Democrats Made Sure the New Spending Bill Won't Fund Trump's Ludicrous Wall

CFM said:
I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. Supporting the Constitution isn't selling out your country. Supporting those that shouldn't legally be here coming here is the sign of a traitor.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not guarantee or say anything about being allowed to own assault style weapons that can easily be modified to rapidly fire large numbers of rounds.

Guns are a scourge on our society and you are more than happy and willing to sell out the country to the special interests of the NRA and the profit hungry gun industry, all while supporting a President who willingly and knowingly accepted help from the Russian govt to help himself get elected.

That is the REAL sign of a traitor.

Boy.
 
Sirthinksalot said:
Thanks for your honesty, in this at least. You liberals are willing to engage in lawless activity to maintain power. Lying, cheating, bringing in illegals and having them vote, using government agencies to engage in witch hunts... It's all on the table to push your leftist agenda.
Click to expand...

all Russian lies you idiot
 
Sirthinksalot said:
Thanks for your honesty, in this at least. You liberals are willing to engage in lawless activity to maintain power. Lying, cheating, bringing in illegals and having them vote, using government agencies to engage in witch hunts... It's all on the table to push your leftist agenda.
Click to expand...

All bullshit.

Unfortunately (for you and your vapid strawman argument) none of that has happened or been engaged in by the left.

You're just throwing tantrums because you aren't getting what you want.
 
Nomad said:
The Constitution does not guarantee or say anything about being allowed to own assault style weapons that can easily be modified to rapidly fire large numbers of rounds.

Guns are a scourge on our society and you are more than happy and willing to sell out the country to the special interests of the NRA and the profit hungry gun industry, all while supporting a President who willingly and knowingly accepted help from the Russian govt to help himself get elected.

That is the REAL sign of a traitor.

Boy.
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't say anything about the internet either. That means if you're going to use your 1st Amendment right to free speech by expressing your opinion about the 2nd, I suggest you get off the computer, find you a quill pen, write me a letter, find a guy on horseback, and get him to deliver it to me. That's if you can actually write your fucking nigger.

If you don't think people should own guns, try to take them, boy. One would think a pussy like you that believes "guns are a scourge on our society" would do something about it other than run his dick sucker.
 
CFM said:
What laws were in place then that made them illegal?

Tell you what. When all the native Americans start living exactly like their ancestors did prior to such things, get back to me about someone being illegal.
Click to expand...

why would they have to that you insane fuck
 
CFM said:
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the internet either. That means if you're going to use your 1st Amendment right to free speech by expressing your opinion about the 2nd, I suggest you get off the computer, find you a quill pen, write me a letter, find a guy on horseback, and get him to deliver it to me. That's if you can actually write your fucking nigger.

If you don't think people should own guns, try to take them, boy. One would think a pussy like you that believes "guns are a scourge on our society" would do something about it other than run his dick sucker.
Click to expand...

dear fucking idiot


you just help make his debate for him


fuck you very much turd bonnet
 
evince said:
dear fucking idiot


you just help make his debate for him


fuck you very much turd bonnet
Click to expand...

Only in your simple mind. He wants to argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't say something. Neither does the 1st when it comes to how he expresses his opinion. If he wants to live by what was in place at the time each was written, do so. If he wants to live by the concept of living document, apply it to both. However, he's a hypocrite and you're an idiot for supporting it if you want to play the double standard game.
 
how is the constitution not a living document idiot


the founders designed it so THE PEOPLE could up date it whenever they decided to

its not the bible huh assclown
 
The wall was not included in the finance bill the Repubs just put on the floor. The Repubs have the majority and they wrote it. Now they dropped a 2000 page bill on the floor and want a vote tomorrow. That means a shit pile of right wing ear marks. The bill ignores DACA too. Some Repubs care about the deficits and are not happy with this bill. But they have been taking marching orders for a few years .

The DEms said all along,. there will be no wall, you are being suckered by a conman. You still are.
 
CFM said:
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the internet either. That means if you're going to use your 1st Amendment right to free speech by expressing your opinion about the 2nd, I suggest you get off the computer, find you a quill pen, write me a letter, find a guy on horseback, and get him to deliver it to me. That's if you can actually write your fucking nigger.

If you don't think people should own guns, try to take them, boy. One would think a pussy like you that believes "guns are a scourge on our society" would do something about it other than run his dick sucker.
Click to expand...

redneck-triggered.jpg


Poor triggered redneck!!!! :rofl2:

The First Amendment to the Constitution does not specify or say anything about which media or medium may be used to exercise one's right to free speech. Therefore, any invention that came about after the drafting and signing of it, from wooden pencils, to ballpoint pens, to typewriters to giant automated printing presses to computers and the internet, has been assumed to be included.

But in spite of all that, even free speech has common sense and common good restrictions. No yelling FIRE!!! in a crowded theater IOW.

Same with the Second Amendment. There have always been reasonable restrictions on what constitutes arms allowable for ownership and use by private citizens.

Obviously, (to anyone with an adequate degree of intelligence), when a particular weapon or class of weapon begins to create a public safety issue, the govt and legislature has the legal authority to outlaw their possession, ownership and use by private, non-military and non-law enforcement entities.

It's plain to see that you don't fall into that "adequate degree of intelligence" category.
 
Nomad said:
Hopefully one of your family members will be the next victim of an attack with a modified assault style weapon you have no problem being here.

Interesting how you're willing to sell out your own country for politics. That's what traitor's do, boy.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just say this?

Nomad said:
Whatever has to happen in order to keep you idiotic, xenophobic, right-wing dinosaurs out of the ruling majority will be well worth it.
Click to expand...

Your hypocrisy slip is showing again
 
No nads said:
All bullshit.

Unfortunately (for you and your vapid strawman argument) none of that has happened or been engaged in by the left.

You're just throwing tantrums because you aren't getting what you want.
Click to expand...

You are neither made of straw or a man. My argument was against you, ass clown. We'll see if I get what I want.
 
Nomad said:
redneck-triggered.jpg


Poor triggered redneck!!!! :rofl2:

The First Amendment to the Constitution does not specify or say anything about which media or medium may be used to exercise one's right to free speech. Therefore, any invention that came about after the drafting and signing of it, from wooden pencils, to ballpoint pens, to typewriters to giant automated printing presses to computers and the internet, has been assumed to be included.

But in spite of all that, even free speech has common sense and common good restrictions. No yelling FIRE!!! in a crowded theater IOW.

Same with the Second Amendment. There have always been reasonable restrictions on what constitutes arms allowable for ownership and use by private citizens.

Obviously, (to anyone with an adequate degree of intelligence), when a particular weapon or class of weapon begins to create a public safety issue, the govt and legislature has the legal authority to outlaw their possession, ownership and use by private, non-military and non-law enforcement entities.

It's plain to see that you don't fall into that "adequate degree of intelligence" category.
Click to expand...

The fault in what you say about a weapon creating a public safety issue is that the gun isn't doing that. Not one gun has ever grown a set of arms/legs, walked to where it fire, and pulled its own trigger. Common sense would say blaming something incapable of doing what you claim it can do makes you look foolish. When you can show me one ever doing that, I'll support what you support.

Anyone with a degree of manhood that says certain guns shouldn't be owned by private individuals would come and try to take them from those that own them. Common sense says someone making such a claim then refusing to show is a motherfucking pussy. It's quite clear you fall into that category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top