland?
you RWNJs get some balls and admit here that you hate blacks, want them back in Africa, or even dead.
Man up, stop hiding behind politically correct euphemistic BigLies like CRT
The judge is a stain on the entire judicial system that let's him spew his crackpot for decades.
Now do asians
Funny how you can read RG's mind. He's not once said he doesn't mean it that way.
half the forum making a career out of semen shielding for RG.
You u think his comment about everybody having guns included infants too?
Too bad he didn't get all 3 tbh. It's a damn shame!
If you weren't so hard up for a "gotheem", you'd be able to keep up better.
Which libs you talking about here...your Maddow lovin' parents or different ones?
The judge ruled that Kyle was legally armed. Some people were really wrong about nearly every thing they said about this case.
"You lose the right to self defense when you are the one that brought the gun."
Why was the ing guy with a ar15 running AWAY from his first victim?
If im the prosecutor i would point out-
“the same people that howl that a cop used excessive force with an unarmed person and shot him- are now howling that this poor white child was terrified of losing a fistfight with an unarmed man so he HAD to shoot him FOUR TIMES!”
lol
laughably - jury will acquit
Drop that weapon and defend yourself with your fist
or at the very least- stop ing running and order this dude to stop advancing or he dies
why was the pussy running away?
why do racists defend pussies like rittenhouse, trump, GOP pussies?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
